Karnataka High Court
Prathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 March, 2018
Bench: A.S.Bopanna, S G Pandit
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT APPEAL NOs.100029-100033/2018
& W.A. Nos.100037-40/2018
BETWEEN:
1. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN
SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT.,
BIDARI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE
APPASAHEB S/O SOMALING KANTI,
AGE: 58 YEARS,
PIN: 586125.
2. BHIMASI S/O TIMMAPPA RAGHA
AGE 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
PRESIDENT,
PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., BIDARI,
R/O: BIDARI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT,
PIN: 586125.
3. KUMAR S/O ADIVEPPA BELLUR
AGE 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
VICE-CHAIRMAN,
PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI
:2:
SANGH NIYAMIT., BIDARI,
R/O: BIDARI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
PIN: 586125.
4. SHRIKANT S/O GURURAJ NAGANUR
AGE 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
DIRECTOR,
PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., BIDARI,
R/O: BIDARI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
PIN: 586125.
5. ASHOK S/O PANDAPPA KONAPPANAVAR
AGE 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
DIRECTOR,
PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., BIDARI,
R/O: BIDARI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
PIN: 586125.
6. REVANSIDDA M/O LAXMIBAI HARIJAN
AGE 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
DIRECTOR,
PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., BIDARI,
R/O: BIDARI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
PIN: 586125.
7. PUNDALIK S/O APPANNA SAVHASE
AGE 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
DIRECTOR,
PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., BIDARI,
R/O: RAHEMATPUR, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
PIN: 586125.
:3:
8. SMT.RAMAHAJANBI
W/O DASTAGIRSAB MULLA
AGE 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
DIRECTOR,
PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., BIDARI,
R/O: BIDARI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
PIN: 586125.
9. SMT.CHANDRAVVA
W/O PARASAPPA GADDYAL
AGE 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
DIRECTOR,
PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., BIDARI,
R/O: BIDARI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
PIN: 586125.
... APPELLANTS
(By SRI. ANANTH MANDAGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SHIVARAJ P MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGLAURU,
PIN: 560001.
2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES JAMKHANDI,
TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
PIN: 587301.
:4:
3. THE CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
OFFICE OF ITHE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OP SOCIETIES, JAMKHANDI,
TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
PIN: 587301.
4. SHRI.SIDDAPPA S/O MARUTI KAMBLE
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: RAHIMATPUR (BIDARI)
TQ JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
PIN: 586125.
5. SHRI.KANTAPPA S/O HANUMAPPA RAGHA
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BIDARI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
PIN: 586125.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
SRI. F V PATIL, ADVOCATE, FOR R4 & R5)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S. 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS & TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
17.02.2018, WP.NO.101203-207/2018, 101250-
101253/2018, SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO REJECTING THE
INTERIM PRAYER AND ALLOWING THE IMPLEADING
APPLICATION ARE CONCERNED BY ALLOWING THESE
WRIT APPEALS.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, A.S.BOPANNA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
:5:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Ananth Mandagi, learned Senior counsel representing on behalf of appellants as also Sri F.V.Patil, the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Since these appeals are filed assailing the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, even though contentions on merits are urged herein, we find it unnecessary to advert to those aspects of the matter since in any event the contentions are still open for consideration before the learned Single Judge, wherein in the writ petitions the learned Single Judge after passing the order dated 17.02.2018 has permitted the respondents herein to file their objections to the writ petitions.
3. The limited aspect which is to be noticed is, though the learned Single Judge while rejecting the interim prayer has referred to the decision in the case of :6: Muslim Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, reported in ILR 1990 KAR 3705, the learned Senior Counsel in that regard would refer to the very decision in an attempt to distinguish the same and would further refer to the decision of another Division Bench in the case of A.S. Kupparaju Vs. General Secretary, Raju Kshatriya Welfare Association, reported in ILR 1990 KAR 3721 and also to the decision in the case of S. Sreenivasa Rao Vs. Sub-Registrar (Headquarters), reported in ILR 1990 KAR 3740, to contend that a different view has been taken by the latter two Division Benches therein, it is premature for us to get into those aspects of the matter, at this point of time. It is for that reason that even if, on the said aspect the interim order before the Court below did not arise for consideration, in any event the contentions were also urged in the writ petitions relating to the very manner in which the enquiry has been initiated and is being proceeded by :7: the Enquiry Officer especially with regard to improper method of service of notice.
4. If that be the position, the learned Single Judge in any event will have to advert to those aspects of the matter and thereafter arrive at a conclusion whether the enquiry as initiated against the appellants herein who are the petitioners before the learned Single Judge is justified. Therefore, in that circumstance while arriving at such conclusion, the issue as to whether the proceedings as initiated would fall under Section 64(1) or is to be considered as an enquiry under Section 64(2) are also matters which would require detailed consideration therein based on the decisions that would be relied upon including the above noted decisions. Therefore, since those aspects of the matter being still open, it would in any event be taken note by the learned Single Judge.
:8:
5. Hence, in that circumstance, if that aspect of the matter is kept in perspective, keeping in view, the fact that the learned Single Judge has provided an opportunity to the respondents herein to file objection statement and the matter will require detailed consideration, pending such consideration if any precipitative order adverse to the interest of the appellants who are the petitioners therein is passed, the very contentions as raised in the writ petitions would render themselves infructuous. Hence, if that aspect of the matter is kept in view, the interest of the petitioners therein is required to be protected to the said extent. Therefore, insofar as the interim prayer alone from which these appeals arise, it is ordered that even if the Enquiry Officer proceeds further with the enquiry, no precipitative order adverse to the interest of the appellants shall be passed till an appropriate decision is taken by the learned Single Judge in the pending writ petition.
:9:
6. In terms of the above, these appeals stand disposed of.
All contentions of the parties are kept open before the learned Single Judge.
In view of disposal of the appeals, IA.No.1/2018 for dispensation does not survive for consideration and shall stand disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE msr