P.S. Narayana, J.@mdashThe present appeal is directed against the order dated 27-7-2004 made in W.P. No. 13036 of 2004.
2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable and aggrieved by the same, the appellant-petitioner Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited, Hyderabad Branch has preferred this present writ appeal.
3. Smt. V. Dyumani, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that in view of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 60 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act 2002, (for short the Act) remedy is available to the Bank to recover the amount as per the agreement entered into between the Bank and the borrower, and hence the relief prayed for should have been granted; instead the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition at the stage of admission even without ordering notice. The learned Counsel also would submit that though other adequate remedies may be available, it would take sufficient time to effect the recovery and hence in view of the fact that the appellant-petitioner also is a Co-operative Bank and in the light of commitment made by the Department, viz., Home Department, the said commitment is to be honoured and therefore it is a fit matter where notice may have to be ordered.
4. On the contrary, the learned Government Pleader for Home submitted that there are other adequate remedies provided under the Act itself. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the Government Pleader had also drawn the attention of this Court to Sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the Act and would submit that in view of the specific provision, the Society shall be entitled to recover any such amount from such employer as arrears of land revenue and the amount so due from such employer shall rank in priority in respect of the liability of such employer equal to that of the salary or wages in arrears. Since alternative remedy as provided under Sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the Act and also other remedy by way of arbitration are available, the writ petition is not maintainable.
5. Heard both the Counsel.
6. The appellant filed the writ petition praying to declare that the inaction/ omission on the part of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in honouring their commitment given in latter dated 22-5-2002 undertaking that they will deduct the salary of Respondent No. 4, till they receive further instructions from the petitioner, is arbitrary, illegal, capricious and opposed to public policy and consequently direct the Respondent No. 3 herein to deduct the salary of Respondent No. 4 as per their undertaking letter and remit the same to the petitioner bank till ''no due certificate'' is issued by the petitioner.
7. The case of the appellant in brief is as under:
The fourth respondent is working as Junior Assistant in the office of the Additional Commissioner of Police and when he approached the appellant/petitioner Bank for a personal loan of Rs. 40,000/- and when the appellant/petitioner insisted for undertaking letter from the Respondent No. 3 to who is Drawing Officer, the third respondent issued letter of undertaking. Accordingly, the loan was released which is repayable in 30 monthly installments. It is stated that the 4th respondent paid certain installments and committed default and he has to pay a balance of Rs. 25,000/- as on 12-12-2004. In spite of letter, and legal notice dated 23-6-2004, the third respondent failed to honour his commitment and remit the installments. Hence, the writ petition was filed.
8. Section 60 of the Act, reads as follows:
Deduction from salary to meet Multi-State Co-operative Society''s claim in certain cases:-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a member of a Multi-State Cooperative Society may execute an agreement in favour of that society providing that his employer disbursing his salary or wages shall be competent to deduct every month from the salary or wages payable to him, such amount as may be specified in the agreement and to pay the amount so deducted to the society in satisfaction of any debt or other demand the member owes to the society.
(2) On the execution of such agreement, the employer disbursing the salary or wages of the members shall, if so required by the Multi-State Co-operative Society, by a requisition in writing and so long as the society does not intimate that the whole of such debt or other demand has been paid, make the deduction in accordance with the agreement and pay the amount so deducted to the society within a period of fourteen days of the date on which deduction has been made, as if it were a part of the salary or wages payable on the day as required under as required under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (4 of 1936), and such payment shall be valid discharge of the employer for his liability to pay the amount deducted.
(3) If after the receipt of a requisition made under Sub-section (2), the employer disbursing the salary or wages of the member at any time fails to deduct the amount specified in the requisition from the salary or wages payable to the member concerned or makes default in remitting the amount deducted to the Multi-State Co-op. Society, the society shall be entitled to recover any such amount from such employer as arrears of land revenue and the amount so due from such employer shall rank in priority in respect of the liability of such employer equal to that of the salary or wages in arrears."
9. It is clear from Sub-section (3) that the society shall be entitled to recover any such amount supra from such employer as arrears of land revenue and the amount so due from such employer shall rank in priority in respect of the liability of such employer equal to that of the salary or wages in arrears. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge also observed that there are adequate remedies provided under the Act to make recovery by way of arbitration or by filing an original application before the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal. Apart from this aspect of the matter what is complained of is the breach of agreement. It is needless to say that a writ Court cannot enforce such an agreement which has been specified in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Hence, the views expressed by the learned Single Judge that the writ petition is not maintainable do not suffer from any legal infirmity and therefore the said findings are hereby confirmed. The writ appeal is devoid of merit.
10. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
