K UTHAMAN Vs. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE OMBUDSMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first prayer in the writ petition filed by the appellant is for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the second respondent bank to credit the loan amount into his Savings Bank Account maintained therein. More than 16 years have elapsed since the original loan was sanctioned and cancelled and the time for repayment of the loan has already run out long ago. It will be inequitable therefore to direct the bank to transfer the loan amount at this distance of time especially when the co-operative bank is not a State within Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The second prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent Ombudsman to order an enquiry into the irregularities allegedly committed by the bank. The irregularities pertain to the cancellation of the loan sanctioned which was specifically urged by the appellant in Complaint No.150/2013 on the file of the Ombudsman. But surprisingly the order of the Ombudsman has not been sought to be quashed despite a specific plea to that effect in the counter affidavit filed by the bank. Nothing precluded the appellant from amending the writ petition which has not been done and the prayer to order an enquiry in the face of the order of the Ombudsman cannot be countenanced.

(3.) The third prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent Ombudsman to grant the expenses incurred by the appellant in the conduct of the case. The Ombudsman has thought it fit to grant a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the appellant in disposal of Complaint No.150/2013 taking note of the hardship suffered and monetary loss. The quantum of costs is essentially in the discretion of the Ombudsman which cannot be tinkered with in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.