R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.

1. These Writ Appeals, W.A.No.2058 of 2015 and W.A.No.1665 of 2016 are filed challenging the judgments rendered by two learned single Judges of this Court in W.P.(C) No.27785 of 2013 and W.P.(C) No.22652 of 2015 respectively.

W.A.No.2058/2015

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.27785 of 2013. The brief facts of this case are as follows: The Kerala State Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank), the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27785 of 2013, sanctioned a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of the second respondent from its Kannur Branch. The loan was sanctioned to the second respondent on the basis of the application dated 26.04.2005 submitted by him. The loan was granted to him for construction of a house. As per Ext.P1 letter dated 23.5.2005, the Bank gave intimation to the second respondent regarding the sanctioning of the loan. The loan amount was repayable in 180 monthly instalments with interest at the rate of 7.75% per annum. The second respondent executed Ext.P3 agreement dated 31.5.2005 containing the terms and conditions of the loan transaction. He also executed Ext.P2 promissory note for the amount of the loan with interest at the rate of 7.75% per annum. According to the Bank, the rate of interest was fixed at a lower level of 7.75% per annum because the loan was provided under the refinancing scheme of NABARD. Later NABARD stopped the refinancing facility. Therefore, the Bank had to enhance the rate of interest to 9% per annum with effect from 1.2.2008. The Bank gave Ext.P4 intimation to the second respondent regarding enhancement of the rate of interest. Later, the Bank again enhanced the rate of interest to 13% per annum. The Bank gave Ext.P5 intimation to the second respondent regarding the enhancement of the rate of interest. Then the second respondent submitted Ext.P6 complaint to the Kerala Co-operative Ombudsman (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ombudsman'), challenging the enhancement of the rate at which interest is payable by him on the amount of loan sanctioned. As per Ext.P8 order, the Ombudsman found that the Bank caused deficiency in service. The Ombudsman directed the bank to honour its commitment as agreed to by it at the time of sanctioning the loan to the second respondent. The Bank filed the writ petition for quashing Ext.P8 order passed by the Ombudsman and to declare that the second respondent is liable to pay interest on the amount of loan at the enhanced rate.

3. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition contending that he is liable to pay interest only at the rate of 7.75% per annum as per the agreement executed by him and that the Bank has no authority to enhance the rate of interest.

4. The learned single Judge found that the Bank cannot unilaterally change the terms of the contract entered into by it with the second respondent and modify the rate of interest. The learned single Judge rejected the contention raised by the Bank that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed the second respondent and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge, the Bank has filed W.A.No.2058 of 2015.

W.A.No.1665 of 2016

5. This appeal arises from the judgment in W.P.(C) No.22652 of 2015. The facts of this case are more or less similar to the facts in W.A.No.2058 of 2015. In this case, the loan was sanctioned by the Bank to the appellant herein. The amount of loan sanctioned was Rs.6,00,000/-. It was repayable with interest at the rate of 7.25% per annum in 120 monthly instalments. The appellant executed Ext.P2 agreement on 25.3.2006 which contained the terms and conditions of the loan transaction. Subsequently, the Bank enhanced the rate of interest to 9% per annum with effect from 1.2.2008 and from 9% to 13% from 2.11.2011 onwards. The appellant then filed Ext.P5 complaint before the Ombudsman against the action of the Bank enhancing the rate of int