1. Petitioner is aggrieved with the first respondent, having not taken any steps to deduct the salary of the various employees to whom the petitioner had granted loan or who have stood as sureties to the loans granted by the petitioner. The claim is made, relying on Section 37 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that, in fact, the deductions, as sought for, are being made from the salary of the concerned employees.
2. A writ petition moved for enforcing the claim under Section 37, by a society, was dismissed by a learned single Judge, finding that the Society had an alternate remedy by way of proceeding under Section 69 for obtaining an award or to initiate penal proceeding under Section 94(5) of the Act. A Division Bench upholding the same held W.P.(C)No.36820 of 2009 -:2:-
so in Chengamanad Service Co.op. Bank Ltd. v. Mohanan (2009 (3) KLT 623):
“The right under S.37(2) of the Act is one created by the provisions of the Act. Normally, if a debtor violates the terms of the loan agreement, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to move the competent court, get a decree and execute the same. In this case, for the benefit of the Society, a special right is created and for implementation of that right, remedies are also provided under the Act. If the employer does not act as mandated by S.37(2) of the Act, he can be prosecuted under S.94 (5) read with S.95 of the Act. S.95 of the Act provides that for prosecution, sanction of the Registrar is required. S.37(2) of the Act enables the Society to move unilaterally by determining the amount due to it and make a requisition”.
Hence, the remedy for the petitioner to urge the contentions raised herein, is elsewhere and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
K. Vinod Chandran, Judge.
sl.