JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the impugned order dated 27.10.2007 declining the request of the petitioner for encashment of Fixed Deposit dated 19.09.2002 with accrued interest, with a consequential relief of issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2, viz., K-445, Kothemangalam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd., to encash the fixed deposit forthwith along with interest. 2. The petitioner is an agricultural coolie having transaction with the respondent-bank. The petitioner, as the bank customer, deposited a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupess one lakh and sixty thousand only) under the scheme for Fixed Deposit carrying interest of 8.5 % p.a. The money was deposited on 19.09.2002 for a period of 25 months with maturity on 18.10.2004. 3. That there were allegations by the respondent-bank against the Ex-Secretary Late. Murugesan and 7 other employees of the respondent-bank, who were said to have misappropriated the deposited amounts and other credit loan amounts to the tune of more than Rs.1 crore. Enquiry against Ex-secretary is ordered under Sections 81 and 82 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act to prove the allegation of misappropriation of deposits of the depositors and other members of the co-operative bank. 4. That during the enquiry, the Ex-Secretary committed suicide. In view of the irregularities in conduct of business by the bank, the Managing Committee was moved and a Special Officer was appointed to look after the affairs of respondent No.2. 5. It is the case of the petitioner, that it is statutory as well as public duty of respondent No.2 to pay the maturity amount due to the depositors on maturity of FDR. On the failure of the respondent No.2 to pay the maturity amount to the petitioner, a legal notice was issued on 19.12.2004. The request of the petitioner to adjust the loan amount of his brother, who is the member of respondent No.2, was declined by the respondent No.2. The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay the maturity value of the Fixed Deposit. 6. The request of the petitioner to adjust the loan amount of his brother, who is the member of respondent No.2, was declined by the respondent No.2. The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay the maturity value of the Fixed Deposit. 6. In support of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended, that the respondent is a bank governed by the regulations of the Reserve Bank of India and therefore, has a statutory as well as public duty to pay the customers the maturity amount of the Fixed Deposit as per the terms of the deposit. 7. It is contended that the stand of the respondent-bank that the amount cannot be released as criminal cases have been filed against the officials of the bank cannot come in the way of the petitioner, as there are no allegations against the petitioner nor the petitioner is concerned with criminal cases. It is not disputed that the amount was deposited by the petitioner and the respondent No.2, therefore, is bound to honour the FDR issued by the Bank. 8. The learned counsel also placed his reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.7150 of 2005 (Rajammal vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District) decided on 20th February, 2006 and W.P.No.7500 of 2006 (N. Chandrakumaran vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Erode District) decided on 15th June, 2006, ordering disbursement of Fixed Deposits along with interest within a stipulated period. 9. The writ petition is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 by contending that respondent No.2 being a co-operative society is not amicable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In support of this contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Larger Bench Judgment of this Court in K. Marappan vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal Circle, Namakkal, 2006 (4) CTC 689 , wherein it has been held as follows:- "21. From the above discussion, the following propositions emerge: (i) If a particular co-operative society can be characterised as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution (applying the tests evolved by the Supreme Court in that behalf), it would also be 'an authority' within the meaning and for the purpose of Article 226 of the Constitution. From the above discussion, the following propositions emerge: (i) If a particular co-operative society can be characterised as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution (applying the tests evolved by the Supreme Court in that behalf), it would also be 'an authority' within the meaning and for the purpose of Article 226 of the Constitution. In such a situation, an order passed by a society in violation of the bye-laws can be corrected by way of Writ Petition; (ii) Applying the tests in Ajay Hasia it is held that a co-operative society carrying on banking business cannot be termed as an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution; (iii) Even if a society cannot be characterised as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, a Writ would lie against it to enforce a statutory public duty cast upon the society. In such a case, it is unnecessary to go into the question whether the society is being treated as a 'person' or 'an authority' within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution and what is material is the nature of the statutory duty placed upon it and the Court will enforce such statutory public duty. Although it is not easy to define what a public function or public duty is, it can reasonably said that such functions are similar to or closely related to those performable by the State in its sovereign capacity. (iv) A society, which is not a 'State' would not normally be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, but in certain circumstances, a writ may issue to such private bodies or persons as there may be statutory provisions which need to be complied with by all concerned including societies. If they violate such statutory provisions a writ would be issued for compliance of those provisions. (v) Where a Special Officer is appointed in respect of a co-operative society which cannot be characterised as a 'State' a writ would lie when the case falls under Clauses (iii) and (iv) above. (vi) The bye-laws made by a co-operative society registered under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 do not have the force of law. (v) Where a Special Officer is appointed in respect of a co-operative society which cannot be characterised as a 'State' a writ would lie when the case falls under Clauses (iii) and (iv) above. (vi) The bye-laws made by a co-operative society registered under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 do not have the force of law. Hence, where a society cannot be characterised as a 'State', the service conditions of its employees governed by its bye-laws cannot be enforced through a Writ Petition. (vii) In the absence of special circumstances, the Court will not ordinarily exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the Act provides for an alternative remedy. (viii) The decision in M. Thanikkachalam v. Madhuranthagam Agricultural Co-operative Society, 2000 (4) CTC 556 , is no longer good law, in view of the decision of the Seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas case and the other decisions referred to here before." The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 also placed reliance on Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, to contend that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the Registrar or the State Government to challenge the impugned order. Therefore, this writ petition is not competent, as the petitioner has alternative statutory remedy. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the dispute raised in this writ petition would be covered under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and therefore, the writ petition, as framed, is not competent. 10. On consideration, I find that the contention raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 cannot be accepted. The judgment, in the case of K.Marappan vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for respondent No.2, goes against respondent No.2. The Hon'ble Larger Bench, while holding that no writ is competent against the banking society, it was pleased to lay down that when the society is guilty of failure to perform its public function or public duty, then the writ would be competent. 11. It is the case where respondent No.2 has failed to perform its public duty of encashing the fixed deposit on maturity, on the ground that there are some cases pending against the employees for misappropriation, with which the writ petitioner is not concerned. 12. 11. It is the case where respondent No.2 has failed to perform its public duty of encashing the fixed deposit on maturity, on the ground that there are some cases pending against the employees for misappropriation, with which the writ petitioner is not concerned. 12. The contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the relief can be claimed under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, it being covered under Section 90, is also misconceived. Admittedly, the petitioner is neither the member of the society nor the ex-member. Therefore, the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent-bank will not be covered under Section 90 nor the Registrar or the Government will have any jurisdiction to deal with this dispute, as it does not arise out of the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. 13. Resultantly, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner deserve to be accepted, that once it is not disputed that the officers of the bank responsible for its conduct of business accepted the deposit and issued F.D. receipt to the petitioner, the payment on maturity, cannot be denied, on the ground that the officers of Bank are guilty of misappropriation and criminal cases are pending against them. The respondent No.2, thus, has failed to perform its statutory as well as public duty. 14. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order refusing to encash the fixed deposit of the petitioner with further direction to respondent No.2 to pay the fixed deposit maturity amount along with the interest at the rate of 8.5% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment, within 30 days of the receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the cost of the writ, which is assessed to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only).