High Court Karnataka High Court

Y H Balakrishna S/O … vs The State Of Karnataka By Its … on 5 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Y H Balakrishna S/O … vs The State Of Karnataka By Its … on 5 August, 2008
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
IN Tun: HIGH come? on KA1u¢A'rAz{A
AT BANGALORE   

Dated this the 5th day ofAugust,      " '

ms I-l0§'BL£ am JU8'!'lCE mar   Ki  

Writ Petition No 8935 41 2003  ' .    

 E

1.

Y.H. BAIAKRISHNA   _ ._

S/0 x.0LLAHANuMAYYA_,'  i 
AGED ABOUT45YEARS,   
YELIYURVILLRGE, g  _  - 
TQAND ra1s?T;v,MANI3YA.   _ 

DEvEGow_-ms/'<3 HAB%.UAMAYfz'A;=.A 
AGED   "  
vE;1;1YUz::V1;.1A"c;E%,   . * 
 IKND  . ' PETYFIONERS
'  ' [By  Adv. for
 s.,  S. Pan'! 5:, Associates]

~ . 3 THE; ?s'.'.A"I*--5: or-' KARNATAKA BY

"I'£'S'~SE:CR'E'I'ARY TO GOVERNMENP,

V  DEFARTMENT OF COOPERATION,-

'=M.s. BUILEJINGS,

A *-.__I3A£_~!GAVLfQRE -~ 560 om.

'1'H.E_ JOIN'I' REGISTRAR or

" I  4_CO0?ER'A'§'IVE SOCIETIES,
. _ WIYSORE DIVISIOR, MYSORE.

THE DEPUTY REGIS'¥'RAR OF
COOPERATIVE SOCIETXES,
MANDYA, DIST: MANDYA.



  :t_.iheVvadiIiiI1isH3;;f£Ltor had caused issue of a calendar

sof  date for electing a fresh management

4

eariier president and other office bearers had preferred an
appeal. Ultimately the appeal came to be  in
terms of the impumed order at Annexure-J 
2008. It is this order, which is questiofexi   .,  
petitioners who claim to be   
society, though were not part,ef_the' 'V  L.
2. This court had admitted yirzit " pe§i'iiion.'1o1iVV3O-6- V
2008 and has also   'apeellevte order,
which was to restore  committee
to its  "zxi;iD8gement of the
society subject.  the irregularities
Kit   eretamint sezeeumng me

appeal  this court on 30-6-2008, it

to  of a notice dated 16-7-2008. The

 



   Vs:-i "'---<'3h_aH1).«::ix~ashekar points out that the

___no locus even to file this writ petition

  when the attempt on their part to

«   Vthemeelves impleadod as parties to appeal had filed as

5
election is now scheduled to be held on 9-8-2008 

ofthis notice.  .. _ 
4. It is aggrieved by this notice, the respc-§1iie11ot:s'e- 6  

13, who were appellants before me j-oinf;  V'
have also filed statement of    
with an application praying' wstayihrlg. the 

pursuant to the election" ::;_otice'€i:§..t"e§;¥' V \I6._-7

5. I have  Sri  counsel
for the      Sri Deviprasad
Shetty.  as also Ms Asha
M  government pieader

appearing neepoi1de,'ote"71 to 3.

  to the proceedings before the joint

 



 would vehemently urge that the

  sf   that a matter which had been
'  20-6-2008 had been taken t1mla' terally at the

 _'i::.ehe'st  the appellants before the appellate authority and

6

an application for such impleadment had come 
rejected by the appellate authority, the present " 
the part of the administrator proposing   ..  
held even during the pendency of
notwithstanding the order     s.
only a preemptive measure    gp§;;cams_
respondents 6 to 13  totltrevxnain in

their position till ijtis submitted,

is upto of such
ofiioe V _n.9t but taken at the
behest rivals and on extraneous

considexatiorzs. *

7. on the em ‘!.1’arA1i.1, §€§1’i Deviprasad Shetty, learned

joint reg’st:ra.r is opposed to principles

st?”J2eoe%s:nd’:: nae to be listed on 20-03-2003

V of orders, as clarified by Sri
leamed counsel for the respondents 6 to

t W the was taken up in the light of the preemptive

that had been proposed and if orders were

8

passed by the assistant registrar or any other order if
the appellate authority had not found it
them as mxties to the appeal proceedings, K
not get any further right only
presented before this court; u_ndef’ jot’ ,

Constitution of India. « g

10. While for this reason this petition” should be

dismissed, Ifind that de’r.:1is§i.1;’¢’.of_’_opportu11ity is
also not a is sought to be
projected that a perusal of
the copyjv by the appellate
authorityztandw as the respondents 6 to 13,

indicates been fully heard on 1 1-5-

9

pronounced and I do not find any person, either appeiiant
or respondents, having been denied any
the appellate authority before passing the ‘ it 1 H

11. Nothing else is pointed out cviiiiithe
order, though Sri Deviprasa.d>S_hetty~,
the petitioners urges there of it
maipractices, against it an
order for supenceding

12. It is not go into this

aspect, ” authority found
that the as to Warrant the
supercessioi1«.oi’ but to allow some time

to the ixlanagiemetitto eomoly with them.

” restflt;”the._i11teIim order of stay is vacated and

” itself is dismissed. The notice dated

by the administrator fixing the date of