IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAIQRE
DATED THIS THE 27'?" DAY OF IULY, 12Q'1G--Tv-Rf _
BEFOREV.
THE HON'BLE MR. IUSTICJ3 H.1\%;.1\fA_C}AM Q_f§i)5.N -
W.P.No.12010[2G08_;{GM--RE§jR
BETWEEN:
SriT.C.NAGARAIU VA ;
S/O LATE Sri CHENNAPPA O
AGED ABOUT SBYEARS O R
DIRECTOR, V O _ '3 O :
KARNATAKAsTAfi;f1:_§N'AREHOUsINcg '
cORRORA1?1O1x;;=_'V >
(NOW :LLRGALLY.:RRMOvED) ~--
No_43,:V'PR1Mi:'£O sR Rc*)AD,"~»OV."" '
BANGALORE ~.' S6u"1:'025._ 1- 'A
AND RESIDING ATNOJ :_»:1..__
3RD MAIN,"'H_VRLAYO'J1'; O
MAG-ADIMA'L\§VROAD,"v.
BANGALORE -M 560079. A
' """ ..RETmONER
=- i(B;r'S&1;ISLTB'RARxLRNYA BHAT, ADV.,FOR M/S SUBBA
RAO 3: COMPANY, ADVS.)
THE §.'R£{TE OF KARNATAKA
~ REPRESENTED BY rrs SECRETARY
VVDEPARTMENT OF CO--OPERATION
'§M.S.BUILDING,
O A _.:BANGALORE - 560 001.
if
THE KARNATAKA. STATE WAREHOUSENG
CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY THE
MANAGING DIRECTOR
No.43, PRIMEROSE ROAD,
BANGALORE _ 550 025. 5%
THE CENTRAL WAREHOUSING
CORPORATION, REPRESENTED _
BY MANAGING DIRECTOR ' "
No-4/1, SIRI INSTITUTION AREA _
KANTHI MARG, NEW DELHI--16.VAI.----.--
THE ASSISTANT GENERAL'IvIAI~IAGER _'
(CORI>ORATIOI\1)_ .. "
CENTRALWABJ§H.Q'USfl\3}_ I I _
CORPORATION, N514/V1 , SIRI iNSTIiE'U"TIONA'L
AREA, IIAUE KHAS;'"NE\V"DELHI.§_]1001-6.
.... _. ..RESPONDENTS
(By Sri HCGP FOR R-1
Sri SANGAMESH G.'PA'1.".1__L"' ADv., FOR R-2
Sri M.N.SHESHAGI1~'.I R: Sii M.s.ASHwIN KUMAR
FOR uR'3& 4)'-
- '[ _ PETITION Is FILED WA 226 3: 227 OF
'CO]3VISTV1TfQ?]?_IOJ,:\i"" OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CROI\IMIINICA*TION ISSUED BY THE R-4 DT.o2.o9.20o8, VIDE
ANN-EXIIRELHANDETC.
AA 'I;his petition coming on for preliminary hearing -- 'B'
" '"_VG'1'Giip this day, the court made the following;
r~J""
J'
-: )'
ORDER
In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed
the nature of certiorari to quash the c_or»nm4unication’*issited the
respondent no.4 dated 2.9.2008 as per’Anrieérureeiiicancreiiihgpp
nomination of the petitioner asifliirector of s_ec’ond respondent —
Board.
2. Thepetitio’ner=.vv=.asi nomiriated asithe Director of second
respondent_i¥.__iBoard._ for.___a ipe3′.iQ,Cl”i of 3 years as per the
Cornmiinication per Anne:xa1re«~C. Accordingly,
the petitioner i’part’i.cipated’. in the Board meeting of second
i’ . res”pohd.ent.'” The petitioner as a Director of the second respondent
A *~-« B.eard~notiiceci-certain irregularities in the matter of construction
of i:vare.houses in the State of Karnataka. Accordingly, the
petitioner gave a complaint to the Advisor to the Governor of
Karnataka on 12.12.2007 as per Annexure–E. Reacting to the
complaint of the petitioner the office of the Governor of
1r-J
NI
Karnataka referred the matter to the second respondevnt’i_E~ovard
for appropriate action in the matter. Accordinglyfthe,aliegatio’;1s”:
made by the petitioner came up consideratioinvdbepfore the
Board meeting as subject No.13: in theeagienda. a¢:;Ai:ioner’th5ugh.. pp
participated in the Board on to
participate in the discuzssibnt issue and
finalnly walked out of the Directors of the
Board discujsseid there is no truth in
the petitioner. Thereafter, under the
impugned 2.9.2008, the nomination of
the petitioner _as’Direc’torTof second respondent -~ Board was
«¢c.ance11ed:’asivp~et Annexure–~H. Hence this writ petition.
arguments on both the side and perused the
— entire writ papers.
The nomination of the petitioner as Director of
it “second respondent – Board and the subsequent cancellation is
at”
1967 do not empower the Central Warehousing to
cancel the nomination of the petitioner. On this alone;’~.
the impugned order at Annexure–H ‘l’iahle toi.4be_.qnlashed.’ in
6. The second respondent — Board,’inv.VitsV._:1’ne.eti:ng on V
13.3.2008 discussed the suhjectéandlresolved thattherellis no truth
in the allegations made the fiirelioard also resolved
the proceedings’:of'”then lbefore the Central
Warehousiiig. lithe basis of the report
submittedlgg – Board, the Central
Warehoirsing the impugned order of
can.»celliati’on at.’ “An.nexure–H. The allegations made by the
‘petiitioner’in-wres*pect of affairs of second respondent — Board’s
acti__viitiesv.1.Iia’yifiV.’:’Jle false, but that cannot be a ground to remove the
petitioner as Director of the second respondent — Board. In the
l . ‘d.en1oé:ratic fiunctioning of an institution, there must be some
i “tolerance to dissent. Dissent alone shall not become a
!\
J”
disqualification for the removal of petitioner as Directovr.of«.s_econd
respondent — Board. On this ground also the :15″.
liable to be quashed.
7. It is seen from the record”-that. the pe.__ti’tionér was 0
nominated as Director of Boardvsvfor a period
of three years w.e.f. three years specified
in the order of on 6.8.2009.
Further it petitioner the respondents
have _’asHDirector. In View of these
developrnents, isinot entitled ‘for any relief though
the”c_ancellation’orderat!:Annexure-H is liable to be quashed.
A ” -» stated above, the following order:
0’ i)T petition is partly allowed.
0 lThe impugned order at Annexure~H dated 2.9.2008
is hereby quashed.
4’5»?
N-J
/”
iii) The prayer of the petitioner to restore.”‘hei:’I11_[“aVs
Director of the second respondent — M
survive for consideration’ énci’accordin«gly”tf’;eV Seine
is hereby rejected. _
iv) Ordered accordingiyfe’ ‘