Geethakumari S. d/o Sreedevi Amma, Simla Beevi U. d/o Umaifa Beevi, Joemol Johnson d/o Jonson v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram, Joint Registrar of Co-operatives Societies (General), Thiruvananthapuram, Thiruvananthapuram District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (represented by its General Manager), and the Part-Time Administrator, Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **TUESDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 20TH BHADRA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 15068 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 GEETHAKUMARI.S D/O.SREEDEVI AMMA, AGED 53 YEARS,TC5/1710, NEAR SREEKRISHNA TEMPLE,KOWDIAR.P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT** - **2 SIMLA BEEVI.U D/O. UMAIFA BEEVI,AGED 36 YEARS, VATTAVILAVEEDU, SREERAM NAGAR,NETTAYAM.P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT** - **3 JOEMOL JOHNSON D/O. JONSON,AGED 19 YEARS, SAJITHA BHAVAN,PARAMVILAKOM,KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001** - **2 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001** - **3 THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,HEAD OFFICE, EAST FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT- 695 001** - **4 THE PART- TIME ADMINISTRATOR THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.HEAD OFFICE, EAST FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT- 695 001** **BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SC THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. CO.OP BANK** **WP(C).No. 15068 of 2018** **2** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SMT C.S SHEEJA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **JUDGMENT** **The petitioners, who are holding savings accounts in the Mobile Banking Branch of the 3[rd] respondent District Co-operative Bank with SB A/c.No.029991200400336, SB A/c.No.009991200430188 and SB A/c.No.029991200430198 respectively, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 notice, issued by the General Manager of the 3[rd] respondent Bank, whereby it was informed that the mobile banking facility will stand withdrawn with effect from 05.05.2018 and that, the customers in the Mobile Banking Branch can avail banking facilities by contacting the subbranch of Fort Morning & Evening Branch, which is attached to the Head Office of the 3[rd] respondent Bank. In the said notice it has also been stated** **WP(C).No. 15068 of 2018** **3** **that such customers can also have transaction with any branch of the 3[rd] respondent Bank. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 3 and 4 to continue the facility of mobile banking to the existing customers of the 3[rd] respondent Bank.** **2. On 04.05.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent Bank was directed to get instructions. While adjourning the matter to 28.05.2018, it was ordered that all actions pursuant to Ext.P1 notice shall be deferred till such time.** **3. On 28.05.2018, when this writ petition came up for further consideration, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 and 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent Bank took notice on admission for respondents 3 and 4. This Court extended the interim order granted on 04.05.2018** **WP(C).No. 15068 of 2018** **4** **for a period of one month. The said interim order, which was extended from time to time, is still in force.** **4. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 3 and 4 opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, wherein it has been stated that as the Bank was sustaining heavy loss on account of the functioning of Mobile Banking Branch, a decision has been taken on 12.04.2018, to discontinue mobile banking, vide Resolution No.14/17-18. Deliberations at various levels were held with the involvement of all concerned, including the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, before taking such a decision. In the counter affidavit, it is pointed out that the expenses incurred on various heads for Mobile Banking Branch for the period from 01.01.2013 to 31.03.2018 comes to 1,38,71,388/-. A tabulated₹ statement showing the details of expenses incurred during the aforesaid period is also placed on** **WP(C).No. 15068 of 2018** **5** **record as Ext.R3(a). In the counter affidavit, various reasons have been stated to discontinue the facility of mobile banking. It is pointed out, with reference to the account details of the petitioners, that there was no constant operation in the respective accounts maintained by the petitioners. Though it is averred in Ground A of the writ petition that the petitioners and other persons are utilising the facility of mobile banking for the last 39 years, the 1[st] petitioner opened her account only on 31.03.2013, the 2[nd] petitioner on 22.02.2017 and the 3[rd] petitioner on 28.04.2017.** ## **5. Heard the learned counsel for the** **petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent District Co-operative Bank, representing respondents 3 and 4.** ## **6. The sole issue that arises for** **WP(C).No. 15068 of 2018** **6** **consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P1 notice issued by the 3[rd] respondent Bank and whether, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a writ of mandamus can be issued commanding the 3[rd] respondent and the 4[th] respondent Part time Administrator to continue mobile banking facility to the existing customers of the Bank.** **7. Clause (ia) of Section 2 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 (for brevity 'the Act'), as amended by Act 14 of 2017, with effect from 10.4.2017, define 'District Co-operative Bank' to mean a Central Society having jurisdiction over one revenue district and having as its members Primary Agricultural Credit Societies and Urban Co-operative Banks and the principle object of which is to raise funds to be lend to its members, including nominal or** **WP(C).No. 15068 of 2018** **7** ## **associate members.** **8. In Association of Milma Officers v. State of Kerala [2015 (1) KLT 849], one of the issues that came up for consideration before a Larger Bench of this Court was as to whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against Co-operative Societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. After referring to the provisions under the Act, this Court held that writ petitions are maintainable against Co-operative Societies in certain circumstances, namely, when the action complained of in the writ petition is of any statutory violation on the part of the Cooperative Society or the action of the Cooperative Society, if falls in a public domain or breach of public duty is complained of. In the absence of breach of any statutory duty or public duty, a writ petition cannot be entertained against a Co-operative Society. In the said** **WP(C).No. 15068 of 2018** **8** **decision, the Larger Bench held that the Full Bench judgment in Bhaskaran and others v. Additional Secretary and others [1987 (2) KLT 903], cannot be read as holding that writ petition will lie only against a Co-operative Society, which is State or authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.** **9. The stand taken by the 3[rd] respondent Bank in the counter affidavit is that as per resolution No.14/2017-18, a decision has been taken to discontinue the mobile banking facility taking into account the heavy loss sustained in every year on various heads, steep fall in the number of customers using the mobile banking facility, etc. The said decision was taken after deliberations at various levels, with the involvement of all concerned, including the 1[st] respondent Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The decision so taken by the 3[rd] respondent Bank is not under challenge in this writ petition. Even otherwise, this Court** **WP(C).No. 15068 of 2018** **9** **in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not expected to substitute the commercial wisdom of the 3[rd] respondent Bank. In the writ petition, the petitioners could not point out any violation of the statutory provision under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act or the rules made thereunder, in the decision taken by the 3[rd] respondent Bank to discontinue the mobile banking facility. In such circumstances no interference is warranted on Ext.P1 notice dated 26.04.2018 issued by the 3[rd] respondent Bank regarding discontinuation of the mobile banking facility.** **10. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the closure of the Mobile Banking Branch of the 3[rd] respondent Bank is in violation of Circular No.48/2000 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The said circular deals with shifting of branch and not closure of a branch, which require prior** **WP(C).No. 15068 of 2018** **10** ## **permission of the Registrar.** ## **In such circumstances, this writ petition** **fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.** ## **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE INDIRA NAGAR ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK DATED 26.4.2018** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :** **EXHIBIT R3(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE TABULATED STATEMENT CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1.1.2013 TO 31.3.2018** **AV/26/9**