A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable for challenging arbitration awards passed under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969; the aggrieved party must instead exhaust statutory remedies like filing an appeal or moving to set aside ex parte awards before the Co-operative Tribunal.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed challenging the demand notices issued by the 4^th respondent in connection with the execution of Awards obtained by the 1^st respondent bank in proceedings under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) .

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were never served with summons in the arbitration proceedings and that they have never subscribed to any chitty transaction. It is submitted that the petitioners had earlier raised complaints that they were being proceeded against on the basis that they were subscribers to chitty transactions. It is submitted that the 1^st petitioner’s father (the 2^nd petitioner’s husband) was an employee of the 1^st respondent bank and after having retired in the year 2017, he had received all retirement benefits and if there had been any liability, his retirement benefits would not have been released by the 1^st respondent. It is submitted that, on receipt of Exhibit P1, when the petitioners raised complaints before the 3^rd respondent, the 3^rd respondent issued Exhibits P2 and P2(a) communications stating that the father of the 1^st petitioner/husband of the 2^nd petitioner might have subscribed to the chitties in the names of the petitioners. It is submitted that since the petitioners have clearly not received the benefits of any chitty subscription, they should not be proceeded against for recovery.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that the contentions now raised before this Court are not contentions which can be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioners have even today not attempted to get the Awards set aside either by filing an appeal under Section 82 of the Act or by applying for setting aside the ex parte Awards. It is submitted that, the bank had initiated proceedings under Section 69 of the Act and had proved its case before the arbitrator and accordingly the Awards were passed determining the liability of the petitioners. It is submitted that, if the petitioners are in any manner aggrieved by the recovery proceedings, it is for them to challenge the Awards by approaching the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent bank and in the peculiar facts and circumstances noticed above, I am of the opinion that the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent bank is right in contending that the remedy of the petitioners would lie in challenging the Awards in the proceedings initiated by the 1^st respondent bank under Section 69 of the Act and, they cannot, without challenging the Awards, seek to restrain the bank/sale officer from continuing with the proceedings for execution of the Awards. Since it is the specific case of the petitioners that they have not received any summons in the arbitration proceedings and they have also not received copies of the Awards, this writ petition can be closed by permitting the petitioners to approach the 3^rd respondent with an application for copies of the Awards and thereafter, they can be permitted to either apply for setting aside the ex parte Awards or to file an appeal/revision before the Co-operative Tribunal, in accordance with the law.

Therefore, it is directed that if the petitioners approach the 4^th respondent for copies of the Awards, which led to the issuance of the demand notices impugned in this writ petition, the 4^th respondent shall provide the petitioners with copies of the Awards in question and thereafter the petitioners shall be permitted to either challenge those Awards or apply for settin