G.KRISTAPHIN v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIONS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE FUND BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HEAD OFFICE: TC25/357(4), NEAR GANDHARI AMMANCOIL ROAD, STATUTE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE OMBUDSMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. CHENKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1258 CHENKAL, CHENKAL P.O – 695125, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, CHENKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1258, CHENKAL, CHENKAL P.O - 695125 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA, SC, KERALA CO.OP. DEVP. AND WELFARE FUND BOARD DR.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN, SC, KCDWFB SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KCDWFB SRI.VENUGOPAL, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

11.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 8562 OF 2015 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the father of one Bifin K.C, who died in a motor accident on 19.02.2009. The petitioner’s son had availed an agricultural loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the 5th respondent Co- operative Society on 24.07.2008. About seven months after the date of disbursal of the loan, the petitioner’s son died in a motor accident. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P6, P11 and P13 orders and seeking a direction to extend the benefits of the Kerala Co-operative Risk Fund Scheme, 2008 to the loan taken by the deceased son of the petitioner and to exonerate the petitioner from the liability to repay the amount of the loan.

2. The petitioner had approached the Co-operative Ombudsman by filing complaint No.384 of 2014, which was disposed of by Ext.P6 order finding that the Kerala Risk Fund Scheme, 2008, which was a scheme introduced by the Government of Kerala to protect the family of the deceased debtors, who had availed agricultural and non-agricultural loans, had come into force only on 01.04.2008. The Ombudsman found that the 5th respondent Bank was not a member of the Kerala Risk Fund Scheme at the time when the deceased son of the petitioner had WP(C) NO. 8562 OF 2015 3 availed the loan from the Bank and that the borrower had availed the loan being fully aware that he would not be covered by the benefits of the Risk Fund Scheme. Ext.P11 is a letter issued by the 5th respondent Bank to the Assistant Registrar (General) of the Co- operative Department informing that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the Risk Fund scheme. The petitioner had approached the Ombudsman seeking a review of Ext.P6 order, which petition was also dismissed by Ext.P13, on the finding that the review petition seeks to re-agitate matters that were already decided in terms of Ext.P6 order. It is thus that the petitioner is before this Court seeking the relief of quashing Exts.P6, P11 and P13 and further seeking a direction that the benefits of the Risk Fund scheme be extended to the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent Bank would submit that the Bank became a member of the Risk Fund scheme only in the year 2010. It is also pointed out that till the introduction of sub-section 3 of Section 57 D Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969 (in short ‘the Act’) with effect from

14.02.2013, it was not necessary for any Co-operative Society to mandatorily become members of a Risk Fund scheme. It is submitted that since the loan in question was availed and was WP(C) NO. 8562 OF 2015 4 disbursed in the year 2008, much prior to the introduction of Section 57D (3) of the Act and as also before the implementation of the Risk Fund scheme in the 5th respondent Bank, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the Risk Fund Scheme. It is submitted that the liability to contribute to the Risk Fund scheme compulsorily arose only as a result of amendment to Section 57 (D) of the Act in the year 2013. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the petitioner is clearly not entitled to any relief in the writ petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, which manages the Risk Fund scheme, would submit that as on the date of the death of the petitioner’s son, the 5th respondent Bank was not a member of the Risk Fund scheme and they joined the scheme only on 20.05.2010. It is submitted that there is no provision which provides that the scheme will have any retrospective effect. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the 5th respondent that the petitioner has no case that any contribution was made by him towards the Risk Fund. Having considered the contentions raised and having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for grant of relief. WP(C) NO. 8562 OF 2015 5 Admittedly, at a time when the petitioner’s son had availed the loan from the 5th respondent Bank, the 5th respondent Bank was not a member of the Risk Fund scheme. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent, the statutory mandate for becoming members of the Risk Fund scheme came into force only with effect from 2013. The earlier non statutory scheme was not mandatory and the 5th respondent Bank became a member of the scheme only in the year 2010. It is therefore clear that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. DK Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE WP(C) NO. 8562 OF 2015 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8562/2015 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXT.P1 - EXT.P2 - EXT.P3 - EXT.P4 - EXT.P5 - EXT.P6 - EXT.P7 - EXT.P8 - EXT.P9 - EXT.P10 - EXT.P11 - EXT.P12 - EXT.P13 - TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 10-07-2009 OF DECEASED SON OF PETITIONER TRUE COPY OF THE PASSBOOK OF DECEASED SON OF PETITIONER TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 25-2- 2013 WHICH IS DIVULGED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-1-2014 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20-6- 2014 BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-9-2014 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE R.P.NO.649/2014 DATED 29-9-2014 BY PETITIONER BEFORE 4TH RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF GOVERNMENT DATED 28-10-2014 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSEQUENTIAL DIRECTION OF 2ND RESPONDENT TO SOCIETY DATED 5-12- 2014 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.NO.96/2014 DATED 24-7-2014 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 29-12- 2014 OF 5TH RESPONDENT BY WHICH THE BENEFIT OF RISK FUND SCHEME WAS DENIED TO PETITIONER TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 15-1- 2015 SEEKING TO RESTORE R.P. NO.649/2014 BACK TO FILE. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4-2-2015 IN R.P.NO.649/2014 PASSED BY OMBUDSMAN. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXT.R5(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPY THE A G.O.NO.96/2014/CO-OPERATION DATED 24.07.2014 ISSUED BY THE CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, AMENDING THE RULES IN RELATION TO THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE RISK FUND SCHEME OF