£2
ed
(By Sri. R.K.Hatti, HCGP for R-1 and 2.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 28m DAY OF' AUGUST 2009 ~_' 1.
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE AQIT J.GUNJz-'jg E
WRIT PETITION No.6314.Q/2E0§;ivs'§R) "
BETWEEN:
Suresh Hegde
S/0 Devappa Hegde __ _ . «
Age 58 years, occc superir1t'enrlent:';--. }
R/at 'Rashrr1i'Vidya Nagar " _ 1
11 Cross, Yellapuriload, Si'r"s"i*,.V'&
District: Uttara~vKa«nr=.ada=._
~ g _ , PETITIONER
(By Sri. M . I\/f.Pa_L-ii V afici'=B.. Sctii =., 7 AdV.s.)"
AND:
1. State of~Karr1afa.ka', ' ,. "
R / by its Secretary t0,th'e"DepartrI1ent
Of ;C0 -op Societies '
\{'1d<har_ia Soudlria',-Bangalore 560 001.
. 'I"'11e "Regisirar,--._
. C-o-()p.eratV1vec'Societies
" N0; 1, Ali Road,
Ba_nga1~0re £560 052.
. Sirsi Taluka Agriculture Produce
. A' Cojop. Marketing Society ltd.,
<R_/ its chief Executive Officer,
jSirsi 581 402
?Dist. Uttara Kannada.
H . RESPONDENTS
Sri Hegde Neeralagi, Adv. for R–3))
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 an’d”‘227
of the Constitution of india praying to quash the -re’1-ievingp
order issued by the third respondent dated
bearing No.268/ 2009-10 market at annexure-F’ arid e,tC’.-Q’ ‘
This Writ Petition coming on.:fo»r».pre1i.:niin’ar§i’he’ar_1:ng;._,
this day, the Court made the following: j. 0’ ‘ V. t
_.0 R Dies 0
Even though the rriattereeis» listedfor
hearing, with consent “is te_;Ii<'eni fo1=.fina1 disposal.
2. The facts are not,di:s3putedtinasmuch as the
petitioner icierk in the 3*”
respondent_ promoted as a senior clerk
and eventliallyi ‘as”~o11,_’th_e”‘date of superannuation, he
waspgworking ‘as_VVSuperintendent. The first respondent
Viissuied aiinofitiifieation amending Ruie 18 of the Karnataka
iSo’eieties Rules, 1960, and substituted the
agehof “retirement from 58 to 60. A circular is aiso
it’iiiilviissetleci te the above effect on 25/09/2008. Petitioner
— inakes a representation to the 3″‘ respondent to extend
“the benefit of two years but, however, relieving order g\
mi
was issued on 29/05/2009 on the petitioner attaining
the age of superannuation. Writ Petition
questioning the action of the respondents .
on attaining the age of 58 years. _
3. The learned co,1_iI:.s’e1 “ithe * it
petitioner submits that the writ
petition is covered biz bench. He
further submitsl’th_at fact that the
petitioner relieving him is
required to should be reinstated.
4. i1i’e_airne’dijfcounsel for respondent No.3
_ A subinitspiithat as it iarnounts to a dispute, it is required to
dispute raised under Section 70 of the
Ka.rr1Vatakai–“.j’j_Coi§operatiVe Societies Act. Hence, 3″‘
‘.v.respo11.der1ti not being a State, writ is not rnaintainable.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 is right
in submitting that 3rd respondent is not a State and a
dispute is required to be raised under Section 70 of the
Act. But, however, that is not the question..V:h’_er.e.
Present petition is filed practically to
Government notification / circular ‘which–‘ is ” = on ” ”
25/O9/2008. Thus, the quésptiqnA.301*’s.dr{§i:ig[ilsers.:iiee.j
petitioner to raise a disputeilnizder Section i”ojf”‘th..e–‘lAct = i’
would be 21 exercise infutility,.:rnoren._so regard to
the fact that the said by this Court.
Consequently,”
Petition is lilihe irri>piign’ed»»Vrelieving order
at Annexure v_J’_-l’e’titioner shall be
reinstated with as applicable.
‘?_Ri’11eA iss’uied_ and made absolute. ;
Sd/-
JUDGE