M. Muraleedharan Vibhanjika v. Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 32228 OF 2019** ## **PETITIONER:** M. MURALEEDHARAN VIBHANJIKA, CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV P.N.MOHANAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. 1635, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, P.B.NO.503, P O CHALAPPURAM, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE673002. 2 THE ADMINISTRATOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 1635, P.B.NO.503, P O CHALAPPURAM, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE673002. SRI.PC SASIDHARAN-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 32228 OF 2019** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** The retiral benefits of the petitioner from the services of the erstwhile Kozhikode District Co-operative Bank – now merged with the Kerala Bank – have been refused to him on the allegation that an amount of Rs.1,53,32,339/- has been fixed as liability against him. The petitioner says that the quantification made by the Bank, namely Ext.P4, is _per se_ illegal and unlawful; and that, in any event of the matter, it cannot be used against him in view of the judgment of a learned Division Bench of this Court in **Mohanan** ## **Nair P.G v. Omallur Service Co-operative Bank** **Ltd and others** (W.A.No.297/2020). 2. Sri.C.P Sabari – learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that when his client earlier approached this Court, Ext.P3 judgment **WP(C) NO. 32228 OF 2019** **3** had been delivered granting liberty to the Bank to consider his claim and to issue an appropriate order. He submitted that, taking advantage of the latitude offered by this Court, the Bank has now gone ahead and unilaterally made a quantification and that too, by its General Manager, but without approaching any competent Authority under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (KCS Act). He argued that, therefore, Ext.P4 is untenable and will not apply to his client, as long as the Bank has not had the alleged liability quantified through a process of law. 3. In response, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned Standing Counsel for the Bank, submitted that Rule 198(8) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules (KCS Rules) grants power to his client not to issue the Non- **WP(C) NO. 32228 OF 2019** **4** liability Certificate to the petitioner; and therefore, that when a large amount has been found to be due from him, his client was justified in holding on to his retiral benefits. The learned Standing Counsel, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 4. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is evident that the sole question which is relevant for this Court's consideration is whether the Bank is justified in holding on to the retiral benefits on the ground that only a Liability Certificate can be issued, having already found that large amounts are due from the petitioner to them. 5. This issue, as rightly argued by Sri.Sabari, has been answered against the Bank by this Court in **Mohanan Nair P.G** ( _supra_ ) and it is, therefore, binding on me. **5** ## **WP(C) NO. 32228 OF 2019** 6. That said, even in Ext.P3 judgment, this Court had only thought it fit to allow the Bank to consider the petitioner's claims at the first instance; but under its sanction, it has now gone ahead and quantified certain amounts against the petitioner through Ext.P4. 7. Obviously, therefore, even if the Bank has found, through their internal process, that the petitioner is liable to pay amounts to them, then they ought to have invoked their remedies under Section 69 of the KCS Act to quantify it as per law, rather than have taken a unilateral stand of not releasing his retiral benefits _ad infinitum._ **==> picture [394 x 14] intentionally omitted <==** Sri.P.C.Sasidharan in this regard is that the petitioner must invoke the process of Arbitration under Section 69 of the KCS Act, on Ext.P4 being communicated to him. I am afraid **WP(C) NO. 32228 OF 2019** **6** that I cannot accede to this either because, Ext.P4 is only an internal assessment by the Bank of alleged liabilities; and hence, for them to have it recovered, they will certainly have to approach the competent Authority under the Statutory Scheme. Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the 1[st] respondent to release all retiral benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I also leave liberty to the 1[st] respondent – Bank to approach the competent Authority under Section 69 of the KCS Act, if they are so interested; but clarifying that unless there are interdictory orders issued by such Forum, the afore direction shall be complied with. At this time, Sri.Sabari – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the question **WP(C) NO. 32228 OF 2019** **7** of limitation for the Bank to approach the Authority under Section 69 of the KCS Act may be left open to be pursued by his client since he asserted that the rigor of the said provisions apply in this case. Needless to say, all such contentions are left open to be impelled at the relevant time, if the Bank chooses to invoke the remedy as afore. Sd/- ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** rp/SAS **8** ## **WP(C) NO. 32228 OF 2019** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32228/2019** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19.06.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GENERAL MANAGER. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 05.08.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GENERAL MANGER. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.09.2019 IN WP(C) NO.22687/2019. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2019 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2018(3) KLT 347.