Introduction:

The petitioner in W.P. (C) No.22515/2015 being a Co-operative Bank has a grievance that the second respondent without any prior notice issued Exhibit P3 order directing the petitioner to close its Customer Service Centre within its area of operation, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

2. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No.23188/2015, being a member of the fourth respondent Society in W.P. (C) No.22515/2015, has a grievance that the Bank has opened its so called Customer Service Centre without prior permission from the authorities and that it cannot be allowed to carry on any operations even in the name of customer service.

3. Since both the writ petitions deal with the same issue involving substantially the same parties, this Court has proposed to dispose of both the writ petitions through a common judgment. For ease of reference and convenience, the facts as have been set out in W.P. (C) No.22515/2015 and the parties as have been arrayed therein are taken as the basis for the narrative purpose.

Facts in Brief:

In W.P. (C) No.22515 of 2015:

4. The facts in brief are that the petitioner, a Primary Co-operative Bank, functioning for the past seven decades, has its banking operations confined to certain specific areas in Kadungalloor Village. On 16.01.2015 it submitted Exhibit P2 application to the second respondent seeking permission to open another branch. While the said representation was pending consideration, the petitioner, on 01.07.2015, opened what is said to be a Customer Service Centre within its area of operation, though.

5. Acting on the complaint made by the Secretary of the fourth respondent Society, a rival society, and also a letter of Assistant Registrar, the second respondent issued Exhibit P3 order to the petitioner directing it to close forthwith its operations in the said Customer Service Centre. Aggrieved, the petitioner Bank has approached this Court.

In W.P. (C) No.23188 of 2015:

6. The petitioner, said to be a member of the fourth respondent Society in W.P. (C) No.22515/2015, has ventilated his grievance that the petitioner Bank has been continuing its operations in the name of Customer Service Centre without prior permission from the second respondent. It is the singular grievance of the petitioner in the said writ petition that the banking operations being carried on by the Bank in the name of a Customer Service Centre are per se illegal and Exhibit P3 order is required to be enforced without any further delay.

Summary of Submissions:

For Petitioner:

7. Sri. T.A. Shaji, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Bank, has submitted that neither the Act nor the Rules, not even the administrative instructions issued from time to time in the form of circulars by the department compel the petitioner to obtain any prior permission to open a Customer Service Centre in its own area of operation. In other words, it is the specific contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the prior permission is required from the second respondent only in the event of any Co-operative Bank opening a branch or an extension counter.

8. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that though the petitioner on 01.07.2015 sought permission to open a branch, so far the authorities have not taken any action on the said representation. According to him, since no permission is required for opening a Customer Service Centre, the pendency of Exhibit P2 application is of no consequence.

9. The learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the fourth respondent, a Rival Society, which was initially established as a service Society, seems to have been converted into a Credit Society only in December 2014 without any notice to the petitioner, however.

10. In elaboration, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that neither the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.23188/2015 nor the fourth respondent Society, which is a rival society, has any locus standi to object to the petitioner's banking operations, especiall