JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks that the amounts entrusted by it with the Meenachil Rubber Marketing and Processing Co-operative Society Ltd., under fixed deposits, be returned since such deposits have attained maturity; but the said Society, while admitting its liability without any reservation, refuses to repay, trying to obtain shelter on hyper technical defences including that this writ petition is incompetent because a writ petition is not maintainable against a Co-operative Society. Though reliance is placed by the Society on various precedents in an attempt to garner force for this contention, I find, as I will presently say, in the absence of any dispute regarding liability in repayment and in view of their express and unequivocal admission of such liability, to hold against it and to order this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is also a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules, who are engaged, inter alia, in banking business. The petitioner says that it is a Class I Special Grade Bank having deposits of more than Rupees One Crore and that it has deposited certain surplus amounts with it in other co-operative institutions as well as in the District Co-operative Bank. The petitioner says that it had accordingly deposited an amount of Rs.90 lakhs in the Meenachil Rubber Marketing & Processing Co-operative Society Ltd. ('the Society' for brevity), the first respondent herein, as fixed deposits, discernible from Exhibit P1 series deposits. 3. According to the petitioner, the fixed deposit matured for payment on 14.04.2015 and it alleges that in spite of the deposit having matured for repayment, the first respondent refused to repay its proceeds. They, therefore, say that they have sent legal notices to the first respondent to which it had caused Exhibit P2 reply to be issued. The petitioner asserts that in Exhibit P2 the first respondent has not denied their liability for payment of the amount covered by the fixed deposits but has only explained their inability to make payment on account of their alleged financial constraints. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition seeking directions against the first respondent and its managing committee to repay the amounts covered by Exhibit P1 series of fixed deposits. 4. I have heard Sri. P.N. Mohanan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition seeking directions against the first respondent and its managing committee to repay the amounts covered by Exhibit P1 series of fixed deposits. 4. I have heard Sri. P.N. Mohanan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Shaji Thomas, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the third respondent. 5. The pleadings on record would show that the first respondent does not in any manner contest the claim of the petitioner for repayment of the amounts covered by Exhibit P1 series fixed deposits. In fact, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent stating that they are taking all efforts to refund the fixed deposits of the various depositors, including the petitioner, without any delay. The first respondent, however, maintains that it has been unable to make payment on account of its precarious financial position, which they claim is primarily on account of the fall in the price of rubber latex from Rs.250/-, all the way down to Rs.125/- in the open market. They also say, in their pleadings on record, that several amounts are due to them from various persons and institutions and that they will be able to repay the fixed deposits if all those amounts are recovered. 6. The first respondent thereafter filed an additional counter affidavit dated 08.03.2017, wherein they further state that the Managing Committee of the Society has decided, in their general body meeting held on 22.12.2016, to sell the immovable properties of the Society and to pay off the amounts due to the depositors. The said decision of the general body has been placed on record as Exhibit R1(c). It is also stated that the properties are worth more than Rs.28 crores and that steps have been already initiated by the Managing Committee to sell it and to repay the deposits. 7. Even though in the counter affidavits they have unequivocally admitted the liability, the Society raises a jurisdictional issue during the hearing of this writ petition contending that a writ petition is not maintainable against the Society. 7. Even though in the counter affidavits they have unequivocally admitted the liability, the Society raises a jurisdictional issue during the hearing of this writ petition contending that a writ petition is not maintainable against the Society. For this purpose, the learned Standing counsel for the Society relies on the judgments of a Full Bench of this Court in John v. Liquidator ( 2006 (1) KLT 11 ), of a Larger Bench of this Court in Association of Milma Officers' Ksheera Bhavan, Tvm v. State of Kerala (2015 (1) KHC 779) and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thalappalam Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2013 (4) KHC 131). The learned Standing Counsel also relies on Exhibit R1(d) judgment, which is one by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1202/2007, holding that the refusal of a Society to repay the fixed deposit amounts would construe to be a dispute under the provisions of the Act and that the proper remedy is to initiate action under Section 69 thereof. 8. In Association of Milma Officers' (supra), this Court has declared that writ petitions against Co-operative Societies are maintainable when the action complained of amounts to statutory violations and that when the action of the Society, as alleged, falls in a public domain or relates to breach of statutory or public duty, a writ petition can be entertained. In John (supra), a Full bench of this Court reiterated a similar view that a writ will lie against a society only when the duty owed by such society is of a public nature or when there is infringement of any statutory Rule by such Society. As regards Thalappalam Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the issue whether a co-operative society registered under the Act will fall within the definition of a 'Public Authority' under the provisions of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act. After considering all the earlier judgments in this area, the Hon'ble Court concluded that Co-operative Societies are not 'Public Authorities' and that they are not legally obliged to furnish information sought by a citizen under the mandate of the Right to Information Act. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for the Society, I am aware, has referred to the above judgments in support of his contention that the writ petition is not maintainable. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for the Society, I am aware, has referred to the above judgments in support of his contention that the writ petition is not maintainable. According to him, the disputes between the parties are contractual in nature and, therefore, that the proper remedy for the petitioner is to invoke the provisions of Section 69 of the Act. This submission may look attractive at initial glance, but enervates on a closer scrutiny. This is because, in this case the liability of the society to make repayment of the amounts covered by the fixed deposits is expressly and unambiguously admitted. They have expressly stated in the counter affidavits filed by them that they are willing to make payment and there is no doubt about it. In the absence of any dispute being raised by the Society, I fail to comprehend how it could contend that the petitioner should invoke the statutory remedies under the Act. It is obvious that invocation of such remedies would be required only if a dispute has been raised by the Society against payment of the amounts. In Exhibit R1(d) judgment also, it is obvious that the facts involved are completely different. The facts noticed in the said judgment clearly show that there were disputes raised by the Society in that case regarding repayment. It is solely noticing the specific disputes raised by the Society in making payment that the Division Bench relegated the petitioner to invoke statutory remedies. 10. In the present case, there is no such dispute and on the contrary there is full and unqualified admission of liability to make payment of the amounts covered by the fixed deposits. The ratio in all the judgments seen above is indisputable that a writ petition against a Co-operative Society would lie only if there is breach of statutory or public duty. The learned Standing Counsel for the Society contends that there is no such violation and that the failure of the first respondent to make payment of the amounts covered by the fixed deposits was on account of dire financial constraints and, therefore, that no writ petition can be maintained. I am afraid that I cannot concede to this submission of the learned counsel because I find that the Society in this case unequivocally concedes to its liability to make payment of the proceeds of the now matured fixed deposits. 11. I am afraid that I cannot concede to this submission of the learned counsel because I find that the Society in this case unequivocally concedes to its liability to make payment of the proceeds of the now matured fixed deposits. 11. Further, there are clear statutory requirements and prescriptions in the Act which mandate that if a society fails to honour its financial commitments, the competent statutory authorities are enjoined and obligated to take such action as is mandated under the Act. When a depositor complains that a society has not honoured its financial commitment which it was legally bound to do, it would be open to the concerned statutory authorities to take such action, as is warranted and mandated under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, to ensure that the society either honours such commitments or that resources are created through due procedure, either by liquidation of the assets of the society or through such other methods, for the purpose of clearing and honouring such liabilities. When such a duty is cast upon the statutory authorities and since such authorities are also in the party array of the respondents in this writ petition, I am unable to see how the Society can maintain that this writ petition cannot lie, especially since this Court can always modulate the reliefs to be granted, including by issuing directions to the competent statutory authorities to take action against the Society if they fail in their statutory and legal duties. I, therefore, cannot find myself to be in agreement with the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the Society that this writ petition is not maintainable and I, therefore, repel the same. 12. Since the Society has admitted the liability and since the only defence taken by them against repayment of the amounts covered by fixed deposits is that they have no fiscal resources to do so, I am drawn to consider how the petitioner can be effectively given relief in this writ petition. 13. The additional counter affidavit on behalf of the Society states that they are taking steps to have their assets sold or otherwise liquidated so as to pay off the liability cast upon them. This additional counter affidavit has been filed as early as on 16.03.2017. 13. The additional counter affidavit on behalf of the Society states that they are taking steps to have their assets sold or otherwise liquidated so as to pay off the liability cast upon them. This additional counter affidavit has been filed as early as on 16.03.2017. However, there is nothing further on record to show what steps have been taken by the Society in furtherance of their stated objective in finding resources. The learned counsel for the Society has also not been able to inform this Court the present state of such endeavour and as to whether the Society has been able to create any resources by such sale of its assets. Since the Society has not come clean on this for the last more than four months, I deem it necessary that this writ petition be ordered directing the Society to repay to the petitioner the amounts covered by Exhibit P1 series fixed deposits within a time frame.In such circumstances and for the reasons stated above, I allow this writ petition and direct the Society to pay to the petitioner the entire amount along with applicable interest within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If such payment is not made by the Society within the time granted herein, it will be obligated to pay an additional interest at the rate of 9% per annum on such sum from the date when the period granted in this judgment expires until it is actually paid. If, even after the expiry of the period fixed herein, the Society does not make payment of the amounts, then the third respondent will be obligated by the terms of this judgment to initiate such action, as is permitted under the Act and the Rules, against the Society to ensure that its financial commitments, including towards the petitioner, is honoured without any further delay and for such purpose to pursue all legally sanctioned procedure and prescriptions under the Act and Rules and take it to its necessary and requisite conclusion.