KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 23/2024

ORDER DATED: 24.05.2024

(Against the Order in I.A. 13/24 in C.C. 274/2023 of DCDRC, Pathanamthitta)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN     : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

Sally George, The Secretary in Charge, The Mylapra Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 639, Mylapra Town P.O., Pathanamthitta-689 673.

                                        (By Adv. Nazim Shah S.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. M.C. Mathew, Manappurathu Veedu, Uthimoodu P.O., Ranny-689 672.

2. Leena Mathew, Manappurathu Veedu, Uthimoodu P.O., Ranny-689 672.

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

The 2^nd opposite party in C.C. No. 274/2023 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta (District Commission for short) is the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner challenges an order dated 07.02.2024 of the District Commission allowing a petition, I.A. No. 13/2024 and posting the case for complainant’s evidence to 11.03.2024.  The revision petition does not disclose what I.A. No. 13/2024 was for.  There is also no explanation as to what prejudice has been caused to the revision petitioner by the order allowing the said I.A.

2.  According to the revision petitioner, she is the Secretary in charge of the Mylapra Service Co-operative Bank #639.   The said bank had an elected Board of Directors.  The Joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies dismissed the Board for their mismanagement.  During that period, the 1^st opposite party was the Secretary of the Bank.  It is stated that, in view of the malpractice and fraud committed by him, the Crime Branch registered a case against him.  He was arrested and jailed and at present he is on bail. 

3.  In view of the above situation, the depositors of the bank started withdrawing their deposits, individually and collectively.  Such withdrawal of a huge amount to the tune of Rs. 18 Crores created serious crisis.  Two branches of the bank were closed.  A factory owned by the bank was also locked down.  The Co-operative Department conducted an enquiry under Sec. 80 of the Co-operative Societies Act, which revealed that more than 70 Crores of rupees had been misappropriated by the 1^st respondent, the former Secretary of the bank. The said report has been handed over to the Crime Branch Police by the Co-operative Department.

4.  In the above circumstances, the representatives of the depositors approached the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala by filing WP(C) No. 17418/22.  A number of other similar writ petitions were also filed.  There are altogether 18 such writ petitions pending before the High Court.  As per the order in WP(C) No. 26557/22, the bank constituted a Monitoring Committee for releasing the deposited amounts on priority basis.  The 1^st complainant is alleged to be the representative of the depositors in the Monitoring Committee.  According to the revision petitioner, as per an order dated 02.09.2022 the Hon’ble High Court has directed the Monitoring committee to repay the amounts to the depositors, utilizing the available funds in accordance with the priority stipulated by the court.  In view of the above, it is contended that the complainants/respondents are also entitled to get their deposits only based on the decisions of the committee in accordance with the stipulations contemplated in the order of the Hon’ble High Court.  The contention of the revision petitioner is that, the order of the District Commission posting the case for the complainant’s evidence would be in violation of the direction of the Hon’ble High Court regarding the priority to be observed while making payment to the depositors. 

5.  Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents produced before us, we are not satisfied that any prejudice has been caused to the revision petitioner by the order that is sought to be revised.  What the District Commission has done is only post the matter for complainant’s evidence.  We have perused the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 02.09.2022 on which reliance is placed by the counsel for the revision petitioner.  The said order does not impose any restrictions on the power of the District Commission to proceed with the trial of the complaint, C.C. No. 274/2023 pending before it.  No error of jurisdiction or illegality has been committed by the District Commission in posting the said case for recording of evidence.  Therefore, we are not satisfied that the revision petitioner has made out a case for the admission of this revision petition.

For the above reasons, this revision fails and is dismissed. 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                                                   RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb