2025:KER:28733 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 25359 OF 2013 PETITIONER: KUMARAKOM REGIONAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.315,KUMARAKOM,KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.SHAJI (SR.) SRI.M.A.ASIF SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES KOTTAYAM, PIN 686 001. 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001. 3 SRI.KUNJU ILLAMPILLY, ILLAMPILLY HOUSE KILIROOR N.P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 020. 4 MS.RESHMA RACHEL KURUVILA, KILIROOR N.P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN-686020. BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER RASHMI.K.V WP(C)Nos. 25359 of 2013 & 2138 of 2019 2025:KER:28733 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.04.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).2138/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C)Nos. 25359 of 2013 & 2138 of 2019 2025:KER:28733 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 2138 OF 2019 PETITIONER: T.P.SANKARA PILLAI AGED 62 YEARS S/O.LATE N.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, THEKKEDAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUMARAKOM VILLAGE, KUMARAKOM POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 563. BY ADV JOSSY KURIAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 THE REGISTRAR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 004 3 KUMARAKOM REGIONAL SERVICE CO-OPOERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.315 KUMARAKOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM - 686 563. 4 THE SECRETARY KUMARAKOM REGIONAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.315, KUMARAKOM, KOTTAYAM - 686 563. BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.ABHILASH VISHNU SRI.ATHUL SHAJI WP(C)Nos. 25359 of 2013 & 2138 of 2019 2025:KER:28733 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.04.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).25359/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C)Nos. 25359 of 2013 & 2138 of 2019 2025:KER:28733 5 J U D G M E N T (Dated this the 03rd day of April, 2025) The writ petition is preferred challenging Ext.P10 order of the 1st respondent on the basis of a complaint preferred by the subscribers of the scheme introduced by the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner Bank that a scheme was introduced by them, namely the 'Lekshadhipathy Deposit Scheme' under which a person who deposits an amount of Rs.6250/- or its multipliers will get a maturity value of 16 times the amount deposited, after a period of 19 years. 3. Accordingly, the respondents had remitted certain amounts. Thereafter, it was stated that, based on a change in the policy of the Reserve Bank of India, the scheme was stopped. This decision was intimated to the parties. However, on the basis of complaints received, the Assistant Registrar (the 1st respondent) passed an order to hand over the amount as if it had matured, as per Ext.P10. The said order is challenged on the grounds that it is arbitrary, authoritarian, and illegal. WP(C)Nos. 25359 of 2013 & 2138 of 2019 2025:KER:28733 6 4. The petitioner primarily contends that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain such a monetary dispute and the bank had sufficient reasons to terminate the scheme. Furthermore, the bank has the power and liberty to do so. Options were given to all the depositors to close the deposits that were not utilized by them, but they did not resort to any legal remedies. Therefore, respondents 3 and 4 are barred from challenging the decision of the bank that was made years ago and has become final. It is further contended that, the bank has not been provided with a copy of the complaint, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, and the scheme was stopped for valid and sufficient reasons. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the bankers started the scheme even without permission from the Registrar. 6. The contention with respect to the violation of principles of natural justice will not stand, as the petitioner was given an opportunity to be heard prior to the passing of Ext.P10 order. In a connected matter, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies has preferred a counter affidavit, WP(C)Nos. 25359 of 2013 & 2138 of 2019 2025:KER:28733 7 wherein it is specifically stated that the bank is bound to implement the special deposit scheme only in accordance with the Act and Rules and proper sanction must be obtained from the Administrative Department before initiating such a scheme or making any amendments to its conditions, which must then be communicated to the Joint Registrar for prior approval. 7. In this case, during the inspection of the complaint filed by some of the subscribers, the Joint Registrar found that the 3rd respondent failed to submit proper sanction orders for the amendment made to the 'Lakshadhipathy Maturity Saving Scheme’. The Managing Committee of the Bank decided to terminate various deposit schemes stating the reason that, there was a fall in interest rate of the loans and deposits. The deposit schemes conducted by the Bank did not have departmental sanction, and there was no departmental approval to terminate the scheme. 8. The other writ petition has been filed by one of the subscribers to the scheme of petitioner's Bank, who is aggrieved by the non-disbursement of the amount upon the termination of the scheme. On considering the contentions WP(C)Nos. 25359 of 2013 & 2138 of 2019 2025:KER:28733 8 in both the writ petitions, it appears that the petitioner Bank has failed to implement the contract under the scheme. In fact, from the words of the Registrar itself, it appears that the scheme was initiated without obtaining proper permission from the Registrar. Even though the schemes were floated to overlap with the bye law schemes itself, even prior to their termination, proper sanctions were not obtained and the amended conditions in the scheme were not properly approved by the Registrar. 9. Under such circumstances, they cannot arbitrarily terminate the scheme and deny the benefits of the scheme to the public. The arbitrary stoppage of the scheme amounts to promissory estoppel. The institution, which is a cooperative society stands for the benefit of the public, they cannot take arbitrary decisions against the benefit of the public. 10 Accordingly, WP(C)No.25359/2013 fails and petitioner bank is bound to repay the amount as per the scheme. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six months. The benefits provided to the subscribers will carry statutory interest until the date of disbursement. WP(C)Nos. 25359 of 2013 & 2138 of 2019 2025:KER:28733 9 In the result, WP(C)No.2138 of 2019 is allowed and WP(C)No.25359 is dismissed. Sd/- P.M MANOJ JUDGE AKH WP(C)Nos. 25359 of 2013 & 2138 of 2019 2025:KER:28733 10 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2138/2019 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CASH CERTIFICATE DATED 06/10/98. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE BANK DATED 23/10/2017. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY CO- OPERATIVE OMBUDSMAN DATED 26/04/2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY JOINT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DT.19/03/18. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE BANK STATED THE NUMBER OF WRIT PETITION DATED 17/04/2018. WP(C)Nos. 25359 of 2013 & 2138 of 2019 2025:KER:28733 11 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25359/2013 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA OF THE APPLICATION FOR JOINING THE 'LEKSHADHIPATHY DEPOSIT SCHEME' OF THE PETITIONER BANK. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO SMT.RAHELAMMA CHACKO BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO SRI.E.C.CHACKO BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 22.12.2005 SENT BY SMT.RAHELAMMA CHACKO. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 22.12.2005 SENT BY SRI.E.C.CHACKO EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 2.1.2006 SENT BY THE PETITIONER BANK TO SMT.RAHELAMMA CHACKO EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 2.1.2006 SENT BY THE PETITIONER BANK TO SMT.SRI.E.C.CHACKO EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.9.2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BANK BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN REPLY DATED 23.9.2013 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER BANK. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.9.2013 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.