The Government's power to grant exemptions under Section 101 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act is valid if justified by public interest, and is subject to judicial review for legality.

1. Introduction:
In this batch of writ petitions what falls for consideration is the scope and extent of S.101 of the Kerala Co - operative Societies Act, 1969 ('the Act' for brevity). In other words, in terms of S.101 of the Act, whether the Government as a delegate can have unbridled powers to exempt any society from the operation of the provisions of the Act, especially with specific reference to S.7(1)(c) of the Act?

2. In all the writ petitions the petitioners, different Co - operative Banks, have a common grievance against the same set of respondents. This Court, therefore, proposes to dispose of all the writ petitions through a common judgment. For the purpose of convenience and ease of reference, the facts pleaded and parties arrayed in WP (C) No. 4949/2015 are taken as the basis.

3. Facts in Brief:
The facts in brief are that all the writ petitions have been filed by the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Banks functioning in Kozhikode District. They ventilate their grievance that Karassery Service Cooperative Bank, the second respondent in WP (C) No. 4949/2015, has been given a blanket permission to extend its area of operation across the length and breadth of Kozhikode Taluk; it was, thus, exempted from the mischief of S.7(1)(c) of the Act. In other words, the exemption granted in favour of the second respondent Bank is to the prejudice of the petitioner Banks.

4. The second respondent Bank, registered on 22/09/1994, initially, had its area of operation confined to Karassery Panchayat of Kozhikode Taluk with only 537 members. On the other hand, the petitioner Banks, five in number, having been established many decades ago, have thousands of members in their ranks, with different and distinct areas of operations.

5. The singular grievance of the petitioner Banks is that the second respondent Bank could obtain Ext. P8 exemption, ostensibly under S.101 of the Act, clearly in violation of S.2(oaa) of the Act, thereby extending its areas of operations across Kozhikode Taluk. If Ext. P8 order of exemption is allowed to operate, it will sound a death knell to more than twenty - seven Co - operative Banks, including the petitioners, in the face of unhealthy competition. The very existence of the other Co - operative Banks is in peril.

6. Thus, assailing the exemption granted by the Government in favour of the second respondent Bank, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. Similarly, many other Co - operative Banks of the area have filed the rest of writ petitions ventilating the same grievance.

7. Summary of Submissions:
Petitioners':

Sri. P. N. Mohanan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has begun his submissions laying emphasis on the fact that the second respondent Bank was established only in 1994 with minimal membership of 537; rest of the members are D class members without any voting right, but with a facility of borrowing from the second respondent Bank. According to him, the second respondent Bank initially managed to obtain permission to have two collection centres at Ramanattukara and Thamarassery Panchayats - beyond its area of operaton - though R.178A of the Kerala Co - operative Societies Rules, 1969 ('the Rules' for brevity). He contends that the said provision exclusively deals with opening of the branches but not collection centres, which are available only for the Milk Cooperative Societies. The exemption granted by the Government, contends the learned counsel, is for the individual benefit