Disputes regarding loan liabilities involving Co-operative Societies must be adjudicated through statutory arbitration under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, rather than through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21^st day of May, 2026 The petitioner has availed credit facilities from the 4^th respondent Bank, which is a Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank constituted under the provisions of the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Banks Act, 1984 (In short ‘the CARD Bank Act’). According to the petitioner, proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the CARD Bank Act, on the basis that the petitioner has availed certain loans (loans other than those admitted by the petitioner) from the Bank.

2. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount towards the loans not availed by him. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.24140 of 2025 which was disposed of by Ext.P23 judgment, directing the consideration of a representation submitted by the petitioner before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Idukki. By Ext.P24 order dated 31.01.2026, the representation submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the Joint Registrar, for reasons stated therein. The petitioner is thus before this Court challenging Ext.P24 on various grounds.

3. The learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 would submit that the petitioner cannot have a dispute of this nature adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that in the light of the findings of this Court in Suresh v.

State of Kerala [2026 (1) KLT 422], if at all the petitioner has any grievance, it is for the petitioner to raise such dispute in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (In short ‘the 1969 Act’).

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would then submit that proceedings under Section 69 of the 1969 Act would be conducted by the Assistant Registrar on the basis of notification issued under Section 3 of the 1969 Act and since the Joint Registrar has already taken a view in Ext.P24, it may not be possible for the petitioner to have the matter adjudicated in a proper manner before the Assistant Registrar, who is an officer subordinate to the Joint Registrar.

5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents and the learned Counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5, I am of the opinion that there is considerable merit in the contention taken by the learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5, that a dispute of this nature cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner invited Ext.P24 order by filing a representation before the Joint Registrar and seeking a direction to the Joint Registrar to consider and dispose of the same by filing W.P.(C) No.16898 of 2026. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to now contend that he cannot avail the remedy open to him under Section 69 of the 1969 Act. This Court has already held that even in respect of the proceedings initiated under the CARD Bank Act, the remedy available under Section 69 of the 1969 Act, can be invoked in case there is any dispute with a Bank constituted under the provisions of the CARD Bank Act.

6. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has to seek the remedy available to him under Section 69 of the 1969 Act, if he is in any manner aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against him by the 4^th respondent under the provisions of the CARD Bank Act. It is made clear that if the petitioner invokes such statutory remedy, such proceeding shall be concluded without being i