The Managing Director, Kerala State Co-operative Housing Federation v. Leela Isaac and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/9TH PHALGUNA, 1938 **WA.No. 2041 of 2016 () IN RP.527/2015 ---------------------------------------** AGAINST THE ORDER IN RP 527/2015 IN W.P.(C)5187 of 2011 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 29-09-2015 APPELLANT/REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.6 IN THE WRIT PETITION: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING FEDERATION, KALOOR, KOCHI-682018. BY ADV. SRI.BINU MATHEW RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 & 7 IN WRIT PETITION: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. LEELA ISSAC,W/O. P.V.ISSAC, AGED 57 YEARS, PUTHEN VELIYIL, PATTANAKAD P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ALAPUZHA, PIN-686501. 4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES CHERTHALA-688524. 5. THE PATTANAKAD HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO. A-130 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-688531. 6. THE PRESIDENT, PATTANAKAD HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NL.A-130, PIN-688531. 7. P.N.SREELATHA, CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CHERTHALA-688524. R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI S.U. NAZAR R BY DR.V.N.SANKARJEE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-02-2017, ALONG WITH WA. 2042/2016 and WA. 2043/2016, THE COURT ON 28.02.2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **[CR]** ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & A. HARIPRASAD, JJ.** .............................................................................. **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** ......................................................................... **Dated this the 28[th] February, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.** These appeals have been preferred against a common judgment dated 27.02.2015 (followed by a common order dated 29.09.2015 passed, rejecting the Review Petition preferred by the appellants, seeking for reconsidering the direction), whereby the Title Deeds deposited by the Members of the Primary Cooperative Societies as security at the time of availing Housing Loans from the Primary Societies and kept in the drawers of the Appellant Federation/Apex Body are ordered to be returned, once it is confirmed that the amount due under the loan transaction is fully satisfied by the members, to the Primary Co-operative Societies . 2. Since the issue is common, the pleadings and proceedings are referred to as given in W.A.No.2041 of 2016. ## **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** ## **2** The writ petitioners, who were members of the 4[th] respondent, Primary Co-operative Societies, sought to avail financial assistance from the Societies for construction of residential building. After considering the applications, the title deeds and such other records required to be produced, Loan was sanctioned and the amount was disbursed to the writ petitioners, instructing them to effect the repayment of the due amount with interest at the agreed rate, by way of equal monthly installments. 3. In so far as the transactions between the writ petitioners/Members and the Primary Co-operative Societies (in which they are members) are concerned, by the passage of time, the borrowers completely repaid the amount due and sought to return the title deeds. But for the futile assurances, purchasing time, the title deeds were never returned, by the Primary Co-operative Societies, when the writ petitioners approached the Taluk Legal Services Authorities and filed petitions for redressal of their grievances. A statement was filed on behalf of the Asst. Registrar of Co-operative Societies , to the effect that the Title Deeds submitted by the borrowers were in ## **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** fact produced/surrendered before the 6[th] respondent/Apex Federation, in connection with the financial assistance availed by the Primary Societies from the Federation pointing out that the loan was actually sanctioned by the Federation, to be given to the Members of the Primary Co-operative Societies . It was also pointed out that remittances being made by the Primary Cooperative Society to the Federation was in respect of a 'batch of loan transactions' taken together and as such, the remittance was being credited by the Federation against the 'general account of the Primary Society' and not against the individual borrowers, in turn resulting in giving credit also to the members of the - Primary Co operative Societies , who were actually in default unlike the writ petitioners. It was further pointed out that, steps were being taken by the Primary Co-operative Societies for liquidating the liability payable by the defaulters; but by virtue of some interim orders of stay, the matter could not be finalised . It was also stated that, once this was got over and the due amount was cleared by the Primary Society to the Apex Federation, the Title Deeds would be got back and returned. 1 ## **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** ## **4** 4. Almost similar contentions were raised from the part of the Primary Society as well, as per a statement filed from their side seeking for three months' time to complete the procedural formalities. Obviously since the said submission was made in the year '2010' and nothing transpired in the positive, by virtue of the pressing needs to get back the Title deeds and to enjoy the property of the writ petitioners/members of the Primary Cooperative Societies in a better manner, they were compelled to approach this Court by filing writ petitions for a direction to cause the Title Deeds to be returned. 5. There was no factual dispute from the part of the Primary Co-operative Societies as to the case projected by the writ petitioners to the effect that they had already satisfied the due amount to the Primary Societies in respect of the loan transactions. Satisfaction of the liability to the Primary Society was sought to be substantiated by the writ petitioners, by producing relevant documents. But it was contended by the 6[th] respondent/Federation, that the loan amount was actually made available by the Federation effecting disbursement through the ## **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** ## **5** Primary Society; by virtue of which the Federation was having a lien/charge over the Building and the property where the Building was constructed; making use of the loan amount. It was also pointed out that, as per the accounts maintained by the Federation, the amount was still due, to be cleared by the Members under the loan accounts and that, if the amount deposited by the members in the Primary Society was not properly paid by the Society to the account of the Federation, it was for the members/petitioners to have approached the statutory authorities or such other appropriate Forum or Magistrate's Court, in respect of the deeds and misdeeds of the Primary Society/its office bearers. Unless and until the liability towards the Federation was cleared, the Title Deeds were not liable to be returned . The maintainability of the writ petition was also challenged seeking to place reliance on the verdict passed by the Full Bench of this Court in _**John vs. Liquidator**_ [ **2006(1) KLT11((FB)]** to the effect that the Federation was not having any statutory duty or public duty to return the title deeds, but for the contractual duty, enforcement of which could not be enforced ## **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** ## **6** through writ petitions. The necessity to pursue 'alternate remedy' was also sought to be highlighted, with reference to the verdict passed by a Larger Bench of this Court in _**Milma Officers vs. State of Kerala**_ **[2015 (1)KLT 849(LB)],** whereby the law declared by the Full Bench in the decision cited supra was stated as upheld. 6. After hearing both the sides, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that, despite filing the counter affidavit, no material was produced before the Court to the effect that any 'declaration' as dealt with by the Full Bench in **2006(1)KLT 11 (FB)** (cited supra) was ever given by the Members/writ petitioners, authorising the Primary Societies to cause the Title Deeds of the Members to be pledged before the Apex Federation (authorising to have it retained till the due amount was satisfied by the Primary Society). It was held that, once the liability was cleared by the Member to the Primary Society, the Member was having every right to get back the Title Deed and it was accordingly, that the discretionary power of the Court was exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the relief was granted, ## **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** ## **7** virtually allowing the writ petitions. The appellant Federation, on being aggrieved of the said verdict sought to review the judgment by filing Review Petitions. The learned Single Judge dealt with the matter again and held that, execution of any 'declaration' from the part of the Member/writ petitioner, to have the Title Deeds surrendered before the Federation or to have it retained, was not established and further that once the amount due under the loan transaction was satisfied, retention of the Title Deeds by the Federation on any count would only amount to an arbitrary exercise of power, which was to be intercepted by the High Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226. It was accordingly, that interference was declined and the Review Petitions were dismissed as per the common order dated 29.09.2015, which forms the subject matter of challenge in these appeals. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Sr. Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Primary Society. 8. The basic issue to be considered is whether there is any **8** ## **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** transaction between the writ petitioner/Member of the Primary Society and the appellant Federation. The Federation, in exercise of the power under Bye-Law No.21, have framed Ext.R6 Regulations for granting loans, which is stated as approved by the Registrar. A perusal of the same does not disclose any direct transaction between the Apex Federation and the Members of the Primary Society; whereas the loan sanctioned by the Federation, as discernible from the **Clause (2)** of the Regulations, is only to a Primary Society and never to the Member, though the beneficiary may be a Member of the Primary Society. It is seen from the provisions that the Federation is making the funds available from other sources, paying interest and after taking a small margin to meet the incidental expenses and the requisite extent of profit, the amounts are being given to the Primary Society for granting loans for the purpose specified in **Clause 21 (iii)** of the Bye-laws, specifying the maximum interest/penalty for default that could be realised by the Primary Societies. 9. **Clause 11** of Ext.R6 Regulations says that that the applications of the Primary Societies for loan shall be made in ## **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** **9** the prescribed form. **Clause 12** of Ext.R6 Regulations refers to documents to be attached with the application form, which is reproduced below: _“12. Every application for loan shall accompanied by the following documents and such other documents as may be prescribed by the Board from time to time:_ _(a) Application from the member loanee in the prescribed form._ _(b) Documents to prove the title of the applicant to the properties offered as security._ _(c) Possession and Enjoyment Certificate issued by the Revenue Authorities or given by the applicant accompanied by an affidavit signed before an Officer of Society or an Officer of the Federation verified and certified by the Director of the Primary Society authorised by the Board of Directors._ _(d) Encumbrance Certificate for complete 13 years prior to the date of application._ _(e) Legal opinion regarding the title and admissibility of security from competent persons approved by the Housing Federation for the purpose, in such form as may be prescribed by the Board._ _(f) Design and detailed estimate for the construction of the house, or for repairs or additions as the case may be from an Engineer or any_ ## **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** ## **10** _Government/Quasi Government or other competent persons approved by the Federation for the purpose._ _(g) A valuation certificate from competent authorities appointed by the Federation for the purpose in respect of the house, if the loans are for purchase of houses._ _(h) An undertaking from the applicant to use the additional cost from his resource._ _(i) A certificate of income of the individual member from Revenue Authorities or an Affidavit about income in the prescribed form from the Primary Society or from the Director authorised in this behalf by the Board of Directors of the Primary Society with reference to title of properties, actual verification of properties, enquiries about business or profession, examination of documents and accounts relating to such business, profession etc. In the case of salaried persons certificate from the employer shall be compulsory._ _(j) A resolution of the Board of the Primary Societies sanctioning the loan or alloting the site to individual members and applying for the loan from the Housing Federation and agreeing to abide by the terms and conditions prescribed for the loans._ _(k) A statement showing the financial position of the society as 9on 31[st] March immediately preceding the date of application.._ ## 10 **. Clause 13** of Ext.R6 Regulations says that the Primary ## **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** ## **11** Society applying for loan should agree to convey to the Federation, in such manner as may be prescribed by the latter, all rights of the former on the properties owned and possessed by it or the rights obtained by it from its members. **Clause 14** says that the Primary Society applying for loan should agree to abide by the terms and conditions prescribed by the Federation for the purpose. **Clause 15** refers to the obligation of the Primary Society to satisfy the fee towards legal opinion, incidental expenses etc for processing the loan application. The additional documents required to be attached are also specified therein. Clause 15 is extracted below: _“15. The Primary Society should remit fees towards legal opinion incidental expenses etc., for processing the loan application at the rates prescribed by the Housing Federation._ _(a) Loans for purchase of house with site for the benefit of members of primary societies shall not be sanctioned for houses more than 10 years old._ _Such application should accompany the following additional documents along with attested copies of title deed._ _1. Valuation and stability certificate and plan of_ ## **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** ## **12** _the building from the Engineer not below the rank of an Assistant Engineer in Government/Quasi Government or other competent Engineer approved by the Federation._ _2. Copy of draft Sale Deed._ _3. Original agreement to sell_ _4. Copy of resolutions regarding an undertaking by the board of Primary Housing Society to disburse the loan amount to the member and get the sale deed executed within the specified period sanctioned by the Federation. b. Such loans for the purchase of house with site will be paid to Primary Society in advance for disbursement to the concerned applicant._ ## 11. **Clause 19** of Ext.R6 Regulations stipulates that the loan to a Primary society shall bear interest at the rate fixed by the Federation from time to time in accordance with **Clause 21 (v)** of the Bye-laws. The necessity to satisfy the group Insurance premium from time to time, at the prescribed rate and the extent of 'penal interest' on default/overdue payment are also mentioned in this Clause. **Clause 21** says that the loan shall be - repayable by the Primary Society in equal yearly/half yearly/quarterly installments within a period not exceeding 20 years. **Clause 24 (3)** mentions that, rebate of ½ % interest ## **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** ## **13** paid will be granted to the Primary Societies, if the repayments of the principal amount and interest are made in full, before the end of the co-operative year. **Clause 25** of Ext.R6 stipulates that **when a Society is in default** either in respect of an installment of principal or interest, any sum paid shall be appropriated firstly towards default/penalty under clause 19, then towards interest and only thereafter towards the principal portion. **Clause 26** speaks about the duty of the Primary Society receiving a loan, to produce the records, assets and securities of the Society for inspection by any authorised person deputed by the Federation. **Clauses 29 and 30** deal with the 'first charge' of the Federation on the assets of the Primary Society in respect of every loan and the property of the Member to be the Collateral security, which are reproduced below for convenience of reference.: _“29. Every loan advanced by the housing Federation will be a first charge on the assets of the Primary Society. The entire assets of the Primary Society will be considered as security for the loan and the security offered by the member to Primary Society for the purpose of the loan will be considered as collateral security. It will be incumbent on the Primary Society to transfer their_ ## **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** ## **14** _rights on these securities to the Housing Federation in any manner, the Housing Federation may direct. “_ _“30. The Housing Federation shall have a charge on the land on which the house is proposed to be put up. The houses constructed/purchased/repaired/improved with the loan shall remain the property of the Housing Federation till the loan is fully repaid.”_ 12. From the above, it is very clear that none of the above Regulations does point to any obligation upon the Member of the Primary Society (as part of his legal obligation) to surrender the Title deed for the loans availed by the Primary Society from the Federation as a whole, except to the extent the amount disbursed by the Federation in respect of the particular loan availed by the Member from the Primary Society; even if such an inference is possible on a farthest stretch of reading the relevant clauses. It will be worthwhile in this regard to refer to other documents as well, produced from the part of the Federation along with additional counter affidavit dated 10.02.2014. Ext.R6 (B) is a copy of the loan application dated 12.03.1997 preferred by the member/writ petitioner, which is an application addressed to the Secretary of the Primary Co-operative Society and never ## **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** ## **15** to the Federation. The 'declaration' at page 6 of the said application is only to the effect (i) that the applicant or the spouse or the children are not having any other residential accommodation of their own; (ii) that they are ready to incur the necessary expenditure for construction over and above the amount covered by the loan, well in advance; and (iii) that the borrower does not have any objection to inspect the building or the property where the construction is sought to be effected after availing the funds from the Federation, adding that the borrower will not alienate, alter, modify, sublet or commit any waste in respect of the building constructed, utilising the loan availed from the Primary Society, without the knowledge and consent of either the Primary Society or the Federation. Nowhere in the said application, is there any declaration, whereby the borrower has agreed to cause the Title Deed to be retained at the hands of the Federation till the Primary Society satisfies its entire liability to the Federation, notwithstanding the satisfaction of the due amount by the borrower to the Primary Society under the particular loan transaction. ## **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** ## **16** 13. Ext.R6(C) is the loan sanctioning order issued by the Appellant Federation, which does not cast any obligation on the borrower to sustain the contention as now raised from the part of the Federation. Ext.R6(D) is a copy of the Mortgage Deed executed between the writ petitioner/borrower and the Primary Society. Clause (5) therein refers to the obligation to insure the building jointly in favour of the borrower and the Primary Society, also undertaking to renew the Insurance, till the loan amount is fully satisfied by the borrower. Clause 8 of Ext.R6(D) undertakes that the property will not be alienated, nor will any loss be caused or any action will be pursued reducing the value of the property till the liability under the mortgage deed is completely satisfied. Clause 9 of Ext.R6(D) expresses the consent, enabling the Primary Society to proceed against the property, if the due amount under the loan transaction is not cleared to the Primary Society. As per **Clause 10 of Ext.R6(D)** , the borrower has agreed that the Title Deed and the Basic deeds surrendered to the Primary Society along with the application need to be returned by the Primary Society only on satisfaction ## **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** ## **17** of the due amount under the loan transaction. This clearly reveals that there is no other agreement, undertaking or declaration to the effect that the borrower had permitted either the Primary Society or anybody else including the Appellant Federation to have their Title Deeds retained even after satisfaction of the liability under the loan transaction to the Primary Society. 14. **Ext.R6(E)** is a copy of the Mortgage Deed executed between the Primary Society and the appellant Federation, to which the writ petitioner/member of the Primary Society is not at all a party. Clause 9 and 15 of the said Mortgage Deed read as follows: _“9. The entire assets of the mortgagor shall be considered as security for the loan advanced by the mortgagee and the securities offered by the members for whom loan amounts are distributed shall be considered as collateral security.”_ xx xx xx _“15. In case the mortgagor fails to receive from its member the entire loan amount_ _**of part there of due to an**_ **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** **18** _**of the mortgagor's fault, t** he mortgagee shall have power and authority to realise the said amount with interest and costs if any in the manner herein provided._ 15. It is quite evident from the above Clauses, that the assets of the Mortgagor/Primary Society shall be considered as the Basic Security for the loan advanced by the Mortgagee/Federation and the Security offered by the Members of the Primary Society to whom the loan amount is distributed/disbursed can only be the collateral security. In so far as the borrower is concerned, the necessity to satisfy 'security' is only to the extent of loan amount obtained from the Primary Society (including interest/penal interest). There is no obligation, much less any pious obligation for the borrower/member of the Primary Society to offer their Title Deeds for any other loan availed by the Primary Society from the Federation; or in other words to any extent if it is beyond the dues covered under the particular loan transaction availed by the borrower. There cannot be any arbitrary exercise of power, either by the Federation or by the Primary Society to have the **19** ## **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** Title Deeds of the particular borrower retained, notwithstanding the satisfaction of the due amount under the loan transaction. 16. Another important aspect to be noted is that, as borne by the relevant clauses in the documents produced and discussed above, the loan amount given by the Federation is to the Primary Society, to be distributed/disbursed to the beneficiary/member of the Primary Society. The said amount has to be repaid by the Primary Society by way of yearly/half yearly/quarterly installments and no provision is stipulated enabling the borrower/member of the Primary Society to have it remitted directly to the Federation. In so far as the repayment was routed only through the Primary Society, the role of the appellant Federation could be equated to that of a Principal and the Primary Society, as that of its agent. If the amount paid by the member/borrower to the Primary Society in respect of the loan is not remitted by the Primary Society to the Federation, it is the lookout of the Federation and no fault or lapse can be attributed or mulcted on the shoulders of the borrower/member of the Primary Society. That apart, there is no provision either in the ## **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** ## **20** Co-operative Societies Act, Rules, Regulations, 'Loan sanction order' or the Mortgage Deed to group all the loans given by the Federation to the Primary Society (for being disbursed to different borrowers/Members of the Primary Society) together as a single transaction. The amount deposited by a prompt borrower to the Primary Society and such amount to be remitted by the Primary Society in that account with the Federation ought to have been given due credit to, in respect of the actual depositor. Such amount could not be credited as part of any amount remitted by the Primary Society against all borrowers taken together, including the defaulters, which otherwise will only give premium to the defaulters/wrong-doers. If that was the practice followed by the Federation so far, it can only be a defective practice, which cannot have the sanctity of law. 17. It is stated by the appellant Federation that Primary Societies do not have any assets and hence the Federation is justified in retaining the Title Deeds of the borrower/Members of the Primary Societies even after clearance of the loan amount to the Primary Society. The said version cannot be accepted, ## **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** ## **21** primarily for the reason that if there is no asset to the requisite extent, no loan ought to have been given by the Apex Federation to the Society . In other words, if the loan is given by the Federation to the Primary Society without any regard to the assets of the Primary Society or their credibility, it is nothing but an instance of sheer mismanagement, if not extraneous consideration. The liability in this regard cannot be shifted to the shoulders of the genuine borrowers /members of the Primary Societies. If the lapse is on the part of the officers of the Federation or if there is any lapse on the part of the officebearers of the Primary Society, it is open for the Federation to proceed against such delinquent officers/persons/Societies, by way of appropriate proceedings, civil, criminal or departmental, as the case may be. This anyhow cannot be stated as an exercise to be pursued by genuine borrowers/members of the Primary Society, if they have fully satisfied the amount due to the Primary Society under the Housing Loan availed by them. The decision rendered by the Full Bench (cited supra), sought to be relied on by the appellant, does not come to the rescue of the **22** ## **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** appellant in the above different factual context. 18. We are aware of the verdict passed by the Larger Bench of this Court in **2015(1)KLT 849** (cited supra), whereby the view taken by the Full Bench is stated as approved. The Basic issue involved in the case considered by the Larger Bench was, whether the service conditions of the employees of a Cooperative Society could be the subject matter of consideration in an 'Industrial Dispute' raised before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act or whether it has to be pursued before the statutory authorities, in terms of the relevant provisions of the Special Provision of law under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act/Rules. This, in turn, was answered by the Bench holding that the appropriate remedy was in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act/Rules. Approval of the verdict passed by the Full Court is only having limited application, with regard to the above specific point and nothing more. The said verdict itself is an authority to hold that writ will lie, if there is a statutory duty or a public duty. Paragraph 19 of the said judgment reads as follows: ## **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** ## **23** _“19. The term " authority" used in Article 226, in the context, must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term in Article 12. Article 12 is relevant only for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights under Art. 32. Article 226 confers power on the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental rights. The words "Any person or authority" used in Article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party. No matter by what means the duty is imposed. If a positive obligation exists mandamus cannot be denied.”_ A writ will lie against a Co-operative Society, if there is a public duty, as held by the Apex Court in _**Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S.J.M.S Trust vs. V.R. Rudani**_ **[AIR 1989 SC 1607].** The position is more clear from the ruling rendered by the Supreme Court in _**U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey and others**_ **[AIR 1999 SC 753]** and _**Board of Control for Cricket**_ **24** ## **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** _**in India vs. Cricket Association of Bihar and others**_ **[AIR 2015 SC 3194]** and the verdict passed by the Division Bench of this Court in _**Peechi Service Co-operative Bank vs. Tessy Varghese**_ **[2015 (4) KLT 919].** 19. In so far as the appellant Federation has failed to substantiate that there is a valid contract between the Federation and writ petitioner/member of a Primary Society, authorising the Federation to keep the Title Deeds of the petitioners even after satisfaction of the loan liability to the Primary Society, retention of the Title Deeds cannot but be said as 'arbitrary'. Once it is declared as 'arbitrary', there is clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which is enough to have made interference by this Court, invoking the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No statute can overreach the constitutional power of this Court and it is settled law, that existence of alternate remedy is not a bar for invoking the power under Article 226. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the idea and understanding of the appellant to mould the case ## **W.A.No.2041, 2042 & 2043 of 2016** ## **25** with reference to the ruling rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in _**John V. Liquidator**_ [ **2006(1) KLT 11 FB** ] and the Larger Bench in _**Milma Officers vs. State of Kerala**_ [ **2015 (1) KLT 849** ] is thoroughly wrong and misconceived. The verdict passed by the learned Single Judge is perfectly within the four walls of the law and it does not warrant any interference. There is absolutely no merit in the appeals. Interference is declined and the appeals are dismissed accordingly. **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE** **A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE** lk