K.K. Karnan v. Secretary Parappur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd and Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 15046 OF 2016** ## **PETITIONER:** **K.K. KARNAN, S/O.KURUVANPADATH KRISHNANKUTTY, PROPRIETOR, S.N.RICEMILL,OKKAL, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN SRI.C.P.SABARI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 SECRETARY, PARAPPUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.474, PARAPPUR P.O., THRISSUR 680 552.** - **2 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G) CIVIL STATION, TRISSUR 680001.** **BY ADV SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN - SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.04.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).17451/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) NO. 15046 OF 2016 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 17451 OF 2016** ## **PETITIONER:** **K.K.KARNAN, AGED 61 YEARS S/O.KURUVANPADATH KRISHNANKUTTY, PROPRIETOR, S.N.RICEMILL, OKKAL, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **SRI.P.N.MOHANAN SRI.C.P.SABARI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE SECRETARY PARAPPUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.474, PARAPPUR P.O., THRISSUR - 680 552.** - **2 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G) CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 552.** **3 KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, NANDANAM, TC/14/2057, VANDROS JUNCTION, UNIVERSITY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 34.** - **4 C.V.SASIDHARAN, JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA- 688 001.** - **5 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.** ## **BY ADV SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.04.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).15046/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) NO. 15046 OF 2016 3 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **[WP(C) Nos.15046/2016, 17451/2016]** I am considering these two writ petitions together because, the factual circumstances are interconnected; while, the reliefs sought for are dependent on each other. 2. Among the afore two writ petitions, W.P.(C) No.15046/2016 has been filed by the petitioner impugning Ext.P6, which is an order issued by the statutory Arbitrator under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (KCS Act), reviewing his own Ext.P3 award; and the petitioner asserts that this is illegal and unlawful. He admits that, against Ext.P6, by way of abundant caution, he has preferred an appeal before the learned Tribunal, which, however, has demanded him to pay certain amounts towards “Legal Benefit Charges”, which has constrained him to file W.P.(C) No.17451/2016, challenging the said order, producing it as Ext.P11. 3. Sri.C.P.Sabari – learned counsel for the petitioner in both cases, today submitted that the question whether the Arbitrator could have reviewed his own Award, has been decided by this Court in Satheesh Kumar D v. Special Sale Officer (W.P.(C) No.7034/2024). He argued that, therefore, WP(C) NO. 15046 OF 2016 4 Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.15046/2016 becomes untenable and illegal; and consequently, that his client is not now required to pursue the appeal against it, based on which Ext.P11 order in W.P.(C) No.17451/2016 has been issued by the learned Tribunal. 4. Sri.P.Ramakrishnan – learned standing counsel for the respondent – Bank, conceded that this Court has already declared that the statutory Arbitrator obtains no power to review his own Award, except in certain specified circumstances. He, therefore, left it to this Court to issue appropriate orders, conceding that no such circumstances are involved in these cases. 5. I have examined the facts involved in these writ petitions, on the touchstone of the various materials produced and the afore submissions made at the Bar. 6. As rightly argued by Sri.C.P.Sabari and conceded by Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, this Court has, in Satheesh Kumar D (supra), declared the law that power of Review is not inherent, but only statutorily vested; and that since the “KCS Act” does not empower the statutory Arbitrator to invoke any such power, indubitably, Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.15046/2016 becomes WP(C) NO. 15046 OF 2016 5 forensically untenable. 7. However, that said, a question can arise as to why this Court should intervene in these matters, when the petitioner has invoked his alternative remedy against Ext.P6, by filing an appeal before the Tribunal, as evident from the pleadings in W.P.(C) No.17451/2016. 8. The answer to this is simple; because, Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.15046/2016 can only be seen to be only non est. Any appeal filed against it, therefore, also does not require to be prosecuted on its merits. 9. Since the afore aspects are without contest, I am certain that this Court will be justified in disposing of these writ petitions with the following directions: (a) W.P.(C) No.15046/2016 is allowed and Ext.P6 is set aside, following the declarations of this Court in Satheesh Kumar D (supra). (b) Consequently, W.P.(C) No.17451/2016 is closed, declaring that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal is unnecessary; with a consequential direction to it to close it. WP(C) NO. 15046 OF 2016 6 (c) Needless to say, I have not entered into the merits of any of the other contentions of the respondent – Bank and their rights of recovery, based on the Award passed by the Tribunal against the petitioner herein, are fully protected and reserved; for which purpose, all rival contentions are also left open. **Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** stu WP(C) NO. 15046 OF 2016 7 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17451/2016** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** |**P1**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED BY THE FIRST**| |---|---| ||**RESPONDENT IN ARC NO.5/2013.**| |**P2**|**A TRUE COPY AWARD DATED 24.10.2014 IN ARC**| ||**NO.5/2013.**| |**P3**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2015 IN**| ||**A.P.NO.102/2014.**| |**P4**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 07.10.2015 IN**| ||**ARC NO.5/2013.**| |**P5**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE SO CALLED REVIEW PETITION**| ||**DATED 07.12.2015.**| |**P6**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED "NIL" ISSUED BY**| ||**SECOND RESPONDENT.**| |**P7**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 05.02.2016 OF**| ||**THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN "UNNUMBERED REVIEW**| ||**PETITION".**| |**P8**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED**| ||**29.04.2016 IN W.P.(C)NO.15046/2016.**| |**P9**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE CO-**| ||**OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL.**| |**P10**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE SRO 225/2002 DATED**| ||**05.04.2002.**| |**P11**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 04.05.2016 IN URC**| ||**6/2016 ISSUED BY THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL.**| WP(C) NO. 15046 OF 2016 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15046/2016** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** |**P1**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 24/10/2014**| |---|---| ||**IN ARC NO.5/2013**| |**P2**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31/3/2015**| ||**IN A.P.NO.102/2014**| |**P3**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 7/10/2015 IN**| ||**ARC NO.5/2013**| |**P4**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 5/2/2016 OF**| ||**THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN UNNUMBERED REVIEW**| ||**PETITION.**| |**P5**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED "NIL"**| ||**ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT.**| |**P6**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 05.02.2016**| ||**OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN "UNNUMBERED**| ||**REVIEW PETITION".**| ## **RESPONDENT EXHIBITS** - **Exhibit R-1(a) TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 5/1/2020 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN M/S KKR AGRO MILL PVT LTD, THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SOCIETY**