Karnataka High Court
The Primary Co-Operative Agriculture ... vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 5 April, 2005
Equivalent citations: ILR2005KAR2098, 2005(4)KARLJ439, 2005 A I H C 2694, (2005) 4 KANT LJ 439, 2005 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 1270, (2005) 2 KCCR 1394
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
ORDER Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.
1. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 11.03.2005 vide Annexure-E, by which the petitioner's nomination paper is rejected by the Returning Officer, (the Repondent No. 1 herein) on the ground that the petitioner is a defaulter as on the date of filing of his nomination and to direct the Respondent No. 1 to accept his nomination and permit him to contest the election to the Managing Committee of the 2nd respondent bank.
2. Though the matter is listed for orders, the same is taken up for final hearing by consent of learned Advocates. Heard Sri. Shantesh Gureddi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Keshava Reddy, learned HCGP, appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the impleaded Respondent No. 3 and perused the material on record.
3. The brief facts of the case which are necessary for the disposal of the case, are that the Petitioner herein is the Primary Co-opeative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Channagiri ('PCARD' for short), which is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act 1959 ('Act' for short) represented by its president. The said 'PICARD' in turn is the primary member of the 2nd respondent bank i.e., The Karnataka State Co-opeartive Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., ('KSCARD' for short) which is the apex bank. The managing Committee of the 2nd respondent 'KSCARD' will have to be consituted by the concerned 'PCARDS' from all over the State, and every district is entitled to send one representative (PCARD) to be represented on the managing committee of the 'KSCARD'. The Respondent No. 1 being the Returning Officer to conduct the elections to the Managing Committee for the Co-Operative Society for the years 2005-06 to 2009-10 of the 2nd respondent 'KSCARD' issued calender of events on 16.02.2005. The petitioner 'PCARD', in its meeting held on 04.03.2005 resolved to authorise its President Lokeshappa to represent and contest the election on its behalf. In pursuance to said resolution, Shri Lokeshappa filed his nomination on 04.03.2005 to contest the election to be held for the managing committee of 'KSCARD' by representing the Davanagere and Chitradurga districts. The nomination paper filed by Lokeshappa is rejected on the ground that he was a defaulter as on 04.03.2005, in as much as, he did not re-pay the loan of Rs. 1,00,000/-obtained by him from 'PCARD' Channagiri. The endorsement/order of rejection of nomination paper is produced at Annexure-E which is under challenge in this writ petition.
4. When the matter came up before this Court on 15.03.2005 for preliminary hearing, the following interim order was passed:
"Respondent No. 1 is directed to permit the petitioner to contest the election to be held on 18.03.2005. the said contest will be subject to the result of this writ petition. It is made clear that, if the petitioner is elected in the election, the result should not be declared and announced until further orders of this Court."
5. In the meanwhile, the rival candidate namely, G Shankaramurthy filed an application for impleading himself as party respondent No. 3 along with an application for vacating the a foresaid interim order. Alter hearing, the said application for impleading is allowed. The respondent No. 3 herein, in his application filed for vacating the interim order contended thai there were only two candidates viz., the petitioner-Lokeshappa and himself to the constituency of Chitradurga and Davanagere districts for being elected as director to the managing Committee of the 'KSCARD'. When the scrutiny of the nomination papers was held on 11.03.2005, he (respondent No. 3) raised objection to the nomination filed by said Lokeshappa by contending that he is a defaulter to the Petitioners' 'PCARD', inasmuch as, he has not repaid the loan obtained by him from 'PCARD' Channagiri. On considering the same, the Respondent No. 1, by passing the detailed order as per Annexure-E has rejected the nomination filed by said Lokeshappa on 11.03.2005. Thus, as the 3rd respondent herein was the lone candidate left in the fray for the post of one director from the 'PCARDs' of Davanagere and Chitradurga constituency, the Respondent No. 1 had declared Respondent No. 3 herein as elected un-opposed to the said post as contemplated under Rule-14 (22) of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Rules 1960 ('Rules' for short). A declaration was made to that effect by issuing notification dated 12.03.2005 which is produced at Annexure-R 3(a) and consequently, the petitioner cannot maintain the present writ petition, which is filed thereafter. However, in view of the aforesaid interim order subsequently granted by this Court on 15.03.2005, the Returning Officer passed a modified order, accepting the nomination filed by the petitioner and conducted election afresh on 18.03.2005. Both the parties secured one vote each in the said election and consequently lottery was drawn but the result has not been declared in view of the interim order granted by this Court.
6. Sri. Shantesh Gureddi learned counsel appealing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not contesting the election in his individual capacity but is contesting as the nominee or representative of 'PCARD'. Thus, he contended that the nomination filed by Lokeshappa is wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that said Lokeshappa is a defaulter. As the 'PCARD' Channagiri is not defaulter on the date of filing of the nomination, it cannot be restrained from contesting the election through its representative. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner argued for setting aside the endorsement/order of rejection of nomination of paper and consequently, prayed to declare the result of the election.
7. Per contra, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 submits that as the nomination paper filed by the petitioner was rejected at the time of scrutiny i.e., on 11.03.2005 and consequently as the 3rd respondent alone was in the fray, the Respondent No. 3 was declared elected unopposed on 12.03.2005 itself i.e., much prior to filing of the writ petition and that therefore, this writ petition, which is filed subsequently challenging the order of rejection of nomination papers of the petitioner is not maintainable. He further contended that if the nominee of the petitioner 'PCARD' is a defaulter, he cannot participate and contest in the election to the managing committee of the 2nd respondent bank. He strongly relies on the provisions of Section 29-C of the Act in support of his contention. On the other hand, Sri Keshava Reddy, learned HCGP, appearing on behalf of the State aruged in support of the contentions of the Respondent No. 3 by contending that as the authorised nominee of the petitioners 'PCARD' is a defaulter, he (defaulter) cannot be allowed to contest the election and consequently, the Respondent No. 1 is justified in rejecting the nomination of the petitioner.
8. Though the writ petition was filed on 14-3-2005, the same does not disclose that the respondent No. 3 was declared as elected un-opposed on 12-3-2005. Even at the time of argument on the interim prayer on 15-3-2005, the said fact was not brought to the notice of this Court. The non-disclosure of these vital facts has led to the passing of the aforesaid interim order on 15-3-2005. On this ground alone the said interim order is liable to vacated.
9. It is not in dispute that there were only two nominations viz., (a) filed by Sri Lokeshappa representing the 'PCARD' Channagiri and (b) filed by Sri G. Shankaramurthy, the 3rd respondent herein. As per the calender of events, the scrutiny of the nomination papers was held on 11.03.2005. It is also not in dispute that Lokeshappa, the authorised nominee of the petitioners' 'PCARD' was a defaulter as on the date of filing his nomination paper i.e., on 04.03.2005. The nomination filed by said Lokeshappa was rejected by the Returning Officer on 11.3.2005 and as there were no other candidate in the fray except the Respondent No. 3 herein the Returning Officer having no other option, has declared the Respondent No. 3 as elected unopposed and issued Notification to that effect on 12-03-2005, as contemplated under rule-14 (22) of the rules, as can be seen from the document produced at Annexure-3(a). Thus after declaration of results, the only course left open to the petitioner is to raise dispute under Section 70 of the Act. In view of the same the interim order granted by this Court on 15.3.2005, i.e., subsequent to declaration of election results, becomes infructous. Thus, the further proceedings initiated by the Returning Officer in pursuance to the interim order granted by the Court dated 15.03.2005 also are liable to be declared as non-est in the eye of law.
10. Secondly, though the petitioners' 'PCARD' is not a defaulter, it cannot authorise a person as its nominee who is a defaulter to participate & contest in the election. The person who is in default to any co-operative society, is specifically debarred from being elected, appointed or continued as the member on the Committee of management of any co-operative society, as is clear from Section 29-C of the Act. In the case on hand, as aforesaid, Lokeshappa, the authorised nominee of petitioners 'PCARD' was admittedly defaulter as on the relevant date i.e., on the date of filing of his nomination. Thus, he is specifically debarred from contesting the election in view of Section 29-C of the Act. The petitioner 'PCARD' should have nominated/authorised another member, who is not a defaulter, to contest the election.
Further, as could be seen from the nomination papers filed by petitioner at Annexure-C, said Lokeshappa being the President of the petitioner 'PCARD' has declared himself as non-defaulter either to the Petitioners 'PCARD' or to any other co-operative societies or banks. Such declaration made by said Lokeshappa is obvisously false and misleading. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the Returning Officer is justified in his action in rejecting the nomination filed by said Lokeshappa in exercise of his power under Rule-14(15) of the Rules. Looking to the locality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order/endorsement at Annexure-E issued by the Returning Officer, while rejecting the nomination paper of Lokeshappa-nominee of the petitioners' 'PCARD' and consequently, the prayers sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted to the petitioner. Hence, the following order is made.
ORDER The interim order granted by this Court on 15.03.2005 is vacated. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, all further proceedings subsequent to 15-3-2005 initiated by the Returning Officer pursuant to the interim order dated 15.03.2005 of this Court are set aside.