IN THE HIGH CQUR3' OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGAIJQRE
ZDATED THIS THE 4m my 0}? JUNE 290§«~k%j "
BEFORE
THE Hommm Mr. JUSTICE'"AJIi?_ 95 Gr¢f1iJA1; V
WRIT PE'I'I'I'ION No.1=§862 0F:2{509(C3%§:;:LE} "
BETWEEN:
1. Bfiavindra S/9 Basappa,.-'*'*
Agad about 44 ycarsf 2. u "
2. Manjmaath SEQ A h
Narayanappe{;_.fggr3d«_ about 46V_y'ea;+s...V--
3. K.C.Shé:,..!--s;ar:_4'_S.;/V.n:v.1»'
4. K.Ramm~1a' Vs';aLjKri';-mj§1a:ppa,
Aged a..bGut 55 yr3{ar_S;~A..__ *
5. C;;Venka'fVe:ShV'S 0 Clliiikanarayanappa,
abgbtzt 38 §,zr:2=.i's.
6-. S.Nmfa§!}ar{a'goWda S/0 Shyamanna,
_ figed» 4.1 years.
A1i ;$:.t'e R/oHa1apanahani,
.. ",Kasa¥3-3. Hobii, Ho$ak<31:e Taluk,
V' W xEa::j:ga1{5re Rural District. ...PETI'I'IG~IE3I€
Sayakumar S.Pa¥;ii Ass1:s., Advs.)
1. Sri Mudalagjriyappa,
Retaining Ofiécer for Aiiapanahaili
Mikz Producers' Coamrative Society
And also Recevery Officer,
C}/o Assistant Registrar of Cooperative
Societies, Doddabalapur Sub--Di.vision.
Bangalore Rural District.
2. Ailapanahalli Milk Producers'
Cooperative Soceity Ltd.,
Hosakote Taiuk,
Bangalore Rural District,
8y its Secretary. r
3. Thamanna,
S / 0 Pflkammfiyappa,
Aged 56 years. '
4. Manjunath, A ._ "
S/0 Patel vemamypg,'
Aged 35 _ . '
ResponcieI1tss".;3 65 4'-reeiéjuig
Allapéliaiitalli '
Kaésaba Ho':-')}Vi;._ Hosakote Taluk,
Barigalore Rosa}. Vr;:se~.ic1~.. ...RESPONDEN'TS
(Causetifle amended ride order dated 04.06.2009}
(Sifi. R_eddy, Adv. for R3 and R4)
rr:;1s$r.p is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
India praying to quash Am1exure~B
darted 1.6_';»2OCr9 passed by R1, insofar as petitioners are
eozfgcemed; '
WP coming on for preliminary hearing this
'A 'V V' ., ci3y,utIt1e Court made the foilowing:
O R D E R
Mrfiarayana Ready, learneci counsel has filed an
application for impleading to come on record as party
respondents 3 and 4, inasmuch as, they are necessary
Raiflaera Seva Sahakera Sangha. He further submits
that the lean has been discharged. Hence the
of rejecting the nomination of the M
arise. He would press intca serfizieems -«..
in the Case
OFFICER reported in Jim 1991
his contention that tfhis iviasritlx the
eiectican process 1:: ‘Constitution of
India if the Iejeetien sf is without
any V not involve any
* , V
leaned eounsei appearing
for Iespeilsziexat that the propesers are also
of Vt§1€3-._Sfl(‘:Ofld respondent society. He has
L’ eiade a list of defaulters and points out that
were defaiiiters of the second respondent
s0eiety;”:. E-ie wouid aise rely on the endorsement issued
“ii ‘file Secretary.
5. The petitieners are not entitled for the relief
sought for, inasmuch as, in the f§_1″St instance when the
~. ” ….. .. 9
process and further directing the mtmming ofiicer to
accept the nomination of the petifioners, ifi “»T.tahe
cimumstances, does not arise.
Consequently, I do not
petition. Petition stands reiected.
Iudge