JUDGMENT : R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J. 1. These Writ Appeals, W.A.No.2058 of 2015 and W.A.No.1665 of 2016 are filed challenging the judgments rendered by two learned single Judges of this Court in W.P.(C) No.27785 of 2013 and W.P.(C) No.22652 of 2015 respectively. W.A.No.2058/2015 2. This appeal arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.27785 of 2013. The brief facts of this case are as follows: The Kerala State Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank), the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27785 of 2013, sanctioned a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of the second respondent from its Kannur Branch. The loan was sanctioned to the second respondent on the basis of the application dated 26.04.2005 submitted by him. The loan was granted to him for construction of a house. As per Ext.P1 letter dated 23.5.2005, the Bank gave intimation to the second respondent regarding the sanctioning of the loan. The loan amount was repayable in 180 monthly instalments with interest at the rate of 7.75% per annum. The second respondent executed Ext.P3 agreement dated 31.5.2005 containing the terms and conditions of the loan transaction. He also executed Ext.P2 promissory note for the amount of the loan with interest at the rate of 7.75% per annum. According to the Bank, the rate of interest was fixed at a lower level of 7.75% per annum because the loan was provided under the refinancing scheme of NABARD. Later NABARD stopped the refinancing facility. Therefore, the Bank had to enhance the rate of interest to 9% per annum with effect from 1.2.2008. The Bank gave Ext.P4 intimation to the second respondent regarding enhancement of the rate of interest. Later, the Bank again enhanced the rate of interest to 13% per annum. The Bank gave Ext.P5 intimation to the second respondent regarding the enhancement of the rate of interest. Then the second respondent submitted Ext.P6 complaint to the Kerala Co-operative Ombudsman (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ombudsman'), challenging the enhancement of the rate at which interest is payable by him on the amount of loan sanctioned. As per Ext.P8 order, the Ombudsman found that the Bank caused deficiency in service. The Ombudsman directed the bank to honour its commitment as agreed to by it at the time of sanctioning the loan to the second respondent. As per Ext.P8 order, the Ombudsman found that the Bank caused deficiency in service. The Ombudsman directed the bank to honour its commitment as agreed to by it at the time of sanctioning the loan to the second respondent. The Bank filed the writ petition for quashing Ext.P8 order passed by the Ombudsman and to declare that the second respondent is liable to pay interest on the amount of loan at the enhanced rate. 3. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition contending that he is liable to pay interest only at the rate of 7.75% per annum as per the agreement executed by him and that the Bank has no authority to enhance the rate of interest. 4. The learned single Judge found that the Bank cannot unilaterally change the terms of the contract entered into by it with the second respondent and modify the rate of interest. The learned single Judge rejected the contention raised by the Bank that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed the second respondent and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge, the Bank has filed W.A.No.2058 of 2015. W.A.No.1665 of 2016 5. This appeal arises from the judgment in W.P.(C) No.22652 of 2015. The facts of this case are more or less similar to the facts in W.A.No.2058 of 2015. In this case, the loan was sanctioned by the Bank to the appellant herein. The amount of loan sanctioned was Rs.6,00,000/-. It was repayable with interest at the rate of 7.25% per annum in 120 monthly instalments. The appellant executed Ext.P2 agreement on 25.3.2006 which contained the terms and conditions of the loan transaction. Subsequently, the Bank enhanced the rate of interest to 9% per annum with effect from 1.2.2008 and from 9% to 13% from 2.11.2011 onwards. The appellant then filed Ext.P5 complaint before the Ombudsman against the action of the Bank enhancing the rate of interest. As per Ext.P7 order, the Ombudsman found that enhancement of the rate of interest from 7.25% to 9% was on 30.1.2008, that the appellant did not question the action of the bank in that regard within a period of five years and therefore, the challenge in that regard is barred by limitation. As per Ext.P7 order, the Ombudsman found that enhancement of the rate of interest from 7.25% to 9% was on 30.1.2008, that the appellant did not question the action of the bank in that regard within a period of five years and therefore, the challenge in that regard is barred by limitation. The Ombudsman also found that the bank can charge interest at the rate of 7.25% from 25.3.2006 to 30.1.2008 and at the rate of 9% per annum from 30.1.2008 onwards. The Bank challenged the aforesaid order of the Ombudsman by filing writ petition W.P(C) No. 22652 of 2015. 6. The appellant herein had filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition contending that he is liable to pay interest only at the rate provided in the agreement executed by him and that the Bank has no authority to unilaterally enhance the rate of interest. 7. The learned single Judge found that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that the remedy of the appellant was under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and accordingly, allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge, the borrower, who is the second respondent in the writ petition, has filed W.A.No.1665 of 2016. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the respondents in both the Writ Appeals. 9. On the basis of the rival contentions raised by the parties, the question which essentially falls for consideration in these Writ Appeals is whether the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint regarding variation/enhancement of the rate at which interest is payable on the amount of loan granted to a person by the Bank pursuant to an agreement executed between the Bank and the borrower. 10. Section 69 of the Act states the disputes which are required to be decided by the Arbitration Court and the Registrar under the Act. 10. Section 69 of the Act states the disputes which are required to be decided by the Arbitration Court and the Registrar under the Act. Clause (f) of Section 69(1) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if a dispute arises between the society and a person, other than a member of the society, who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had business transactions or any person claiming through such a person, such dispute shall be referred to the Co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under Section 70A, in the case of non-monetary disputes and to the Registrar, in the case of monetary disputes and the Arbitration Court, or the Registrar, as the case may be, shall decide such dispute and no other Court or authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute. 11. The expression 'dispute' is defined in Section 2(i) of the Act. Section 2(i) of the Act provides that "dispute" means any matter touching the business, constitution, establishments or management of a society capable of being the subject of litigation and includes a claim in respect of any sum payable to or by a society, whether such claim be admitted or not. 12. As per Clause 2(c) of the Kerala Co-operative Ombudsman Scheme, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme') 'complaint' is defined as follows: (c) “Complaint” means a representation in writing or through Electronic means containing a grievance alleging deficiency in Co-operative Banking Service as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the scheme”. 13. Clause 5(1) of the Scheme provides that the Ombudsman or Ombudsmen shall receive and consider complaints relating to the deficiencies in the business or services of societies filed on the grounds mentioned in paragraph 7 and facilitate their satisfaction or settlement by agreement or through conciliation and mediation between the societies concerned and the complainants or by passing an order in accordance with the Scheme. 14. A reading of Clause 5(1) of the Scheme would show that the Ombudsman could consider only complaints relating to deficiencies in the business or services of societies. It is also provided that such complaints shall be on the grounds mentioned in Clause (7) of the Scheme. 15. 14. A reading of Clause 5(1) of the Scheme would show that the Ombudsman could consider only complaints relating to deficiencies in the business or services of societies. It is also provided that such complaints shall be on the grounds mentioned in Clause (7) of the Scheme. 15. Clause 7(1) of the Scheme enumerates the grounds on which a complaint can be made to the Ombudsman. Altogether 14 grounds are mentioned in Clause 7(1) of the Scheme as (a) to (i). Of course, Clause (7) (1)(e) of the Scheme provides that any person may file a complaint before the Ombudsman on the ground of non-observance of the rate of interest /penal interest on loans and advances and rate of interest on deposits as fixed by the Registrar or Reserve Bank of India, as the case may be. However, in the instant cases, the rate at which interest is payable on the amount of loan is not fixed by the Registrar or the Reserve Bank of India but as per the agreements executed by the borrowers. Therefore, Clause (7)(1)(e) of the Scheme has no application to the facts of the cases. For the same reason, the decision in Paravur S.N.V.Regional Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Kerala Co-operative Ombudsman ( 2013 (4) KLT 520 ), relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties who are borrowers, has no application to the facts of the cases. 16. Clause (7)(2) of the Scheme provides that certain complaints shall not lie to the Ombudsman. Clause (7)(2) (e) of the Scheme provides that no complaint to the Ombudsman or Ombudsmen shall lie if the complaint is in the nature of a dispute under Section 69 of the Act or in the nature of an appeal/petition under Sections 82 and 83 of the Act. It means that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to entertain and deal with a complaint which is in the nature of a dispute under Section 69 of the Act. In this context, it is to be noted that Section 69 of the Act commences with a non-obstante clause and as per that provision, the disputes mentioned therein shall be decided only by the Co-operative Arbitration Court or the Registrar as the case may be. 17. In this context, it is to be noted that Section 69 of the Act commences with a non-obstante clause and as per that provision, the disputes mentioned therein shall be decided only by the Co-operative Arbitration Court or the Registrar as the case may be. 17. Learned counsel for the borrowers would contend that the Ombudsman has got jurisdiction to deal with a dispute relating to the rate at which interest is payable by the borrowers on loan advanced to them by the Bank. Learned counsel would rely upon the decision in Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (AIR 2004 SC 448) in support of this contention. This decision has no application to the facts of the instant cases. In that case, the question that arose was whether the Consumer Disputes Redressel Forum has got jurisdiction to deal with complaints for which remedy is provided under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. Section 90 of that Act provided the forum for taking the decision on certain disputes. The Apex Court held that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Dispute Redressel Forum is not ousted in view of the remedy provided under Section 90 of the aforesaid Act. The decision of the Apex Court was based on Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which specifically provided that the provisions of that Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. There is no similar provision contained in the Scheme. Moreover, Section 69 of the Kerala Act specifically excludes the jurisdiction of other forums to deal with disputes relating to the matters enumerated in that provision. 18. True, the Bank had not raised any objection before the Ombudsman that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. But, when the provisions of the Scheme specifically provided that no complaint shall lie before the Ombudsman in respect of disputes covered by Section 69 of the Act, submission of the Bank to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman does not give it jurisdiction to entertain and decide such a complaint. It is a case of patent lack of jurisdiction. But, when the provisions of the Scheme specifically provided that no complaint shall lie before the Ombudsman in respect of disputes covered by Section 69 of the Act, submission of the Bank to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman does not give it jurisdiction to entertain and decide such a complaint. It is a case of patent lack of jurisdiction. When the lack of jurisdiction is patent and not latent, the party who submitted to the jurisdiction of a judicial or quasi judicial tribunal is not estopped from raising the plea of lack of jurisdiction of such tribunal in the writ court (See S.C.Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas: AIR 1956 Bom 530 ). 19. In Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Director, Health Services, Haryana : (2013) 10 SCC 136 , the Supreme Court has held as follows: “Indisputably, it is a settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior court, and if the court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to nullity as the matter goes to the root of the cause. Such an issue can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The finding of a court or tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/in-executable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. Similarly, if a court/tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction, acquiescence of party equally should not be permitted to perpetrate and perpetuate defeating of the legislative animation. The court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the statute. In such eventuality the doctrine of waiver also does not apply. ….. The law does not permit any court/tribunal/authority /forum to usurp jurisdiction on any ground whatsoever, in case, such an authority does not have jurisdiction on the subject matter”. 20. The upshot of the discussion above is that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute relating to variation/enhancement of rate at which Bank can levy interest on the amount of loan advanced by it to a person. The rate of interest is fixed as per the contract between the Bank and the borrowers. It is not fixed by the Reserve Bank of India or the Registrar. Therefore, Clause 7(1) (e) of the Scheme has no application to the facts of these cases. The rate of interest is fixed as per the contract between the Bank and the borrowers. It is not fixed by the Reserve Bank of India or the Registrar. Therefore, Clause 7(1) (e) of the Scheme has no application to the facts of these cases. The Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to decide a complaint regarding variation of interest rate by the Bank in violation of the terms of the agreement executed by it and the borrowers. Ext.P8 order (in W.P.(C) No.27785 of 2013) and Ext.P7 order (in W.P.(C) No.22652 of 2015) passed by the Ombudsman are null and void for want of inherent lack of jurisdiction. 21. In the light of the finding above, it is not necessary for us to deal with the merits of the dispute regarding the rate of interest raised by the borrowers. They can work out their remedy before the competent forum. The finding of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.27785 of 2013 cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. In the view that we have taken there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.22652 of 2015. Consequently, we allow W.A.No.2058 of 2015 and set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.27785 of 2013 and quash Ext.P8 order of the Ombudsman. W.A.No.1665 of 2016 fails and it is dismissed. The parties shall suffer their respective costs in both cases.