Siri Jagan, J.

1. A co-operative bank, which accepted fixed deposits from depositors, who are members of the bank , agreeing to pay a definite sum after a definite number of years, has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of a learned Single Judge, directing the bank to pay the maturity value of the deposit at the rate originally agreed upon.

2. The 2nd respondent herein was a depositor of the appellant-Bank. The bank published a scheme by name "Sumangali Fixed Deposit Scheme" in the year 1990-91, offering to pay 27 times the deposit amount after 21 years to depositors, who are willing to deposit money under that scheme. The 2nd respondent deposited Rs. 25,000/-. The maturity value of the deposit was Rs. 6,75,000/-. The 2nd respondent demanded the maturity value of the deposit on expiry of the period of the deposit. Since the 2nd respondent was not paid the maturity value, he approached the 1st respondent-Kerala Co-operative Ombudsman constituted under the Kerala Co-operative Ombudsman Scheme, 2010, seeking appropriate relief in respect of the same. The appellant took the stand that the Ombudsman does not have powers to deal with such complaint and it is a matter entirely coming within the purview of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. They also took the stand that the general body took a decision to return the deposit with reduced rate of interest, which is in accordance with the directions of the authorities under the Co-operative Societies Act. But, by Ext. P7 order, the Ombudsman rejected the contentions of the appellant and directed the appellant to pay the maturity value of the deposit as appearing in the fixed deposit receipt issued by the appellant-bank. The appellant filed W.P(C) No. 13846/2013 before this Court, challenging the order of the Ombudsman. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is under challenge in this writ appeal.

3. The first contention raised by the appellant is that the Co-operative Ombudsman does not have powers to deal with the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent under the Kerala Co-operative Ombudsman's Scheme. It is submitted that the Ombudsman has powers only to consider a complaint as defined in Section 2(c) read with Section 7(e) of the Scheme. It is pointed out that by Ext. P2 dated 27.7.2010, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies had fixed interest payable on fixed deposits, which is binding on the appellant-bank as well. Subsequently, Ext. P3 circular was also issued threatening stringent action, if more than the interest stipulated by the Registrar is paid to depositors. In order to comply with the directions in Exts. P2 and P3, the appellant issued notices to all the depositors under the scheme for attending a general body meeting, wherein the reduction of interest for the Sumangali Fixed Deposit Scheme was to be considered. That notice only was challenged by the 2nd respondent before the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman did not have any power to consider that complaint, is the first contention.

4. The next contention is that the bank is duty bound to comply with the directions of the Registrar of Co- operative Societies, who had directed the appellant to reduce the interest rate, which only the appellant had done, which cannot be subject matter of a complaint before the Ombudsman also. It is also submitted that notices were issued to all the 4585 depositors under the scheme, out of whom, 3215 have accepted the maturity value with reduced rate of interest and the notices issued to others were returned unserved. That being so, some of the depositors cannot now turn around and take the stand that they are not bound by the decision of the general body, is the next contention raised. It is also submitted that being a member of the appellant-bank, the 2nd respondent is also bound by the decision of the general body.

5. We have considered the rival contentions in detail.

6. Clause 2(c) of the Kerala