WP N039186/2009 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD DATED THIS THE 26"?" DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010. Q BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SUBHAQH' 'B; ' WRIT PETITION No.39186/2O09"ICS9RfiS.i I BETWEEN: AUTOMOBILE PART AND CONSUMERS CO--OPERAfTiVE SOCIETY LTD HALIYAI.,REP BY PRADEEE?_E%ALRAE§;'E KA.RBH~OI S /O LATE BALARAM ULLAS KARI:3}fQ'I _ * AGED ABOUT 42 YR_S _ " ' R/AT GUDDANAPURA. 1GA:;LI,'HA.:LIYAL* TALIIK U K DISTRICT. I . 1' :.~.--PETITIONER (BY SR1.I§INESB.5I,I.I§:ULI<ARI§II, AD\I) AND: T' 1. TI-IE, PRINCIPAL. SECRETARY GO~VERN1\/IENT , -. CO¥OPERATION 'DEPARTMENT » f~1vI_ S BUILDI~NG " BANGALORE " 1, ' 2. "TEE-AD"DITI:OAIS REGISTRAR OF' COOPERATIVE S"OCI~ETI'ES (CONSUMER AND MARKETING) A NO.1';ALIASKAR ROAD " BANGALORE 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO--OPERATIVE SOCIETIES 'T BELGAUM REGION WP No.39186/2009 BELGAUM 4. SR1 NAGESH PUTTU GOANKAR DIRECTOR, K D C C BANK SIRS1, VINAYAKA COLONY SIRSI TALUK e- -- U K DISTRICT. ...RESRjO.N'DENTSVF ' ' [BY SMT.K.V1DYAVATHI, AGA FOR Ri=.A_TOI-3,; ii ' SRI.S.R.HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADRIFOR C/I'<4 } - . , " THIS PETITION IS FILED U,_ND,ER ARTICILE:S"'~--2i26w AND ' 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF"-INDIA PRA_Y1'NG 'TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT.11.12.2039."IN"-REVISION PETITION NO.CO/37/CAP/2009 ON FILE__uOF_ THE RI VIDE ANNEXUREMA BY ISSUING _A 'WEI'-I' o.1?,C»ERTIORARY AS ILLEGALAND ETC, . ' THIS RET1"IT'ION' OOIVIINEO OI§I"'vv.EoR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS I3'AY~-,. .Q.(_)L?RT..'M~ADE.THE FOLLOWING: 1. Smt.K:V«i.oAya,vEt?rIIV,';_ "i~e:SI,:'ned AGA takes notice for .~v.respoIT$1entS 1 to _____ called in question an order dated II.I2..;:oo9 in Revision Petition No.CO/37/CAP/2009 «.;'m the fileof respondent NOR}.
“”1’he brief facts of the Case are that the 431 respondent
T elected to the KDCC Bank, Sirsi, and it is alleged that he
W:
WP No.39186/2009
: 3 :
was disqualified to continue as a Director of the Bank on the
ground that, he was Director of one Shamala Finance Company
which was formed for similar object and was running:
business as that of the Co–operative Society to 0,
elected. In View of provisions of Section
Karnataka Co–operative Societies Act,
he being carrying on business siniilar to”-the of 2 S’
the Co-operative Bank, he is not__iientitled to “coVntini’ue as a
member of the Committee.
4. In this regavr’d,..:Van .fi1_edj’bvefore respondent
No.3. Respo1idenjtnN.0E;3’by*his iorderidaited 08.06.2009 declared
that respondent “disqualified to continue as a
member of the«–..(_V3io:nrnittee of Bank, Sirsi.
aggrieifed__by.the same, the 4th respondent filed an
i”aAppVea1,Vbeifore*._thve__ 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent
confi£medi”t1-i.é:p: of the 3111 respondent by his order dated
*i4.08.if2O.Q§.pVproduced at Annexure–D. Being aggrieved by the
iiorderiiipassed by respondents 2 and 3, respondent No.4 filed a
Petition before the State Government. ‘Fhe State
«%£u
WP No.39186/2009
: 4 :
Government by considering the provisions of Section 29 (C) and
also judgment of this court in the case of Bore Gowda–.yVs.
Assistant Registrar of Co–operative Societies (ILRV.
260) held that disqualification incurred by any
the election could be adjudicated on1y”un’der_
Section 70 of the Act by raisinnéya
disqualification incurred after the:el_ection Vcould’v_:be’–lienq1iired ii
u/ s 29 (C) of the Act and..furthe1″‘heldi”-shat respon..dent No.4
having incurred the election to the
bank, has to be accordingiy
allowed the R4e*iis_ioh:..f.Pe’titi.of1-,_an’diifset aside the orders of
respondents the said order, this writ
petition has been ~_ ,.
6. S;ri;vDi.nesh V-i1’\/liilitilkarniii, learned counsel for the petitioner
Sectioniiéig (C) prohibits a member to be elected
or-.ap.poi”nted…vo1~ continued as a member of the Committee if he
2 had A ‘-i..ncu_r~r’e_cl}* disqualification enumerated therein. He
er-nphasisedii’ the word ‘continued’ and submitted that, even if
is No.4 has suffered the disqualification prior to the
i .election he cannot be continued as a member as Section 29–C
$44′
~r”‘=:”‘T
WP No.39186/2009
:5:
prohibits continuing of such member who has suffer the
disqualification. in this regard he also relied on Section–“2_9–C
(8) and submitted that any member of the Committeennofv
operative Society suffers disqualification during 1′-i’.i_s” t6:nure”ihe3_’i ‘
can be disqualified by the authority specified t1r{_4ere.i.n:”andipowei-~.,n
is conferred on the Registrar. Relying’on’theseiprovi,sions;<he'V.
further submitted that the orders–.pia-ssed by._re'sponde.nts~2'jand "
3 do not suffer from any i11ega–1ity'.-. "–A_1ternatix..ie1y..'§he also
submitted that respondent' himself to
the jurisdiction of respondewntis' and:'3_n1neI now raise an
objection as regard ;;'urisdic.tiofn of respondents 2 and 3
and subnjiitted: tiiat of the State Government is per se
contrary to the Vproy_iisi.ons'"Qf."Section 29–C and is liable to be
quashed. .,
contrary, learned counsel for the contesting
re'sponderi~tfsiitbrriitited that Section 29-0 though provides for
disqua.1ifica*tioVn3 to be continued as a member but has to be
if consonance with the other provisions of the said
He submitted that interpreting Section 29-0, the
afidivision bench of this court in the case of Govindappa Vs.
%(,e'«.!i?
-~:”*
WP No.39186/2009
Sornashekhar Ishwarappa and Others (1979 (1) KLJ 124) has
held that if a person suffers a disquaiification prior:
election, the remedy is avaiiabie to raise a dispute .
Act and person who suffers disquaiification after”
member, the enquiry couid be made:’»..unc_ieri.’ef_:
Section 29~»~C. In this regard, heV’i”iurt_pherire.1ied on
of this Court in the case of Bore 1’A’L.S.SiVV:S’t:a-:r1t. :f?.egistrar
of Co~operative Societies and ‘pointed out
that the said View has been,.rei.terated:.gby’xthiVs”i»ceurt.
8. On inter’preVtati:ei*iIV’_Voi 29-C of the Act, this
court has”obseriaedgt*that’=.Section—–7.0′; provides for raising a
dispute in7–.the S touching the constitution of
the Co~operati.ve Soicieties; disqualification is also one of
the issue that couiidialso be gone into in a dispute u/s 70 of the
View has been reiterated by subsequent
judgrnent of t’his”eo’urt aiso.
It isniot in dispute that the allegation against R4 is that
suffered disqualification prior to the election. Such
./fldispfiutes can be raised u / s 70 of the Act where full-fledged
%:(/if
WP No.39186/2009
enquiry could be held. The Division Bench and subsequently
the learned Single Judge of this court have consistentl3z.pta1;:e;1
View that, such matters could be adjudicated only _
not 11/ s 29-0. As regards whether respondent” :is~V::re–a1l3.§r
disqualified or not is a matter required toA.beii’consider’ed,,_
View of the above, the proceeding initiated L1/is jgare
required to be quashed. IN the of the”a’eoVe, find no
merit in the writ petition. thewrit petition fails
and the same is dismissed. i
10. Smt.K.Vidyl’aV_aithi’;_ -is permitted to file memo of
appearance’ four weei;s–. l l
Sd/*
IUDGE