Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, as well as the learned Government Pleader, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.
2. Briefly stated, initially the petitioner availed himself of an agricultural loan from the first respondent Bank to be repaid in five years. In the first instance, some of the sureties to the loan filed O.P. No. 13162/1998, in which this Court directed through Exhibit P3 judgment, dated 22.01.1999, the respondent Bank to give a statement of account to the petitioners therein, apart from directing the W.P.(c) No. 18158 of 2015 2 petitioners to ventilate their grievance before an appropriate forum. At a later point of time, the petitioner herein filed O.P. No. 9639/2002 for another direction to the respondent Bank to furnish a statement of account, since it is the contention of the petitioner that earlier no statement of account was given, despite the direction of this Court in Exhibit P3 judgment. Eventually, the said O.P. No. 9639/2002 was also disposed of through Exhibit P4 judgment.
3. All along, it is the singular contention of the petitioner that he has repaid the entire loan amount. Accordingly, when the respondent Bank supplied to the petitioner Exhibit P5 statement of account, dated 12.04.2002, showing an amount of Rs. 38,493/- as due, he filed A.R.C. No. 13/2002 before the third respondent, who in turn dismissed the same as per Exhibit P7 judgment. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed R.P. No. 143/2006 before the Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, which allowed the revision through Exhibit P9 order, dated 13.02.2008. In fact, the Tribunal, apart from setting aside Exhibit P7 order, directed the learned Arbitrator to adjudicate A.R.C. No. W.P.(c) No. 18158 of 2015 3 13/2002 afresh, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence.
4. Contending that while the said A.R.C. No. 13/2002, on remand, has been pending, the second respondent has issued Exhibit P10 sale proclamation for the sale of petitioner's mortgaged land, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
5. Though the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank has initially contended that the respondent Bank is not amenable to either arbitration proceedings or revision proceedings, as have been taken out by the petitioner. In the light of the statutory provisions contained in the Kerala State Co-operative (Agricultural and Rural Development Banks) Act, 1984, he has eventually submitted that the writ petition could be disposed of with a direction to the learned Arbitrator to decide A.R.C. No. 13/2002 expeditiously.
6. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, has submitted that the ARC is pending and is yet to be disposed of.
W.P.(c) No. 18158 of 2015 4
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended, justifiably, that since the arbitration proceedings are pending, especially on remand, it is inappropriate for the second respondent to have issued Exhibit P10 sale proclamation.
8. Indeed, this Court is of the opinion that once an aggrieved person has taken recourse to any statutory remedy, especially of judicial nature, it is unconscionable as well as impermissible to stultify the said statutory proceedings by taking recourse to precipitous steps which may eventually render the judicial proceedings otiose.
9. In the facts and circumstances, having regard to respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, as well as the learned Government Pleader, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the third respondent to dispose of A.R.C. No. 13/2002 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
W.P.(c) No. 18158 of 2015 5
It is further made clear that the respondent Bank is at liberty to raise all its pleas and defence, including that of maintainability of A.R.C. Proceedings, before the third respondent.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-