JUDGMENT
M. Rama Jois, J.
1. This Writ Appeal is presented by the appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal which had confirmed the order of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies holding that the first Respondent Society could not have its case conducted by Respondent No, 2, its Director.
2. The matter has come up for preliminary hearing. As the Respondents 1 and 2 are represented by learned Counsel, the petition is treated as posted for final hearing and is disposed of by this order.
3. The short question that arises for consideration in this case is :
1. Whether the Malleswaram Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, is entitled to nominate one of its Directors to appear and argue before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies before whom the appellant had raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Act in which the Society was the opponent.
4. The facts of the case are these: The appellant filed a dispute under Section 70 of the Act before the 4th Respondent the Joint Registrar of Co operative Societies-Bangalore Division, for recovery of salary said to be due to him by the Malleswaram Co-operative Society. The defendant in the dispute was the Malleswaram Co-operative Society represented by its Secretary. The Managing Committee of the Society passed a resolution to the effect that one of its Directors namely the second-Respondent shall appear before the Joint Registrar and conduct the case on its behalf. The appellant raised an objection before the Joint Registrar to the effect that according to the bye laws of the Society, the Secretary alone was entitled to conduct the case on behalf of the Society and therefore Respondent No. 2 could not be permitted to conduct the case. The objection was upheld. The appeal of the Society before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal failed, as the Full Bench of the Tribunal upheld the objection of the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the Society preferred Writ Petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition holding that the Society was entitled to authorise any of its Directors to conduct the case in a dispute raised under Section 70 of the Act, and such appearance was not violative of Section 33, of the Advocates’ Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has presented this appeal.
3. In order to appreciate the contention, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Act and the bye-laws. Section 117(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959 reads :
117. Procedure for settlement of disputes and power of the Registrar or any other person to whom a dispute is referred for decision under Section 70(1). The Registrar or any other person to whom a dispute is referred for decision under Section 70, hearing a dispute under Section 71 shall hear the dispute in the manner prescribed, and shall have power to summon and enforce attendance of witnesses including the parties interested or any of them and to compel them to give evidence on oath, affirmation or affidavit, and to compel the production of documents by the same means and as far as possible in the same manner, as is provided in the case of a Civil Court by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1808.
2(sic) Except with the permission of the Registrar or any other person deciding a dispute, as the case may be no party shall be represented at the hearing of a dispute by a legal practitioner ”
(Underlining by us)
Bye-law 14xxx(g) and (p) of the Malleswaram Co-operative Society Ltd., read :
BYE-LAW. 4 : The following shall be the powers and duties of the Managing Committee.
XXX XXX XXX
(g) to delegate any of their powers to the Business Committee, sub committee, Officer or Director.
xxx(p) : to institute, defend or compromise legal proceedings in the name of the Society.
Bye-law 16.
(4) “Secretary : The Secretary shall exercise powers of the duties prescribed under the subsidiary Rules and also assigned to him from time to time by the President and the Committee, in addition to the following :
xxx xxx xxx
(j) to represent the Society in all legal proceedings”.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the bye law 16(j) the Secretary alone was competent to represent the Society in all legal proceedings and therefore authorisation given by the Society to one of its Directors to conduct the case was in plain contravention of the bye laws. The learned Counsel further submitted that if the Society wanted to authorise one of its Directors the second respondent, the only way of doing so, was by executing a power of Attorney in favour of the 2nd respondent and that mere authorisation of the 2nd respondent by a resolution of the Society amounted to the engaging the services of respondent-2 to appear and argue for the Society and this was a violation of Section 33 of the Advocates Act as by that process the 2nd respondent would be permitted to practice law though he was not an Advocate registered under the Advocate’s Act.
6. In our view the contention raised for the appellant is fallacious. Sub-section 2 of Section 117 of the Act expressly prohibits the engaging of the services of an Advocate by a party to a dispute raised under the Act by providing that an Advocate could be engaged only with the express permission of the Registrar or any other person deciding a dispute. This clearly implies that a party to a dispute has to appear in person or authorise any other person to appear on his behalf but not an Advocate. Obviously having regard to this provision, bye law 14 x x x (g) extracted earlier expressly authorises the Managing Committee to delegate any of its powers inter alia to one of its Directors and Clause(p) authorises the Committee to institute, defend or compromise legal proceedings in the name of the Society. Thus it may be seen that one of the powers of the Managing Committee is to defend the Society in all legal proceedings. The purport of the provisions of Bye law 16 x x x (4) x x x (j) is that as a Corporate body whenever the Society raises a dispute or whenever dispute is raised against the Society it should be represented by its Secretary. I means, the Secretary is by force of the bye law itself authorised to sign all the pleadings, whether for raising a dispute or for defending a dispute. The said provision does no State that the Secretary alone should conduct or argue the case. In fact the power to arrange for defending the case is of the Managing Committee vide Bye law 14(p). The Secretary is bound by the decision of the Managing Committee in respect of every matter concerning the institution or defence or conducting of the case, by the Society. Under this bye law read with bye law 14(g) the Managing Committee of a Society, has the authorisation to nominate any of its Directors to conduct the case. When a Director is so authorised and he appears before the Registrar, pursuant to such authorisation it tantamounts to appearance of the Society in person and does not amount to authorising a third party to appear and argue the case. Therefore, the contention that such representation could only be by executing a power of attorney is untenable for the reason that the said contention is raised on the erroneous presumption that even when the Director appears for the Society pursuant to the authority given under the resolution he appears as a third party and not as a party in person.
7. The above position of law is settled as early as in the year 1959, by a Divison Bench of this Court in Printers (Mysore) Private Limited -v.- Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 1959 Mys. L.J 670. In that case the question for consideration was whether authorisation of an officer of a Company by the Company to appear and conduct the case before the Labour Court on its behalf was valid. The Division Bench held such representation was equivalent to appearance in person. The said ratio applies on all fours to this case.
8. The decision of this Court in Large-Sized Co-operative Society Ltd -v.- H. N. Raja & Anr., 1974 K.L.J. 421, and in the Writers, and Artist’s House Building Co-operative Society Ltd -v.- the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Anr., 1979 (1) KLJ 226 though not directly on the point arising for consideration in this case, support the plea of the Society. In those cases it was held that notwithstanding the provision in the bye laws that the Society shall be represented through its Secretary in a dispute it was competent for the society to authorise the president to raise or defend a dispute.
9. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the supreme Court in Harishankar Rastogi -v.- Giridhari Sharma and Anr., . In that case the Supreme Court held that a private person could appear for a party in the criminal proceedings only with the permission of the Court. The ratio is not at all apposite to this case for, as held earlier, the appearance of a Director under the authority of the resolution of the Managing Committee of the Society tantamounts to appearance of the party in person before the Court to conduct his own case and does not amount authorising a third person to conduct the case.
In the result we make the following :–
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed, but, without costs as the appeal is being dismissed at the stage of preliminary hearing.