THE 1~m;~,g»gLI§: MRJUSTICE M03294 si1aN.TA.mi§;t;1§13;5;1§
E
{N THE HBEH COLIRT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAQ
DATED THIS THE 213'!' DAY mm' JULY, 2QfJ.§,; h
BETW EEN:
1.
VIJAYAKUMAR, s;iPAN3_URAN«QPALANKA¥e
.:=.GE;5s 'ms, PLANNING .!;)l3?1?IE7333R,'-- .. "
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KARWAR; =
DIST: NoRTH_cANApA... _ ' V'
NiTYANANfi$ 'S;IQVAN§:A_1--'3Fa§' SHET
A€}E::55" YRS, O€'_;C:A;'}E';T;REGIS'I'F€AI2
§BjT:=.§Jfi:ERALAc;1 PATEL, AE)V.,}
BEL'? EMPLOY EES £ZO.Oi5'ERA'I'}'ifE
"»€0czETY LTD.,B§R'1»§€'a% R2-§>. 8? {TS
*. ..CH&£RE~i£AN,B1NAGA,TQ 85 BEST: zqmwag.
T83 SEZFZIT'? REGISTRAR OF CO»
OPERATWE SOCEETY, KARWAR,
4 DIST': NQWFH CAMERA.
3
2. Petitioner No.1 was
administrator of respondent Na} s0eie1:_y.. 'tee i
1995; petitioner No.2 was workiiig 331::-..
of the said society from I’99__ij3 td A1997 sa’ie;:3etitiiQIier i
No.3 was working ae an 1997′ to
1999.. Respondent ti2.g;fif..A:’i:31e:’e certain
discrepancies ‘ in the . v_ ” eiforemeritioned
peried. as; an ‘enquiry
efficeij ..t.Q in the audit. After
inquiifgf, issued to the petitioners
en 28/ replied to the said Show
V. eatise 11etiee.” petitioners, Virtually, denied the
‘ .:eiiege:ieIie.V«fi:ade against them. A report is submitted by
j_fe1:§eonde:1t as per Annexure “L” dated
312/(33 Lfitimately, an ersier came to be passed
A 5″ wiiiider Section 68 of the Karnataka Cfe~eperative
Vifieeieties Act by the Assistant Regstrar of Co»-operative
Seeiety as per Annexure “M”. fixing the Iiahiiity on the
F”/3
efi
petitioners. The Assistant Refistrar has 3
order dimoting the society to irlitiate actio;n_,f>_’u;rSfij1§5:n14tAttj ” ;
the Show cause notice. The i.v€z«§;w1sV”«
questioned by the pot;iti.o1__1ers ‘ .1§ofore I2I)ei}{iiy
Registrar of Co~oporative :.é11ox§roo1 the
appeal by order boofiofime “P”.
The Go-operative before the
State after hearing
the and consequently
COI}f1%’}1}€(iL by the Assistant Registrar of
Co~opefo;ti§ze.,SVoci.ofi_e:~; é ‘
_ Court is of tho considered opinion that
.’ oossod by tho State Govomment under the
faotsé. circumstances is just and propar. The matter
‘ . in the pre1:im:i11ary stage. Surcharge or other
proceedings are not initiated against the petitioners
either under Section 69 or ?O of the Kamataka Co-
f\/;’>
S
operative Societies Act. There cannoi be _
with the objoct of inqtliry as Sectiortg 64 of ‘i3i1e.. ” 2
Czromrative Societies Act is o:113}».:Ato
or otherwioe in order to take: furt11é:-.aofjono»’v:th¢::oo;1; In >
other Words, the report in qu¢_oi:io:1..is orflyroavnfaofi finding
report. It is just a criminal case.
The report itfifilfis} not”a11~ oxéczgtgfoio Section 68
of the Act;,___ make an order
” directir3g._.Ht1io..o_So<:i§:ty bearers to take such
aotioz17as"may' -~ 51'} the order to ramedy the
defects ' order under Section 63 or
w i11t;fLiliI*3f__ii;1:1;'1er".3é:ctiQI1 64 or inspoction under Section 65
'_ Court has ropeaiedly £)b$€I'V6d in
of mattors that the remit submitted by the
ofiicer under Section 64 of the Act is not a
"'{:£}I}Ci1I$iV€3 proof of determination of the rights of me
parties. It is not open for the petitioners to question the
M
6
correctness of the findings found in the report_»§$’e$3e£i..«
2_1..r;d.er Section 68 of the Act. However,
can questien the order to be fjaseeéi;
after initiation of the proCeec1iI1gS”-either Lyzidef Seotion.
69 or 70 of the Iiarnataka Act.
Therefore, the State
the prayer of the the report of
the Assistant ‘thev’:’xC’o—Loépemtive Seciety,
Since it to oppose the facts
founé ‘report; in question as false,
this ground to interfere in the
i}3}}i3!..§§g1(**3’=’3. ordlehw.
‘ V. – AV ” ‘Aeeofding1y,Vi£fit petitions fail 31151 are dismissed.
Sd/-E
JUDGE
— V Km’;