The appellant lacked locus standi to obtain sale details from the bank, as there was no ongoing sale process or auction for the property.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.25761 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 15.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition. The appellant-writ petitioner approached this Court with the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent Joint Registrar (General), Co-operative Societies to forthwith consider Ext.P3 representation dated 07.07.2025 submitted by him under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, and also a writ of mandamus directing the 4^th respondent Chief Executive Officer of Irinjalakuda Town Co-operative Bank to furnish complete particulars and documents relating to the sale proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 sale notice dated 17.01.2022 issued by the 3^rd respondent Irinjalakuda Town Co-operative Bank, including whether any further steps or sale of notified property were initiated or concluded thereafter.

2. According to the appellant, the 3^rd respondent Bank issued Ext.P1 sale notice dated 24.01.2022 for multiple plots with a reserve price of Rs.6.75 Crores, scheduling sale on 28.02.2022. The appellant is interested in acquiring 14 Acres of land for establishing a Hospital. Therefore, he is interested in the sale notice published by the Bank. But the sale did not take place on the scheduled date. The 3^rd respondent refused to disclose details to the appellant, despite his enquiries. Ext.P2 representation dated 01.07.2025 and Ext.P3 subsequent representation dated 07.07.2025 submitted under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act by the appellant remained unaddressed. Hence, the appellant filed the writ petition.

3. The learned Single Judge, on perusal of the documents and pleadings, dismissed the writ petition by the impugned judgment dated 15.07.2025. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of that judgment read thus:

“3. The petitioner approached the Bank by filing Ext.P2 on 01.07.2025, seeking the proposed date of sale of the property. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner has no cause of action to institute this Writ Petition, as there is nothing to show that the property is proposed to be sold in any proceedings under the Co-operative Societies Act. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that Ext.P3 representation, which appears to have been filed under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, is not sustainable in view of the fact that the petitioner is not a member of the Co-operative Society.

4. On a perusal of the pleadings and the documents produced, it appears that there is nothing to show that respondent No.3 Bank has scheduled any sale in respect of the property involved. This Court is of the view that the petitioner has no locus standi to insist the authorities of the Bank or the Registrar to give any information regarding the proposed sale of the property. The learned Government Pleader submits that if the property is to be auctioned, the same will be published on the Bank’s notice board.

5. It is evident from the pleadings of the petitioner that, after 17.01.2022, the Bank has not offered this property for sale in a public auction. As rightly submitted by the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner has no cause of action as of now to institute this Writ Petition seeking the date of sale of the property. If the bank or any other competent authority proposes to sell the property in public auction, it will be duly notified as per the statutory formalities. The petitioner will be at liberty to participate in any such proposed auction.”

4. Heard th