OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF JUNE v. SURI APPA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.17171/2011 (CS-EL/M) BETWEEN
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed
Judgment
(By Sri.M.Keshava Reddy, AGA) AND:
S.Prakash s/o Seenappa, 55 years, R/at Kondashetty halli village, Tekal Hobli, Malur Tq., Kolar Dist.
M.Venkata Reddy s/o Muniyappa, 48 years, R/at Maniganahalli, 2 Srinivasapura Tq., Kolar Dist.
M.S.Anand s/o late Srinivasa Gowda, 41 years, R/at Hosur village, Sulikunte Post, Bangarpet Tq., Kolar Dist.
The Kolar Dist. Co-operative Union Ltd., No.54/1, District Sahakara Bhavana, II Floor, near DCC Bank, Kolar. R/by its Chief Executive Officer.
M.Venkatappa s/o Muniyappa, 56 years, R/at Kaveranahalli, S.G.Kote Post, Bangarpet Tq., Kolar Dist.
T.S.Umadevi w/o S.N. Narasappa, 31 years, R/at Yeldur village & Post, Srinivasapura Tq., Kolar Dist.
H.M.Thimmappa s/o H.Muniyappa, 61 years, `Bhavyashree Harsitha Nilaya’, Keelkote, near Sathyamma Temple, Kolar City.
Shantamma w/o K.Prakash, 56 years, R/at Gattakamadenahalli, Bangarpet Tq., Kolar Dist. President, The Kolar District Co-operative Union Ltd. 3
K.R.Beerappa s/o Ramegowda, 66 years, R/at Kesaragera village, Masti Hobli, Malur Tq., Kolar Dist. Vice President, Kolar District Co-operative Union Ltd. .. RESPONDENTS (By Advocate Sri.H.N.Shashidhar) - - - - - This WA is filed under Sec.4 of The Karnataka High Court Act to set aside the order passed in WP No.25816-18/2010 dated 27.9.2010. This Appeal is coming on for preliminary hearing this day, MANJUNATH J. delivered the following: J U D G M E N T There is a delay of 352 days in filing the appeal. One R.S.Nuli, Joint Secretary to the Government, Co-operation Department, has sworn to an affidavit in support of the application filed by the appellant. Learned single Judge allowed petition quashing nomination made by the appellant to the Kolar District Co-operative Union Ltd. On the ground 4 that a sum of Rs.3 lacs was given as a grant by the Zilla Panchayat in the year 1994. Learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition on the ground that as on the date of the said grant assistance given by the Zilla Panchayat was not considered as an assistance by the Government. Said grant was given by the Zilla Panchayat for construction of go-down which purpose has been completed long back. When the elections were held to the Union on 11.8.2010, three members were nominated to tilt the balance. Therefore, writ petition was filed.
2. Learned single Judge after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that such a grant cannot be considered as an assistance by the Government and when grant was made by the zilla panchayat, said assistance was not included under the provisions of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act. Accordingly, writ petition was allowed on 27.9.2010. Challenging 5 the same, present appeal is filed on 11.11.2011 with delay of 352 days. Appellant has filed an application for grant of certified copy immediately on the next date of the order and the same has been received on 27.10.2010. It is well within the knowledge of the appellant that appeal has to be filed within 30 days from the date of the order including the time taken for taking certified copy. According to the application, Law Officer has given his opinion on 3.11.2010, by that time appeal was barred by time and the file has been sent to the Head of the Legal Cell on 8.11.2010 and in the entire application what is stated is how the file has moved from table to table like snail and by giving explanation how the file has moved in the application to condone the delay. But the cause shown by the appellant cannot be considered as sufficient cause to condone the delay of 352 days. Therefore we are of the view that the 6 appeal has to be dismissed without condoning the delay as no sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant.
Operative part
3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE. Sd/- JUDGE. R/220612
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.