Writ Petition No. 35252 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6808 WP No. 35252 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34363 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.35252 OF 2024 (CS-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.34363 OF 2024 (CS-RES) IN W.P. No.35252/2024 BETWEEN: PERAMAKANAHALLI MILK PRODUCERS’ CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., PERAMAKANAHALLI VILLAGE MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT PIN-563131 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT P. UDAYA KUMAR S/O. LATE PARASHURAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS PERAMAKANAHALLI VILLAGE MULBAGAL TQ, KOLAR DISTRICT-563131 Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (PETITIONER SOCIETY IS REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1959) VIDE IS REG NO.DRK/ESTCR122/NO 23649/96. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI PRABHULING NAVADGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHOWDAREDDY T.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6808 WP No. 35252 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34363 of 2024 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (INDUSTRIES AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY) OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560052. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BANGALORE DIVISION, #146, SAHAKARA SOUDHA MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560003. 4. KOLAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS’ SOCIETIES UNION LTD., KOLAR DAIRY, NH-4, HUTHUR POST, KOLAR-563102 REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR (RESPONDENT NO.4 SOCIETY IS REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959) 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KOLAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS’ SOCIETIES UNION LTD., KOLAR DAIRY, NH-4, HUTHUR POST, KOLAR-563102. (RESPONDENT NO.5 SOCIETY IS REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959) ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AAG A/W SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI JAYKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & R-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 29/10/2024 ISSUED / PASSED BY THE R3 BEARING AS NO.JRB/AMD/SECTION 12(5)/02/2024-25 (PRODUCED - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6808 WP No. 35252 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34363 of 2024 ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY; QUASH THE LETTER DATED 28/10/2024 ADDRESSED BY THE R5 TO THE R3 BEARING NO.KOHAAO.ADALITHA.79/5(A).2024-25 AS ANNEXURE-J). (PRODUCED IN W.P. NO.34363/2024 BETWEEN: PAMBARAHALLI MILK PRODUCERS’ CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, L. MANJUNATH, S/O. LAKSHMAN REDDY AGED 45 YEARS, DUGGASANDRA HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR-563131 (PETITIONER SOCIETY IS REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959). ...PETITIONER
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAGUPATHY K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 2. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES M.S. BUILIDNG, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (INDUSTRIES AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY) OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560052. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BANGALORE DIVISION, #146, SAHAKARA SOUDHA, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6808 WP No. 35252 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34363 of 2024 4. 5. KOLAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS’ SOCIETIES UNION LTD., KOLAR DAIRY, NH-4, HUTHUR POST, KOLAR-563102 REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB DIVISION, KOLAR (RESPONDENT NO.4 SOCIETY IS REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959) THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KOLAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS’ SOCIETIES UNION LTD., KOLAR DAIRY, NH-4, HUTUR POST, KOLAR-563102 (RESPONDENT NO.5 SOCIETY IS REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AAG A/W SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI JAYKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & R-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 29.10.2024 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEARING NO.JRB/AMD/SECTION 12(5)/02/2024-25 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY; QUASH THE LETTER DATED 28.10.2024 ADDRESSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEARING NO.KOHAAO:ADALITHA:79/5(A):2024-25 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H). THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR DICTATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6808 WP No. 35252 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34363 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Both the writ petitions are taken up together as common questions are involved. 2. The petitioners have called in question the notice dated 29.10.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent - Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies (‘JRCS’ for short) under Section 12(5) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959, (‘Act’ for short) and to quash the letter dated 28.10.2024 addressed by the 5th respondent, Managing Director of Kolar District Cooperative Milk Producers Societies Union Limited to the respondent No.3 – JRCS. 3. The petitioners are the primary societies registered under the Act and affiliated member of the Kolar District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited (KDCMP Union for short). The JRCS by communication dated 29.10.2024 issued under Section 12(5) of the Act called upon the KDCMP Union by its administrator and the Managing Director of KDCMP Union to effect amendment - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6808 WP No. 35252 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34363 of 2024 to the bylaws. The union was originally named as Kolar Chikkaballapur District Cooperative Milk Producers Societies Union which was registered under the Act was bifurcated into two entities by the JRCS as Kolar District Cooperative Milk Producers Society Union and Chikkaballapur District Cooperative Milk Producers Societies Union (KDCMP and CDCMP Union). Subsequently by an order the JRCS restored the union to its original form as Kolar Chikkaballapur District Cooperative Societies Union, which again came to be bifurcated by the respondent No.3 to original entities. The respondent No.5 Managing Director after bifurcation of KDCMP Union addressed a letter to the respondent No.3 seeking amendment of the bylaws of the KDCMP Union. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.5, the Managing Director of KDCMP Union had no authority to issue a letter to respondent No.3, JRCS seeking to amend the bylaws and it is contrary to section 12(5) of the Act. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6808 WP No. 35252 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34363 of 2024 4. Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.34363/2024 would contend that the order dated 28.10.2024 the respondent No.3 had appointed an administrator to the KDCMP Union under Section 28(5) of the Act to manage the affairs of the union and to take steps for the conduct of election of KDCMP Union. The respondent No.5 who is the Managing Director of the KDCMP Union contrary to the provision of the Act when an administrator was appointed by the respondent No.3 could not have addressed a letter dated 28.10.2024 directing the respondent No.3 to amend the bylaws of KDCMP Union. It is submitted that pursuant to the letter issued by the respondent No.5 i.e., the Managing Director of KDCMP Union the respondent No.3 has issued a notice under section 12(5) of the Act on 29.10.2024 contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Karnataka Cooperative Society Rules, 1960 (‘Rules’ for short). - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6808 WP No. 35252 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34363 of 2024 5. Shri Prabhuling Navadgi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.35252/2024 would urge similar contention and submits that the Managing Director of the KDCMP Union had no competence to seek amendment of the bylaw and in turn the respondent No.3 JRCS could not have acted upon the requisition of the Managing Director, KDCMP Union seeking for amendment of the bylaws. 6. Per contra the learned Senior counsel Jayakumar S Patil appearing for respondent No.5 and learned Senior counsel Sri D R Ravishankar appearing for the impleading applicants would vehemently contend that the primary societies had approached the Court in W.P.No.33522/2024 seeking similar reliefs and a coordinate bench of this Court already held that the legal procedure was not followed and as such disposed of the petition directing the Director to call for the Special General Body meeting by issuing notices to the primary members. It is submitted that pursuant to the notice - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6808 WP No. 35252 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34363 of 2024 issued under Section 12(5) the JRCS has passed an order on 29.11.2024 under Section 12(6) of the Act. 7. To the said contention the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the letter addressed by respondent No.5 Managing Director of KDCMP Union seeking amendment of the bylaws is not in consonance with Section 12 of the Act and the issuance of any order by respondent No.3 under Sub Section 6 of Section 12 would constitute a failure to exercise a proper jurisdiction under the Act. 8. Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Advocate General appearing for the State vehemently contended that the order passed by the respondent No.3 is in consonance with sub Sections 5 and 6 of Section 12 of the Act. It is submitted that the similar contentions were taken by the primary societies in W.P. No.33522/2024 and the coordinate bench of this Court considering the similar contentions raised by the petitioners therein has held that there was no proper procedure followed under sub Section - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6808 WP No. 35252 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34363 of 2024 6 of Section 12 and directed the administrator of the society to hold special general body meeting by issuing necessary notice to the concerned primary members as required under the Act and in light of the same the present petition seeking for the similar prayers would not be entertained by this Court and has sought for dismissal of this petition. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently submits that the petitioners being the primary members had sufficient knowledge about the filing of the W.P. No.33522/2024 and the order passed in the said petition, suppressing the material facts have approached the Court and the interim order has been obtained and non disclosure of the material facts the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court and the petition needs to be dismissed at the threshold without even entertaining the petition on merits. 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties the point that arises for consideration is, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6808 WP No. 35252 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34363 of 2024 (1) Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed on suppression of material facts ? (2) Whether the claim of the petitioner could be entertained in light of the order passed in W.P. No.33522/2024? 11. The undisputed fact is that W.P. No.33522/2024 was filed by Ombatthugulli Milk Producers Cooperative Society Limited, Yadananahalli Milk Producers Cooperative Society Limited and Belagaanahalli Milk Producers Cooperative Society Limited, seeking for the following prayers: “Wherefore the petitioner most respectfully prays this Hon’ble Court be pleased to: a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ to quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent that in Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bangalore Division, Bangalore dated 29.11.2024 in No. JRB/AMD SECTION 12(6)/2024-25/08 as per Annexure-E. b. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ to restore the order of the 2nd respondent to the stage of issuing notice and convening General Body by the 3rd Respondent - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:6808 WP No. 35252 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34363 of 2024 Administrator in terms of the order under Section 12(5) of the Act as passed by the 2nd Respondent dated 29.10.2024 in number JRB/AMD/SECTION 12(5)/02/2024-25 as per Annexure-D. c. Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case and allow this writ petition in the ends of justice and equity.” 12. In the said writ petition the contention raised by the petitioner was that no meeting has been held in terms of sub Section (5) of Section 12 of the Act and the members could not have known their opinion or grievance as regards the proposed amendments and the petitioners were deprived of an opportunity. The coordinate bench of this Court framed the following points for consideration: “Whether the petitioners who claim to be members of Federal Cooperative Society would be entitled under Sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the Act to submit their objections on the amendment, when an amendment proposed by the registrar under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act has not been given effect to by the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:6808 WP No. 35252 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34363 of 2024 Cooperative society either by the board elected or by the administrator appointed?” 13. The coordinate bench of this Court at para Nos.14 and 16 held as under : “14. Sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Act provides for the registrar to refuse to register any amendment or any bye-laws which have been approved by the cooperative society. Therefore, Sub-sections (1) to (4) of Section 12 of the Act deals with amendments voluntarily made by the Cooperative Society and it is in relation thereto that sub rules (1) to (5) of Rule 6 of the Rules would be applicable since it deals with a situation where a Cooperative Society proposes to amend its bye- laws that is to say the amendment is voluntarily made on part of the Cooperative Society and in that regard that the members of the society would have a right to participate in a meeting and vote on the said amendment and before so voting to make their position clear. x x x 16. A perusal of sub Rule (1) to (5) would indicate that the same relate to voluntary amendments made by the society. A perusal of sub Rule (6) above would indicate that even where the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:6808 WP No. 35252 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34363 of 2024 Registrar were to propose any amendments to the Bylaws, that is to say, that the amendment is not voluntary but at the instance of the Registrar, then in that event the authority competent to convene the General Meeting, shall place such proposal before the Annual or Special General Meeting, as the case may be and the decision on such proposal shall be taken at such meeting.” 14. The coordinate bench of this Court was of the considered opinion that the procedure has not been followed and the petitioner cannot be deprived of their right for the annual and special general meeting to be convened and as such they issued the following directions: “i. Writ petition is partly-allowed. ii. 2nd A certiorari is issued, the order passed by the respondent-Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bangalore Division, Bangalore dated 29.11.2024 in No.JRB/AMD/SECTION 12(6)/2024- 25/08 at Anneuxre-E is hereby quashed. iii. The 3rd respondent-Administrator is directed to call for a special General Meeting by issuing necessary notices to the concerned primary - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:6808 WP No. 35252 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34363 of 2024 members giving the notice as required under the Act. iv. Notice to be issued within on or before 25th December 2025.” 15. The petitioners who had approached in W.P. No.33522/2024 were the primary societies which were affiliated to the KDCMP union and the filing of the said petition by the primary societies was not disclosed in the instant writ petition, as could be seen from the memorandum of the writ petition. When a petitioner approaches writ Court the petitioner must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant whether he is a party to a proceedings or not when he is aware about certain facts he has bounden duty to state all the facts which are relevant to the litigation. At the time of the argument advanced by the learned Senior counsel it was brought to the notice of this Court that the reason for granting of the interim order was in light of the fact that - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:6808 WP No. 35252 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34363 of 2024 the challenge in W.P.No.33522/2024 was not to Section 12(5) and as such this Court had issued notice and stayed the notice under Section 12(5). This submission made by the learned Senior counsel is not finding place in the entire pleadings in the writ petition. The writ petition does not state about filing of the petition or about any averment about the W.P.No.33522/2024 filed by the other primary societies. 16. The Apex Court in the case of K Jayaram and others vs. Bangalore Development Authority and others1 has observed that when the petitioner approaches a writ Court and the parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning any part of the subject-matter of dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according to the parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings or Court litigations was or is pending, they have to mandatorily 1 AIR Online 2021 SC 1141 - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:6808 WP No. 35252 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34363 of 2024 state so in their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with law. 17. In the instant case the petitioner has not disclosed the fling of petition by the Milk Producers and also about the directions issued in the writ petition. The petition needs to be non suited on the sole ground of suppression of material facts. The Apex Court in the case of Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others2 has taken a similar observation and has held at para No.10 as under: “9. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., the court held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and 2 2010 (2) SCC 114 - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:6808 WP No. 35252 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34363 of 2024 material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayshree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel.” 18. The entire pleadings is silent about the writ petition being filed by the primary societies. The petition needs to be dismissed for suppression of facts. As regards to the contentions that the respondent No.5 had no authority to address a letter to the third respondent by letter dated 28.10.2024 to amend the bylaw, it is relevant to say that dehors the letter dated 28.10.2024 the third respondent had independent authority under sub Section 5 of Section 12 to issue notice for amendment if the registrar finds it necessary or desirable and to give effect to the provisions of the Act made there under. 19. Looking into the notice issued by the Registrar and in light of sub clause (5) of Section 12, the Registrar has issued notice indicating the amendment of the bylaw which is necessary and desirable pursuant to which the - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:6808 WP No. 35252 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34363 of 2024 order under Sub Section (6), sub clause (12) has been passed. The impugned order was subject matter before the coordinate bench in W.P. No.33522/2024 and as stated supra the order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court directed the administrator to call for special general meeting by issuing necessary notices to the concerned primary members giving notice as required under the Act. The challenge made to the notice issued by the registrar does not warrant any interference and it is in compliance with sub Section (5) of sub clause (12) of the Act and accordingly the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following order.
Decision
ORDER 1. The writ petitions are hereby dismissed as devoid of merits by imposing cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) payable to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority within four weeks from the date of release of this order. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:6808 WP No. 35252 of 2024 C/W WP No. 34363 of 2024 2. The petitioners are at liberty to appear in the special general meeting pursuant to the notice issued by the administrator. 3. It is needless to observe that petitioners are at liberty to raise their objections in the special general body that would be held. In view of disposal, pending IAs also stand disposed. ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA Sd/- ykl List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49