Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Kerala · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5723 (KER)

JAMMADY BHARADEVATHA (KORAKKAMPILLY SREE BHADRAKALI) KUDUMBA KSHETHRA SAMITHI v. STATE BANK OF INDIA

WP(C)/12559/2025 · 2025-04-04

C S Dias

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

WP(C) NO. 12559 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:29447 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 12559 OF 2025 PETITIONER/S: JAMMADY BHARADEVATHA (KORAKKAMPILLY SREE BHADRAKALI) KUDUMBA KSHETHRA SAMITHI, AGED 60 YEARS REGISTRATION NO. EKM /TC/258/2024 HARINANDANAM HOUSE NANDIKULANGARA, MANNAM, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 683520 BY ADVS. R.SANJITH C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH P.S.ANJU SURAJ KRISHNAN SIDHI K. KUTTY NAMITHA SUSAN MARCOSE ARUNA NANDKUMAR RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE BANK OF INDIA, KALAMASSERY BRANCH(70145) SHANU TOWERS, NORTH KALAMESSERY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 683014 2 THE BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, KALAMASSERY BRANCH(70145) SHANU TOWERS, NORTH KALAMESSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683014 OTHER PRESENT: SC SRI JITHESH MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 12559 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:29447 C.S.DIAS, J. --------------------------------------- WP(C) No.12559 OF 2025 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2025 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner society to operate the account bearing No.57015710547. 2. The petitioner is a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. The society is constituted for the administration and management of the Jammady Bharadevatha (Korakkampilly Sree Bhadrakali) Temple, Kalamassery. The society is maintaining and operating the above bank account with the respondent bank. Subsequent to the formation of the society, the President of the society has submitted a request to the 2nd respondent to permit the society to operate the bank account. However, by Ext.P3 reply, the 2nd respondent has stated that the petitioner should produce a court order to operate the bank account. Subsequent to Ext.P3 reply, the WP(C) NO. 12559 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:29447 petitioner again submitted Ext.P4 request and the bank has issued Ext.P5 reply. Exts.P3 and P5 are arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent bank. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent bank submitted that, the bank account is opened in the name of a Temple. Subsequently, the petitioner has made a request to change the bank account to the society's name. A rival faction has filed a complaint stating that there are disputes between them and the society regarding the management of the Temple, which is pending before the civil court. It is in the said circumstances, the 2nd respondent has not permitted the petitioner to operate the bank account. 5. On an evaluation of the facts and materials on record, and the rival submissions made across the Bar, I find that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature. Moreover, there are internal disputes between two factions in the Temple, claiming management rights of the WP(C) NO. 12559 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:29447 Temple. Therefore, the stand of the bank is justifiable. Furthermore, I find that there is no public duty involved in the matter. Instead, the dispute between the parties is contractual in nature. 6. It is trite law that a Bank does not fall within the definition of 'State' or other authorities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India [ Read the decision of this Court in Mathew Ignitious C. v. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., Thrissur and others (2019 (4) KLT 597)]. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find that the Bank is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, I dismiss the writ petition, which is without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out its remedies in accordance with law. Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rkc/04.04.25 WP(C) NO. 12559 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:29447 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12559/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 26/06/2024 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BEARING REGISTRATION NO. EKM/TC/258/2024 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 09/08/2024 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 13/01/2025 BEARING NO. BR/GEN/2024-25 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 27/02/2025 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28/02/2025 BEARING NO. BR/GEN/2024-25