IMPORTANT POINTS:
" Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to advance justice and not to thwart it. The very purpose of such constitutional powers being conferred on the High Court is that no man should be subjected to injustice by violating the law and therefore, the lookout of the High Courts, in such circumstances, should not merely be to pick out an error of law through an academic angle, but should be to see whether injustice had resulted on account of any erroneous interpretation of law.
" Usually when writ petition is entertained notwithstanding availability of alternative remedy and issues are decided on merits, this Court is slow to interfere merely on the ground of availability of alternative remedy"

Ravikumar, J.

This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.11.2017 in W.P(C) No.29293 of 2017. The questions to be answered are whether existence of an alternative remedy should always be a bar for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and whether the appellate power under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 should be exercised to interfere with judgment of a Single Bench passed in such a writ petition ignoring the availability of alternative remedy merely on that solitary reason? These certain allied important questions crop up for consideration in the following factual matrix:-

The Gandhigram Agro Based Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd.No.5-1ND(K) 191 [hereinafter called the appellant] viz., the first respondent in the writ petition received fixed deposit to the tune of Rs. 56,00,000/-from the writ petitioner-Co-operative Bank, viz., the first respondent herein. The factum of receipt of the aforesaid amount as fixed deposit is not disputed by the appellant and in fact, it is evident from Exts.P2 to P4. Receipt of money in fixed term deposit repayable on demand and offering interest thereon, is essentially a banking business. Offering of interest thereon as also the duty coupled with liability to repay the said amount, either on maturity or demand, are also not in dispute. The fact is that even after the maturity of the fixed deposit and despite repeated requests, the appellant did not repay the fixed deposit and that constrained the first respondent herein to file the above mentioned writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, passed the impugned judgment, whereby and whereunder a direction was issued to the appellant-society to pay the amount due under the matured fixed deposit receipt to the first respondent-petitioner within the period of fixed deposit. The appellant-Bank (the first respondent therein) is aggrieved by the same.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and also the learned Government Pleader.

3. As already noticed, a bare perusal of the pleadings of the appellant in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition and also in the writ appeal would reveal that the factum of receipt of fixed deposit of Rs. 56,00,000/- and offering interest thereon as also the liability to repay the amount on demand are not at all in dispute. In fact, they are indisputable in view of Exts.P2 to P4 Term Deposit Receipts. At the same time, evidently, they raised the contention as to the maintainability of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge on the ground of existence of alternative efficacious remedy under the Co-operative Societies Act itself. It is to be noted that both the appellant as also the first respondent herein are registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the existence of alternative efficacious remedy, the learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained the writ petition and ought to have relegated the party to avail the remedy under the Cooperative Societies Act. It is pertinent to note that it is not the case of the appellant that this court lacks jurisdiction whereas the contention is that in view of the existence of alternative efficacious remedy, the writ petition ought not to have been entertained. Despite the said contention, the learned Single Judge exercised the discretion and entertained the writ petition and disposed it on the aforesaid lines. To buttress the contention that the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the aforesaid ground and in such circumstances, the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KHC 786 (SC)] and Division Bench d