High Court Karnataka High Court

R H Chandangoudar vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 10 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
R H Chandangoudar vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 10 November, 2010
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NoVE;MB£:E§"2a1_'Q~.I:   .

BEF ORE

THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE}__S. Afimii, 

WRIT PETITION NO. 13542/2«'0.1VO'" !cs~E:§,/'Q, 

BETWEEN:

RH. Chandangoudar

Age: 72 years

OCC: Advocate  H  _  '  '

R/a. No. I 082, :~1igh_1'Po:n1;Apazétments No.45

Palace Road    'V      .

Bengaluru -5 560001  »  é'   VV  PETITIONER

[By Sri.:R5a{kif1ed.iefa_V prEi§Vsuac1';"B.:.'_', Ac:1vV.V}

AND:

 1. __f1"]"u1e*Jo1'r1t Registrar' of Co--operative Societies

, -  Bangalvqre Diviéibén
' u _, Chama1jaj~apet, Bengalum

2". ._  Basaveshwar Sahakara

'  Sangha  11 Block Rajajinagar
"Barigaio"re -- 560 010
By_it;«: Chief Executive Officer

    Kataraki

 Age: 72 years
Occ: General Secretazy of the



Miranda Educational Institution and

Vice President of

Shri. Jagajyoti Basaveshwar Sahakara  
Sangha, 11 Block f   A'
Rajajinagar   2' L' .
R/a. No. 1290/11

12111 Ma1n, HAL 11 Stage
Indiranagar, Bangalore -- 560  

4. K.N.M. Nandishwar

Age: Major V

Occ: Retired PWD EmpIo_ve'e._

R/a. No.380, Pailavi 15' N'B1o'ck

Rajajinagar   '  
Bangalore -- 560 01-"D,  "  ._ RESPONDENTS

(By Srnt. M.C. Nagashree, Hoop;-we R312'--- .  
Sri. D.R. Rajashekarappa,-vAdxf;vfor,Re2 2  "

Sri. S. Basavaraj,-Adv. for R--_,3u'_= _  j'
Sri. G. Chandra_sheE;:arai.ah, Adv. _for.R--4]""'

'I'hi'svi2rit Vpetitiaoii .:--u.nder Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of 'India praying to declare that R-3 and R-4
have ceased to. be  Directors of R-2 sangha and etc.

 ":i7i1isAv.petition"coming on for Part Heard in 'B' Group this

 diay. the made the following-

ORDER

The petitioner contends that he is the Director of Sri.

Basaveshwara Sahakara Sangha, Rajajinagar,

2″»___”‘.Bai.iga1ore, the 21″‘ respondent herein. It is further

it

contended that the 3″‘ respondent is the General Secretary of

Miranda Education Society, HAL HI Stage, Bangalore..gVeH:ei._is

also the Vice President of the 21″‘ respondent — Sanghaf._* — _

further contended that the petitioner . anxi”

application to the Joint Registrar of the :Co–fop’erat_iV’e 4Soeiefyy}g f

Bangalore Division, ChflTH§§~ajpCt, Ahpygngalore
disqualification of the 3″‘ respondent the
membership of the the is a
member/General Secretary Society.

Learned Counsel’fi3ry.i;he :pet§tione’r arguwesthat having regard

to Clausesblc} “of”S:ib-sechtionhv (1) of Section 17 of the
Karnatallta Co–operativ.eSocieties Act, 1959, no person shall

be eligible re: admissionlas a member of a Co-operative

society«:.if ycarries~on…a business of the same kind carried

Vhloii -vsueh’C?;c;v=c:{perative Society or he is already a member of

the’ .C”c¥operati_vc1′ society carrying on the business of a same

‘as itselfl tit.’ is further argued that the 2nd respondent–Sanga

V’ and ‘S Miranda Education Society are engaged in similar

of running the educational Institutions. Therefore,

f2

:1
El

the 3″‘ responderit should be disqualified from

inembersliip oi” the 2″” respondeniesangha.

2. Learned HCGP appearing;

submits that on an application made the p_ei.itioner’;–‘ ‘IS?’

respondent has initiated proceedings underlCla_”use’s and

(C1) of Sub–section [1] oi’vSe.ction..i’i’T Act against the 3rd

respondent in case No. 1_”Z[‘.2}_,_/2010~1l and

the case is nowJp.ost.ed She further submits
that the 1st re’sf;ondvei-;t.Vviiil.l__;.tal1:e7_ap}317Qpriate action in this

regard in, accordtanc;o;:_witli. ‘law. ‘ ”

3. llnlvievsr ‘s’u1,_hn:iission of learned HCGP, no

further ‘orcier needs to be passed in the writ petition in so far

as the 3″lres”po_ndent is concerned since the ls’ respondent

initiated the proceedings against the 3rd

2 respondent onfal complaint made by the petitioner.

The 4″‘ respondent has already been disqualified

the membership of the 2″” respondent–Sangha. He has

i

5

challenged the order of his disqualification in case No.JRV

MD 67/2009-10. In the said case, the 151 respondent has

granted an interim order as per Annexure–K. Leamed

‘ .

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that V.

respondent may be directed to dispose of the said”‘n:ia’i’tet»d’at

an early date.

5. Having regard to the factsand cir’cun1stances”ofthe
case, I am of the View thatthe 1S§y_res’pon’d_ent hhasto dispose

of the proceedings in case”N’os. 17(2)/2010-

11 and JRVIVID =-.10 ‘av»p.e’riod of three months

from the date of of this order. Ordered

accordingly. ‘u1″h.eh stands disposed of in the

aforesaid No c’osts__.__p ,

91’ . A

use/cg
Jiidéé