Karnataka High Court
Mahesh S/O Puttanna vs Deputy Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 14 July, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2010 (4) AIR KAR R 292
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
AND: 1. Deputy Registrar of Co--operatéve Societies, Mysore District, Mysore. 2. Asst. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mysore Sub-Division ._ Mysore. 1 3. The Primary Agriculture Credit Co~operative Bank Ltd., ' Sriramapura, Rep by its Manéigyer Sriramapura, Mysore__TaIuk 8i.._DAiStrE'Ct. 4. Administrator ' , The Primary Agriculture Credit Co--operative Bank Ltci".j"'V.': ' . » Sri ramapu ra", ' i3-"=.;y.s'ore"._Taiu*i<A &"'Dist.'r'ict....f ..Respondents (By Sri Naréfidpg;pigsad,:j'}si.t:.t§r~*..;.--r5r; Rfi and R2) i._s'i7i.ied Aiiieies 226 and 227 of the C0n7.st.i1;=:,1ucir1" Li?i1idia';~_praying 1.0 quash the order dated 30.3.2010. is-sued' iAR2..-'produced as Annoxiire~l'£ by holding thatiéthe pe'iit.io11ers"are erititied i.o riaairlage the z.1iTai1's of the R3 Llpto 2U12¥;.13.'v_ ' " ~ Thgi-S writ peiiti't311"C0n1ing on for preiinxinazy i1e.a.i'i.;.1.g in B--G;*ou::_); fl.'iiSA.d_Ely the Court made the i'o11owi11g:~ ORDER
"""*Pev-titiorliers ciaiming to be the members of the Auxi'Au"'V.V..Core.mitVt'ee of the management of the 3'" respondent- are questioning the order at Annexure-E, ixv dated 30.3.2010, by which the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mysore, has appoint'etCi'~:hf"t--h"e., Administrator to the 3" respondent--societ";?,,:" u very order, the Assistant Regi;str'ar'«of"--4,Co--:otjera't--i:vex'E Societies has disqualified. _thev4'r..Arra--embe,rS.'A'oi' committee of the managemeivrrvtqfif th'eV"3T"""rr--esot;indent-- society, for five years.
2. The reColrd_s of committee of the ..respondent--society expired"ohn" to the petitioners, a resolution on 1.3.2008 by the committee of the..i'na'iv1agement of the 3'" respondent-- icmc:i'te.r thievfiresidentshép of Y.K.Paccheswamy resolved to request the Assistant _ Regis..tra.r" Cofioperative Societies to conduct Vieiectionst-'to the managing committee of the society for years 2008-09 to 2012-13 (for five years). tr/\,.
about two years an order came to be passed on 23.1.2010 appointing Eiection Officer to eiections to the 3*" respondent--societyj'' "
Annexure--C; that the Presidentioftiae '_3"f"
society wrote a ietter dated yV18.2.i2_OiQz to they'Avssista'nf'~ Registrar of Co--operative the Assistant Registrar tha*ts_ gammee is constituted consistingflyywofvflay and that therefoyre: h-ojiid the elections; however,"Vth_5R at} £iinn'exure«E came to be passed._ F<egistrar of _Co~operative Societies,'*--__'disvqUa_|iifyiiaficsyéaill the members of the comnaittee forr--..flfiHye years and appointed the A.d'rninisytr'ato:r"*to the society. A"~«4._QL!_'estioning the order at Annexure-E," the '."4"--«:_'petit_ioh'e--*rs herein flied appeai before the Deputy '_r~__'RieVgistrar of Co--operative Societies, Mysore, along i/' .6, with an application for stay. Neither the application for interim stay is heard nor the main matter, tiii this day. Hence this writ petition is filed. It is aver.red:i~i..n the writ petition that the first respondent, appeiiate authority, is on a iong.__tou_rWa"broad"vairidiru therefore the petitioners feel of the appellate authority th'e,appiggailfltienjce, this writ petition isvsfiiyed ,.q'ue.s:t-ioiriing order at- Ahnexure»~E, dated %Ciotih'se'i-'appearing on behalf of the petitioners" sobrnits.t,t'ha:t*-iimrnediately after expiry of the term of,_:'co.rnm'ivtte"éV of the management, the 'ii':-§.ec'i'=etar'y ofgthe society has written to the Assistant inReggistir'a,r}_o'fv%VfCio~--operative Societies stating that the . g Eielctiioh,.__Offi.1cer may be appointed for conducting the eiection's--* to the managing committee of the society. A '_"i'~__'r€soiu'tion passed by the managing committee dated l«/' 1.3.2008 was also annexed along with the letter. Since the Election Officer was not appointed, the General Body of the society itself chose to const:it_tite the committee of the management and elected 8 persons as members' of the Wc'oVnfimi.ttieei'i., if unopposed. The said fact is managing committee to the CO-- 'V operative Societies, T,li'iJ's*,"f; aiCc_ording"' "to the petitioners, they are nowt-T-'at'f'f'af'Li'it therefore the impugned~'o'i'ciye*r isi._bad--:.~~i:n law. It is the case or theAlylpetitjijonyers'-...i;_h--at since 8 members are elected tinlolpposedilyl General Body, vide resoioitivon datedi...:?}vV1a',_'_3Ay.:2008 (Anne><ure--B), they should A":__befaiiovvedktovcontinue in office for a period of five ye'ar'si'fro date of election.
.. <l.."~*l':he writ petition is opposed by the learned 4'_"t'~__'Golve'rhment Advocate. He submits that the in resoiutions at Anne><ures--A and B are not passed by the society at aii and such resolutions are not found in the concerned book recording the minutes Board Meetings. He has produced records relating to Board Meeti_n.g.,.__i'n V'of'_'_higi_V contention before the Court.
by the learned Governn'l.en.1; the 'vi' petitioners have acted. in ay...hi'gh"hande'd«.ma..nner in continuing office evenE'a?ter"c_c§'rrépl.etil_en%'of the term of the managing "ithey are rightly disqualified' it Todlayyy an---1eAr'i.'io""i.s fiied by the learned counsel for theivgietivtioners along with a copy of the by Sri H.T.Thimmashetty, dated 2 _ 9.2A.'2._O08','before the Assistant Registrar of Co-
"-«.[f'.A,a".flbF3eiV§3t§V'€.. Societies, Mysore. The said complaint reyeaés that the meeting book is forcibly snatched and M -9- taken away by the Enquiry Officer, viz.,____Sri Venkatachaia of MDCC Bank on 5.2.2008 and'--i:.t'ha*t_' said H.T.Thimmashetty opened a new bo--'iii purpose of entering clay to day aff'a"ir's« From the above it isv'iVc'iear that, Vaiifiifsflnowtmweii with the third respondent-s0cE.r:-lriiityr
6. As per 28--A of the Karnata ka 3? v~.-Act, (for short hereinafteri. the term of the office committee shaii be five co--operati'veryea'rs""and:"théewy shall be deemed to have vacaigrecl "officeV"a»s:suCh members of the committee on theciate'of,ct;,mpietion of the said terrn. Sub--section ('.5')xof' of the Act reveais that if the new T_commi.tte:ehV'is not constituted under Section 29-A of A '~:ifthye'iiA«ct, on the date of expiry of the term of office of the committee, the Registrar or any other Officer \~/' within whose jurisdiction the society is situated and who is authorised by the Registrar, shaii be deemed to have assumed charge as Administrator and h4eVV_:s.ha..i_i for aii purposes function as such com-mijtt'eVe'L:'~--..io:f..._T'. management.
Thus, it is clear from tithesoraraemeniionieaii provisions that the term ot'o:'fFiice of of it the committee shaII,b~e_ fiv~e"""con.}jg:~o'e.rati\/iei"years and they shaii be deemed office on the dateof-eV§§:;:ir§:'of It is not in dispute that thegterm committee expired on 31.3.2Q08.i'Th_'e vsVa~m'e_ isiiaiso clear from the records. "'Thu's--.,.{'th"te then members of the committee have no continue in office after 31.3.2008.
They.__sha'ii deemed to have vacated the office w.e.f. Consequentiy, the Registrar of Co--~ 4'_'Ai.__o"oe'r'ative Societies within whose jurisdiction the i/7 society is constituted shaii assume charge as Administrator of the society automaticalyiywc»-.:_"i3.y operation of law as found in Section 29A Thus, the Registrar of the Co--op.e_r_ativ_e""E5o:c'ieti'es.Vis=L deemed to have assumed charge' ashan of the third respondent WieVI>f'J.,:V'§'3V.:ET13I2v008Vi Section 39--A Ac-it d,ea'is--.__Wii'th the conduct of eiections. Sub-s.ection....{-iii-of--.Se_cti'o_n;"3y9'?A of the Act narrates th'a.t§*--..exi:};::_':ify of members of the con'i'rricitite'e ot:ifier"'tVhan'their-'itnembers of the first committee' ._ of': society after its registration"-'or ia'rIyA"v.cVa'sual vacancy shall be held "vV"'vsub§l:,éct:,,_to the sii'o'e'ri'ntendence, direction and controi iiiiofjtthwe Rule 3.4 of the Karnataka Co- ll ope'rativ__e',lSoicieties Rules (for short hereinafter ;'re.feyrre.d'i--~t"o as the 'Rules'), makes it amply Clear that 4'_"i.__t'h_e"'Registrar shaii appoint an officer or official of the lJ> State Government or a local authority as Returning Officer for the purpose of conducting the eleet'iofn~«_rrdfy4 members to the committee of every co}:'operaiti"v'e_"'*i "
society. The Returning Officer"'"s'o.apApoitit'e'd publish a calendar of events conducting the eleCtl0ns""'i«'i:.of. memwberfs the committee. It is further thlelfsayid Rule that the election with the publication the Returning Officer on the 'inoticell boaroi .otf"the'g society. the .a'bi::5've'i,'iri_Lti'r'i-sievident that neither general body.nori"~anybQ.dy'=.f its behalf should have .'VV.,.ié:O'r'1/-":jé'--':1.C'tE_T~'Ev'q"i.t'he 'HeVi"e't:tVion. Section 39-A of the Act election shall be held subject to suo'e.rint_end.ence, direction and control of the JRegcistrar; But the case of the petitioners is that the rr~__'C§.enerai Body of the society itself has conducted the W elections to the managing committee since no Election Officer was appointed by the Registrar. Even if the Returning Officer is not appointed by the Asvsistaant Registrar of Co~operative Societies, the of the society cannot conduct the election' 2 superintendence, direction and ;'_"coint'roi"~ Registrar. The General Bod.y'";c_ann'ot:_act'ill%le.ga~~!¥.y5by ignoring mandatory pyrovisioinsiofiaw. 'It'v~.r.lcllV_.have to wait till the election officer in accordance with iaw. Moreover C3'en'e_t.al..4i3oc!..yV V'carii'Vnot take such decision. I_t.isfi'o.r«i.thebaidim..i__ri-istrator to initiate action to get the «eiecition's_"to:' »t'h"e.i44Committee of Management conducted in accordance with law. The eiection has to only on the appointment of the under Rule 14 of the Ruies. Thus, fthe the petitioners that the Generai Body of A ":ifth.eifS«ociety has conducted the elections suo moto and passed a resolution dated 31.3.2008 electing 8 P6 members as unopposed cannot be sustained. Even if such an election has really taken place, the not only illegal but also void ab inltio. Moreover, the resolutionsgat:1'/%n:ne';i.ure:¥'/X"'a'i:d"1?s:
do not find place in the R2Veg_i.steri'rna§n_taine1§:i~»b.y=;the * 2' Society. Hence, Wfma fa_ci'e.._AnLne>§'u'res:A..:§ and B cannot be looked into "'a:lid.re_l_ie'd Be that;_'a's'}:;i.it.'may, i3ev"enj_"be'liev~i«n:g the contention of the petyit;:o:'n'AersV" 't«h2'atI .1ll/!'r.H';TVi'Thimmashetty has lodgedza _coArr'i2';:iv.!Va..i_ri'ty biefoteitlie Assistant Registrar of Co--operaltii.y'eii S'o'eiVe"tie§*':-«M3/'gore, on 9.2.2008 alleging V thatyyyigheumeetingiyibool}; is snatched and taken away by (the Enquiry Officer) on 5.2.2008, i~i.T.Thimmashetty calling himself as *VSecretar'ylV of the society should not have allowed the "General Hl3ody of the society to conduct the election 2"'-it___"'i"wiVthout the superintendence, direction and control of V the Registrar. More over, the resolution dated 5.2.2008 which is found in the meeting book reveals that the committee of the decided to terminate the I--l"ser.\«/ic:r-gs 2' Thimmashetty as he had superannuation. If it is so,"s:a'id Thirnn*ia.siieVt't.§MCoVuld not have been continue'dg_as_«Se¢'r'rejta:ry._Aof th'e"'so'<V:iety.
Be that as:;'it._ who are the constituted the alleged illegal eouid not have continued in office afterV_'3 1_.3.2'0i'08",: this Court does not find any 'sh'"gro"un'di..."r~.to'ii--_inte-ri'e're'V with the impugned order of administrator. The elections to the comimit_tee.Vi'f~~'of the management of the 3"
fiespondent--society were not heid after 31.3.2008 in t'~__'a.iiCo'rdance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. l\/> The so calied committee of the management has continued the office Linauthorisediy and ii_i.eVg'a'_i'Ey_ subsequentiy to 31.3.2008. Therefore Registrar has rightly appointec|.~~th_eA Looking to the totality of the facts of the case, this Court variyy::';;r"o.rLind"jto interfere with the imp.ti'g..ned .Vord'ei.rj4in""t.hat rega HoweverV,_tni,s' ground to disqualify the General Body the elections on 3U.3.2{v3'OA8" managing committee membersfl'i"nci'udingAl_sthefse petitioners. So caiied 'V"'vSecr.eta..ry ~T.himma*s*h'etty has committed an error in i~i.:G_enerai Body to conduct the elections. The---..__Vpetitionelrs plead that they did not have any VVg"'o.ptgion,'~|:.»;ut to act as managing committee members ;:in'ce'«the General Body had elected them unopposed. l~/8 Therefore, the case of the petitioners does not fail in any of the contingencies enumerated in Section...29EC_ of the Act. In View of the above and having«~r.eg'ard::tof-*.._._" _ the totaiity of the facts and circums.t_ances'.'"th'_ijs0Co'u.rt 0"
is of the opinion that the act dc:
continuing the managing 30.3.2008, aPDears be»t'"'nVeni:t;he'r.._'int0en'tio»ri:al nor deiiberate but was bonatideunidter_.:t_he_'.::a'f'o.rementioned facts and same, this Court is 01; not a fit case to disquaufy Aéicworvdingiy, the portion of the impuigned orde'rg'ci_s'q_uai'ifying the petitioners needs to tyggejiset. aside..,_:gHVence, the following order is made:--
u'inj'p;u'gVirreVd..order dated 30.3.2010 at Annexure-E, 'ens-.o far reiates to appointing Administrator to Jtheg 39"'...0:respondent--society, stands confirmed. The LA _;L), impugned order in so far as it relates to disqualifying the petitioners, stands quashed. Writ petition is disposed of accordingiy_,__l"-..:. i *Ck/nk--