Sri S.K. Basavarajan v. Chitradurga-577501
Case at a glance
- Bench
- ANAND BYRAREDDY
Outcome
Disposed of
The petition stands disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
Judgment
Bank Colony Turuvanur Road, Chitradurga-577 501. represented by its President Sri S.K. Basavarajan ... PETITIONER (By Sri Udaya Holla, Senior Counsel For M/s. Kumar & Bhat) AND:
The State Of Karnataka Department Of Co-Operation Vidhana Veedhi, Bangalore-560001. Represented by its Principal Secretary
The Assistant Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies, Rule 441, D.C.C. BANK LTD., Chitradurga-577501
The Deputy Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies, Chitradurga District 2 Chitradurga. -577501
The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies, Bangalore Division Bangalore-560002.
The Additional Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies, Housing & Miscellaneous NO.01, Ali Askar Road Bangalore-560 52.
Sri. C. Basavarajappa S/O Sri Chikkanagappa aged about 48 years Associate Professor Of History S.J.M. Arts, Science And Commerce College Chitradurga-577501.
Sri G. Gangadharaiah s/o Sri G. Mallikarjunaiah aged about 55 years Superintendent S.J.M Womens College, Chitradurga-577501.
Sri N. Thippanna s/o Sri Ningappa aged about 48 years Superintendent, S.J.M Arts, Science And Commerce College Chitradurga-577501. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri: M S Parthsarathi & M P Srikanth, Advocate for C/R6 to 8, Sri K.A.Ariga AGA For R1 To R5) ***** 3 This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 13.8.12 in Appeal No.AN(H And M) DAP :D2:01:2012-13, passed by the respondent 5, vide Annex-K. This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:- ORDER The petition coming on for preliminary hearing ‘B’ group is considered for final disposal.
2. The petitioner is a registered House Building Co- Operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act’ for brevity). It transpires that there was an enquiry conducted under Section 64 of the Act and an order was passed appointing an Administrator under Section 30 of the Act. The same was sought to be challenged by the present petitioner before the Additional Registrar and had sought for stay of appointment of the Administrator. There was an interim order of stay insofar as the appointment was concerned. At this stage, the respondents sought to enter appearance before the Additional Registrar and sought to participate in the proceedings. The said 4 application having been allowed, the petitioners being aggrieved are before this Court.
3. The learned Senior Advocate Shri Udaya Holla appearing for the Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents would have no locus standi to participate in the proceedings when the enquiry that was held by the Joint Registrar in the first instance was a suo motu enquiry under Section 64 and not at the instance of any complaint by any persons including the respondents and even if the respondents claim that it was at their instance, they were not even members of the Managing Committee to have been qualified to initiate such an enquiry by the Registrar and therefore, would submit that the participation of the respondents would unnecessarily prolong the matter and complicate the issues and therefore, the application of the present respondents having been allowed them an undue leverage and would impede proceedings.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand would submit that it is at their instance that the enquiry 5 was conducted and that they are certainly entitled to claim as majority of the Managing Committee and at whose instance the complaint was made to the Joint Registrar, who was bound to hold enquiry and it is in that background that an enquiry was conducted and an order was passed. Hence, it is the respondents who would be competent persons to pursue the proceedings against the petitioner - society as to the allegations of mismanagement and mal administration.
5. In this background, the proceedings are pending in appeal and the Appellate Authority having permitted the respondents 6 to 8 to come on record would necessarily require the primary objection by the petitioners that the respondents 6 to 8 are not competent persons notwithstanding that they have been brought on record to be addressed.
Operative part
6. It is now directed that the Appellate Authority shall permit the respondents 6 to 8 to participate in the proceedings only if they establish that they constitute the majority of the Managing Committee at whose instance the enquiry was conducted in the first place and it is only then they can be 6 permitted to participate in the enquiry in an adversarial position. The Appellate Authority shall hence consider whether the enquiry conducted was a suo motu enquiry or an enquiry at the instance of a majority of the Managing Committee members and if the enquiry had been conducted, participation of the majority of the members - respondents 6 to 8 would certainly be entitled for a hearing in the appeal. It is in this light that the issue may be addressed as a preliminary issue before permitting the respondents 6 to 8 to participate in the appeal. The order impugned stands modified to the extent indicated herein. The petition stands disposed of accordingly without prejudice to the contentions of either side. SD/- JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition stands disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
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.