Abdul Gafoor, J.

Is the writ petition seeking a direction to a Co-operative Society to return the title deeds of the properties mortgaged by the petitioners to obtain housing loan maintainable? This is the point arising for decision before us.

2. The petitioners, to get such a direction, mainly relied on Ext.P5 judgment of a learned single Judge of this court, wherein a similar direction was issued and Ext.P6 judgment, whereby Ext.P5 was confirmed by a Division Bench. But the learned single Judge, who heard this matter, was of the view that a civil dispute of this nature should be resoled, at the instance of the party concerned, by a civil court or by an arbitrator. This aspect was not considered in Ext.P5 and P6 judgments, according to the learned single Judge. Therefore, the learned single Judge adjourned the matter for being heard by a Division Bench. The Division Bench noticed the contention of the third respondent that the powers vested in this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could not be exercised for the purpose of such matter, as there was no violation of any statutory rules or byelaws; and therefore, thought that the matter be heard by a Full Bench. Thus, the writ petition has come up for consideration before us.

3. The petitioners, for the purpose of house construction, availed of loans from the second respondent – a primary housing Co-operative Society, by depositing their title deeds as security for the loan amount and also executing registered mortgage deeds. They have repaid the entire loan amount with interest, according to them, to the second respondent. The second respondent is now facing liquidation. The first respondent is the liquidator. The second respondent obtained finance from the third respondent – the Apex Co-operative Housing Federation and it was out of that amount, the second respondent disbursed the loan to the petitioners. For the purpose of getting refinance, the second respondent had, in turn, handed over the title deeds of several loanees, including the petitioners to the third respondent. The second respondent has not cleared the liability to the 3rd respondent so far. The third respondent is withholding the entire title deeds deposited as security for the payment of the amount due from the second respondent. Therefore, the request of the petitioners was not acceded by the third respondent. It was in the above circumstances, they have approached this court with this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to return the title deeds and further seeking a direction to the second respondent to execute release deeds.

4. It is contended by the petitioners that factual aspects are not in dispute in this case and that the second respondent, who advanced the loan amount, has conceded that the entire amount has been remitted by the petitioners and that nothing is due from them. In such circumstances, as there is no direct contract between them and the third respondent, the third respondent cannot, any more, keep in its custody the title deeds in respect of the properties of the petitioners. Such retention is unauthorized, illegal and without the sanction of the law. Merely because some amount is due from the second respondent to the third respondent, the third respondent cannot retain the title deeds of the properties of the petitioners. So a direction shall be issued as prayed for, to the respondents, they submit. The 2nd and 3rd respondents Co-operative Societies, being public body governed by the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 and the Rules framed thereunder, are amenable to the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court, they submit.

5. A direction can be issued, exercising the power vested in this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even to a co-operative society, the counsel submits. In support of this contention, the decision reported in U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. V. Chandra Bhan Dubey {[1999] 1 SCC 741} is