ORDER
Patil, J.
1. The petitioners assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 7.2.2002 in No. DRM: B I :XSS: 148:2001-2002 (Annexure-C) passed by the 2nd respondent and the order dated 6.7.2002 in Appeal No. JRM:DAP: 12:2001 -2002(Annexure-F) passed by the 1st respondent, have presented this Writ Petition.
2. The petitioners are the sitting Directors of the 4th respondent-society. The election was held in the year 2000 for the Committee of the 4th respondent and petitioners have been elected unanimously and they were functioning as directors. The said society earned profits of Rs. 55,000/- due to best administration of the petitioners. The Milk Federation has categorized the 4th respondent society as one of the best society for the entire Mysore District. When things stood thus, due to political pressure, 2nd respondent has initiated proceedings under Section 30(1) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (“Act” for short) and issued show cause notice to the petitioners as per Annexure-A. The petitioners have filed their reply as per Annexure-B stating that all the charges levelled against the petitioners pertains to the previous committee and the petitioners are not at all responsible for the same. The said reply was not at all accepted by the 2nd respondent and has passed the impugned order, on 7.2.2002. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, without considering the case made out by the petitioners and contrary to the materials on record has dismissed the appeal by its order dated 25.2.2002 (Annexure-D) by confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Feeling aggrieved by both the orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2, as stated supra, the petitioners have presented this Writ Petition.
3. The principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that, the petitioners have made out in their reply to the show notice that, after assuming the charge as the Directors of the 4th respondent-society, they have shown the profit of a Rs. 55,000/- for the Co-operative year 2000-2001 and 4th respondent society is recognised as one of the best society in the entire Mysore District. The petitioners have specifically stated in their reply to the show-cause notice that the charges 1 to 4 levelled against them pertains to the previous committee and the present committee is not at all responsible. By invoking Section 30(1) of the Act and passing the orders superceding the committee by the 2nd respondent is contrary to the materials on record and the stand taken by the petitioners. Further he has submitted that no consideration is forthcoming in the orders passed by both the authorities regarding this aspect of the matter is concerned. Further he has pointed out that, in their reply the petitioners have stated that, if an opportunity is given they will rectify the 5th charge in the Audit report and also pointed out that it is the duty of the Secretary to maintain accounts and administration of the society and the petitioners have got only supervising powers and submitted that, if these aspects of the matter are taken into consideration by both the authorities, they ought not to have dismissed the case made out by the petitioners that too without properly analyzing the documents and the evidence produced by the petitioners, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, he has submitted that the impugned orders passed by both the authorities are liable to be rejected.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, inter-alia, contended and submitted that, the impugned orders passed by both the authorities are in accordance with law and after giving opportunity to the petitioners. The proceeding was initiated in the year 2002 and the petitioners have elected as Directors of the 4th respondent-society in the year 2000-2001, but they have not taken any steps to rectify the defects. Further, he has submitted that, it is the duty of the committee to look into the matter and offer explanation that they are not dispensing with the charges 1 to 4 are concerned and those defects were committed by the previous committee. In so far as 5th charge is concerned they have given a explanation. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has initiated the proceedings as provided under the relevant provisions of the Act and passed the orders.
5. After having heard the learned Counsel for both parties, after considering the materials available on record and after carefully perusing the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2, on the face of the record, both the authorities have committed an error of law and passed the orders contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 30(1) of the Act. It is worth to extract Section 30(1) of the Act read as follows:
“Section 30(1) If, in the opinion of the Registrar,
(a) the committee of a co-operative Society persistently makes default or is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it by this Act or the rules or the bye-laws or commits any act which is prejudicial to the interests of the society or its members, or is otherwise not functioning properly.”
6. After careful perusal of Sub-section (1) of Section-30 of the Act, that the Managing Committee of the society persistently makes default of negligent in performing the duties imposed under the Act, Rules or By-laws, which prejudice the interest of the society, the proceedings can be initiated. But in the instant case, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that, so far as charges 1 to 4 are concerned, they are pertaining to the previous committee and present committee has not at all responsible for the same and in so far as 5th charge is concerned, the petitioners have stated that opportunity may be given to them to rectify and set-right the same. The petitioners have filed a detailed reply to the show-cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent giving explanation regarding the charges committed by the previous committee and also stated that neither they are educated, nor qualified, but they are the poor and rustic villages with fond hopes to run the 4th respondent-society. Except signing, they entirely depend upon the advice of the Secretary and if the Secretary has brought to the notice of the petitioners about the charges, they have rectified the same immediately. When the petitioners have stated the true facts before the authority, it is the duty cast on the authority to look into the matter and apply their mind to the reality of the petitioners’ case. In the present case, no notice were given to the petitioners by the authority, they are persistently in default and are acting against the interest of the society and members.
7. It is significant to note that the present petitioners have been elected to the Managing Committee in the year 2000-2001 and the defects pointed out by the authority are in respect of the previous committee and there is no persistent default on the part of the petitioners-present committee. If there is any persistent default and taken the decision contrary to the by-laws, Rules, Section, the 2nd respondent has got jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 30(1) of the Act. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, both the authorities, without application of mind proceeded to pass the orders contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 are not at all sustainable and they are liable to be set aside.
8. Having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 7.2.2002 in No. DRM: BI :XSS: 148:2001-2002 (Annexure-C) passed by the 2nd respondent and the order dated 6.7.2002 in Appeal No. JRM:DAP: 12:2001 -2002(Annexure-F) passed by the 1st respondent, are hereby set aside.
9. The matter stands remitted beck to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration afresh with a direction to proceed with the matter in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act and to decide the same as expeditiously as possible, after affording opportunity to the petitioners.
10. On the above observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
11. The, Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today.