Point of Law : It is settled in law that misquoting or non-quoting of provision of law is not a ground to dismiss an application or a legal proceeding, if petition is otherwise maintainable in eye of law, same shall be entertained, treating same, as one filed under relevant provision.

JUDGMENT :

Original Petition No.1831/2021 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, challenging Ext.P5 order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in Revision Petition No.102/2019.

2. According to the petitioner, despite having assertion on the part of the petitioner that the petitioner's name is A.P.Thomas alias Tomy Peter, the learned Tribunal remanded the matter for the purpose of deciding as to whether A.P.Thomas alias Tomy Peter are one and same person.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's name is A.P.Thomas alias Tomy Peter and the petitioner produced Ext.P8 certificate issued by the Village Officer dated 11.03.2013 stating that A.P.Thomas, S/o.Peter T.Anthikatt, Anthikkatt (H), Kadavanthra and Tomy Peter, S/o.Peter T.Anthikatt, Anthikkatt (H), Kadavanthra, Ernakulam are one and the same person.

4. Though the learned counsel for the Co-operative Society, the respondents herein, specifically asserted that the Tomy Peter is a different person, when he was asked whether any other person claiming himself as Tomy Peter approached the Society and claimed the Fixed Deposit, he conceded that no other person approached the Society till today. Thus, it appears that A.P.Thomas alias Tomy Peter is one and the same person and, therefore, the challenge on this ground is totally unsustainable.

5. Before concluding this point, it is necessary to address the question of maintainability of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Co-operative Society that as per the decision reported in Valsaraj v. Rajan and Others : 2019 KHC 613, this Court observed that a Judicial Officer exercising the powers of State Transport Appellate Tribunal, acts as a persona designata and not in his capacity as pre-existing judicial authority in the district, he being a District Judge. Therefore, judgment/order of the State Appellate Tribunal is not a judgment/order of a Civil court against which the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Co-operative Society that the status of Co-operative Tribunal is at par with the status of Appellate Tribunal and, therefore, a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable. It is submitted further that in view of the ratio in Valsaraj's case (Supra), a petition challenging the said order under Article 226 is perfectly maintainable. I do agree with the settled law.

6. It is settled in law that misquoting or non-quoting of provision of law is not a ground to dismiss an application or a legal proceeding, if the petition is otherwise maintainable in the eye of law, the same shall be entertained, treating the same, as one filed under the relevant provision. In view of the above settled law, I am inclined to treat this petition as one filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, accordingly, this challenge at the instance of the Co operative Society is not found maintainable.

7. As I have already observed, according to the petitioner in Original Petition No.1831/2021, he had made 12 deposits as detailed below:

Out of which Item Nos.3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are in the name of Tomy Peter and other deposits are in the name of A.P.Thomas.

8. The crux of the dispute is that A.P.Thomas alias Tomy Peter made Fixed Deposit in SC/ST Co-operative Society Ltd.