Karnataka High Court
D.A.Seenappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 September, 2013
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WPs.32676-32688/2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.Nos.32676-32688/2013 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. D.A.SEENAPPA
S/O AVALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
DEVASTHANADA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
GUNDLAGURKI POST,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-562 101
2. SRI.NARAYANAPPA
S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT UNIGUL VILLAGE,
GUNDLAGURKI POST,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-562 101
3. SRI.NARASHIMAMURTHY
S/O LAKSHMAIA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT UNIGUL VILLAGE,
GUNDLAGURKI POST,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-562101
4. SRI.C.NARAYANA SWAMY
S/O THAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
DEVASTHANADA HOSHALLI VILLAGE,
GUNDLAGURKI POST,
WPs.32676-32688/2013
2
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-562101
5. SRI.C.NAGARAJU
S/O KEMPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
AKALA THIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
GUNDLAGURKI POST,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-562101
6. SRI.VENKATANARASHIMIAH
S/O NARASHIMAIA,
AGED 40 YEARS,
AKALA THIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
GUNDLAGURKI POST,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALIUK
AND DISTRICT-562 101
7. SRI.M.RAMESH
S/O MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
GUNDLAGURKI POST,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-562 101
8. SRI.C.NARAYANA SWAMY
S/O MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOLUT 45 YEARS,
JADENAHALLI VILLAGE,
GUNDLAGURKI POST,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-562 101
9. SRI.AKKALAPPA
S/O CHIKKA HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
KACHUR VILLAGE,
YELGARE POST,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-562 101
WPs.32676-32688/2013
3
10. SRI JAYARAMAPPA
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
GANDLAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-562 101
11. SRI.VENKATESHAPPA
S/O GANTALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
SOPPAHALLI VILLAGE,
DIBBUR POST,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-562 101
12. SRI.D.S.NYATHAPPA
S/O SEETHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
DEVASTHANADA HOSALLI
GUNDLAGURKI POST,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-562101
13. SRI.THAMMAREDDY
S/O NADAPIKATHAPPA
DEVASTHANADA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
GUNDLAGURKI
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-562 101
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri NARAYANA REDDY M)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BANGALORE-1
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
WPs.32676-32688/2013
4
2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION,
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101
3. VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA
SANGHA NIYAMITHA,
DEVASTHANADA HOSAHALLI,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-562101.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF PROMOTER.
4. C.S. ARIF ULLA ASIF
CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
CHINTAMANI TALUK AND ELECTION OFFICER,
DEVASTHANADA HOSAHALLI VYAVASAYA SEVA
SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA,
DEVASTHANADA HOSAHALLI,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-562 101
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri K.A.ARIGA, AGA FOR R1, 2 & 4)
*********
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CALENDAR OF EVENTS IN NO. SANI:48/REG:/
CR:43/REG.NO.43514/2012-13. DT.29.6.2012 VIDE ANNX-R.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. In this batch of writ petition, petitioners are challenging the calendar of events published on 06.07.2013 vide Annexure- R, thereby continuing the election process for electing the WPs.32676-32688/2013 5 members of the Managing Committee of Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Devasthanada Hosahalli, Chikkaballapur Taluk - respondent No.3 herein.
2. In fact, a perusal of Annexure-R - calendar of events would show that election for electing the Managing Committee of the Society for the period from 2012-13 to 2016-17 was scheduled to be held on 29.07.2013 and a calendar of events in this regard had been earlier issued on 22.10.2012. Some of the members of the Society had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.46350/2012 seeking a direction to the Society and to the Returning Officer to continue the election process from the stage where it had been interrupted as per the calendar of events which was published earlier on 22.10.2012 by rescheduling the dates. The order dated 11.01.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.No.46350/2012 which is produced along with an application I.A.3/2013 filed seeking to vacate the interim order of stay by the counsel for the impleading applicants makes it clear that the Returning Officer was directed to continue the election process from the stage where it was interrupted by rescheduling the dates. Two months time was WPs.32676-32688/2013 6 granted to complete the said process from the date of receipt/production of the copy of the said order.
3. Thereafter, another writ petition came to be filed in W.P.Nos.2457-2470/2013 before this Court by the petitioners and some others seeking a direction to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies to accept the list of intending members including the petitioners who intended to become the members of the Society and thereafter, convene the General Body Meeting and hold the election to the Managing Committee of the Society. The said writ petition was disposed of on 25.02.2013. In paragraphs 7 & 8 of the said order, this Court has observed as under:
"7. The Chief Promotor will continue to hold the office till the new Managing Committee is constituted. Admittedly, election of the third respondent - Society is not yet conducted. It is not shown to me as to what in the legal impediment for the Chief Promotor to accept the applications of the petitioners and other farmers, if they are otherwise qualified to be the members of the Society. In the instant case neither the applications of the petitioners and other farmers are accepted nor rejected. In the circumstances, the second WPs.32676-32688/2013 7 respondent is to be directed to consider the applications of the petitioners and other farmers in accordance with law.
8. This Court in W.P.No.46350/2012 and connected matters vide order dated 11.01.2013 directed the third respondent Society and its Election Officer to hold election within a time frame of two months from the stage it was stopped. Petitioners are not parties to W.P.No.46350/2012 and connected matters. Therefore, the time is to be extended to hold elections. In the meanwhile petitioners representations and others are to be considered in accordance with law. Accordingly and for the reasons stated above the following:
ORDER
i) Writ Petitions are hereby disposed of.
ii) The Chief Promoter of the third respondent Society is hereby directed to consider the request of the petitioners and other farmers as per Annexure-A within a time frame of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
iii) The time granted to hold election of the third respondent Society in Writ Petition No.46350/2012 is extended by another ten weeks from the date of WPs.32676-32688/2013 8 passing an order by the Chief Promotor on the application Annexure-A."
4. Thereafter, the Chief Promoter, to whom the direction has been issued, issued a communication as per Annexure-N on 06.05.2013 in compliance with the direction issued by this Court on 25.02.2013 in W.P.Nos.2457-2470/2013. In the said communication, he has made it clear that the petitioners herein who intended to become the members of the Society could not be accepted as such members as they had not made any application along with relevant documents by paying the share amount. He has further stated in the said communication that as the High Court had already fixed the time frame to conduct the election that too from the stage where it was interrupted, the request made by them for enlisting them as members had been rejected. In this background, the petitioners are challenging Annexure-N communication also.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that while enlisting the members for respondent No.3 - Society, the proper procedure was not followed by the Chief Promoter, inasmuch as publicity was not given to the intending members residing in as many as 14 villages. As a WPs.32676-32688/2013 9 result, the Chief Promoter had proceeded only to enlist his followers as members and therefore, the attempt made to conduct elections with the help of such members was rightly questioned by the petitioners before this Court and this Court had given an opportunity to the petitioners to get themselves enrolled as members making it clear that only thereafter, elections shall be conducted. Despite such direction, the respondents have conducted election as per the calendar of events published vide Annexure-R and therefore, the entire process of election gets vitiated.
6. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that it was made clear in the earlier order dated 11.01.2013 passed in W.P.No.46350/2012 and connected cases by this Court that the election process shall be conducted from the stage where it was interrupted by rescheduling the dates and the same was clarified in the decision rendered on 25.02.2013 in W.P.Nos.2457-2470/2013 making it clear that the Chief Promoter of the respondent - Society had to consider the request of the petitioners and the other farmers as per their application within a time frame of 30 days and hence, the time granted to hold election to the Managing Committee of the 3rd WPs.32676-32688/2013 10 respondent - Society as per the order passed in W.P.No.46350/2012 was extended by another ten weeks. In sum and substance, his contention is that if both these orders passed by this Court are looked into, it becomes very clear that the Chief Promoter should first consider the applications filed by the petitioners and other similarly placed applicants and thereafter, elections shall be held. Such a procedure is not followed and hence, the whole process is vitiated.
7. The impleading applicants in I.A.2/2013, who are represented by the learned counsel Sri Jaiprakash Reddy, are the successful members who have been elected unopposed as members of the Managing Committee of the Society in the elections held pursuant to the calendar of events issued vide Annexure-R. Sri Jaiprakash Reddy, learned counsel appearing for them strongly resisted the claim made by the petitioners in the writ petitions.
8. I.A.4/2013 is filed by the counsel for the petitioners to implead the remaining successful members who have been elected unopposed as members of the Managing Committee of the Society in the elections held pursuant to the calendar of events issued vide Annexure-R. WPs.32676-32688/2013 11
9. Learned Additional Government Advocate has filed statement of objections and has supported the action of the authorities in conducting the election. It is his submission that before the interim order of stay passed in this case was communicated, the elections had been held, as, after the withdrawal of the nominations filed by other candidates, only eight candidates had been left in the fray and these eight candidates have been declared elected unopposed.
10. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after considering the pleadings and the respective contentions, it is not in dispute that elections had been indeed notified to the respondent - Society earlier by issuing calendar of events on 22.10.2012. The authorities did not hold elections as per the calendar of events published. This made some of the members of the Society to approach this Court by filing W.P.No.46350/2012 and other connected cases. They had sought for a direction to continue the election process to the respondent - Society from the stage where it was interrupted as per the calendar of events published on 22.10.2012. In the said writ petition, after hearing the learned Additional Government Advocate and after noticing his submission, this WPs.32676-32688/2013 12 Court issued a direction to the Assistant Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Chikkaballapur Sub-Division, Chikkaballapur, to continue the election process from the stage where it was interrupted by rescheduling the dates. After this order was passed, the petitioners filed W.P.Nos.2457- 2470/2013. They had made allegations against the Chief Promoter of the respondent - Society stating that without giving due publicity for enlisting the members by collecting the shares, the Chief Promoter had proceeded to collect the share amount from his followers only ignoring the legitimate aspirations of the other farmers/villagers. Taking note of this grievance, this Court issued a direction to the Chief Promoter to consider the request of the petitioners and the other farmers. It is also made clear that the time granted earlier to hold elections as per the order dated 11.01.2013 passed in W.P.No.46350/2012 was extended by another ten weeks.
11. Thereafter, the Chief Promoter has issued Annexure-N - communication to petitioner No.1 herein rejecting his request assigning several reasons. This is followed by the election process being conducted from the stage where it was interrupted by issuing calendar of events on 06.07.2013. The WPs.32676-32688/2013 13 remaining process in the unfinished election process has been completed and the elections have been declared.
12. It is also contended by the counsel for the petitioners that in view of the amendment to the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act by incorporating Section 39AA, the election conducted by the 4th respondent was without authority of law. No opinion need be expressed on this legal contention at this stage as the same can be urged by raising appropriate dispute.
13. If the petitioners have any grievance with regard to the election conducted or with regard to the manner in which their applications were rejected, then the proper procedure to be adopted is to raise an election dispute. A writ petition cannot be a remedy in such a situation. Instead of raising an election dispute, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing these writ petitions. Although these writ petitions are filed before the election was declared, the fact remains that even before the interim order of stay could be communicated to the respondent - authorities, the election results had been announced as only eight contestants had been left in the fray and the other contestants had withdrawn their nominations. Therefore, it will be futile for this Court to examine the various WPs.32676-32688/2013 14 contentions urged by the petitioners. The contentions urged require examination of the disputed facts as well. Therefore, these writ petitions are dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners to raise appropriate dispute regarding the election conducted, if they are so aggrieved.
Sd/-
JUDGE PKS