C RAMAIAH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Ors.

(BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- QUASHING ANNEXURE-C, JRB/DAAVAA/29-C/05/2020-2021, THE ORDERS DTD 07.04.2021, PASSED BY THE R3 AND ORDERS DTD 26.08.2022 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.AANI(VA. AND E)/D-2/DAP/11/2021-22, BY THE R2, AS PER ANNEXURE- D, GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY ANNEXURE-C, AND D AS WELL AS SUCH OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS/ACTIONS PURSUANT TO ANNEXURE-C, JRB/DAAVAA/29-C/05/2020-2021, THE ORDERS DTD

07.04.2021, PASSED BY THE R3 AND ORDERS DTD 26.08.2022 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.AANI(VA. AND E)/D-2/DAP/11/2021-22, BY THE R2, AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:902 WP No. 20370 of 2022 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: 1) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Annexure-C, JRB/DAAVAA/29-C/05/2020-2021, the orders dated 07.04.2021, passed by the 3rd respondent and orders dated 26.08.2022 passed in Appeal No.AANI(VA. & E)/D-2/DAP/11/2021- 22, by the respondent No.2, as per Annexure-D; 2) pass such other incidental or consequential relief as the circumstances of the case warrants in the ends of the justice.

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The previous term of the Board of Management to respondent No.5 Karnataka Government Class D Employees House Building Co-operative Society having come to an end on 25.01.2020, and new elections have been conducted for the period from 25.01.2020 to

24.01.2025. A new Board came to be constituted by 13 directors and assumed charge as Board of Directors and - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:902 WP No. 20370 of 2022 HC-KAR the petitioner was elected as President of the said Society. Respondent No.3 by exercising suo-motu powers under Section 29(c)(8) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act of 1959’) initiated proceedings by issuing a notice calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation. Respondent No.3 by merely recording the charges and objections submitted by the petitioner and Secretary of the Society, without assigning any reasons, passed an order on 07.04.2021, disqualifying the petitioner from continuing as a member of the board or as the director under Section 29(c) of the Act of 1959. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 07.04.2021, preferred an appeal before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, vide order dated 26.08.2022, dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by respondent No.3. Hence, this writ petition.

The respondents filed a statement of objections, contending that the petitioner being the President of the Society, has misused his official capacity, and caused a - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:902 WP No. 20370 of 2022 HC-KAR serious loss to the Society. Hence, respondent No.3 has rightly passed an order under Section 29C of the Act of

1959. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned AGA for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though respondent No.3 has initiated a suo-motu proceedings under Section 29C of the Act of 1959, by issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice. Respondent No.3 without considering the contents of the reply, has passed an impugned order under Section 29C of the Act of 1959, disqualifying the petitioner from the board. He submits that respondent No.3 has not assigned any detailed reasons while passing the impugned order. He submits the said impugned order is without application of mind. Respondent No.2, without considering - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:902 WP No. 20370 of 2022 HC-KAR the said aspect, upheld the order passed by respondent No.3 by passing an impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

Per contra, learned AGA submits respondent No.3 considered the entire evidence on record and considered the reply submitted by the petitioner and passed the impugned order. He submits that the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is in accordance with Provisions of Act of 1959. He also submits that the appellate authority re-appreciated the entire material on record, and dismissed the appeal. He submits that the impugned orders vide Annexures C and D are just and proper, and do not call for any interference at the hands of this court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

Perused records and considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:902 WP No. 20370 of 2022 HC-KAR

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was elected as President of Karnataka Government Class D Employee House Building Co-operative Society for a period of 5 years with effect from 25.01.2020 to 24.01.2025. Respondent No.3 exercising suo-motu powers under Section 29(c)(8) of the Act of 1959 initiated proceedings against the petitioner by issuing a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit a reply to the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice. Respondent No.3 passed an order vide Annexure-C dated 07.04.2021. From the perusal of the impugned order passed by respondent No.3, respondent No.3 except reproducing the charges framed against the petitioner, and without considering the contents of the reply, has passed the impugned order. Although, the petitioner has raised several grounds in his reply, however, respondent No.3 without considering the defence taken by the petitioner has proceeded to pass the impugned order vide Annexure-C. As rightly pointed out - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:902 WP No. 20370 of 2022 HC-KAR by the learned counsel for the petitioner the impugned order vide Annexure-C is passed without application of mind, and no reasons have been assigned. The said aspect was not considered by respondent No.2 and committed an error in upholding the order i.e., Annexure-C. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by respondent No.3. As observed above, the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is a cryptic order, and no reasons have been assigned except answering in 2 to 3 lines. In view of the above discussion, is evident that the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is arbitrary and is without application of mind, and also respondent No.2 has upheld the order passed by respondent No.3 without considering the said fact.