Karnataka High Court
S.G.Tenginakai S/O. Gurappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2014
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NOs.102421/2014 &
102889/2014 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN
1. S.G.TENGINAKAI S/O. GURAPPA
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. NO. 27, LINGARAJU NAGAR
NORTH, VIDYANAGAR,
HUBLI
2. SHIVANAND S/O. BASANTAPPA BELLAD
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. B R BELLD BUILDING
HOSUR ROAD,
HUBLI
..... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI V R DATAR, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY THE SECRETARY
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
VIDHANASOPUDHA BANGALORE
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES
:2:
(PATTANN BANK DIVISION)
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE
3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES
(PATTANN BANK DIVISION)
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE
4. GURUSIDDESWAR COOPERATIVE BANK LTD
DHAGIBANPHET HUBLI
R/BY ITS SECRETARY
5. SHAKARAPPA S/O. ISWARAPPA MUNAVALLI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRESIDENT OF
GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
C/O. GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
6. CHINNAPPAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: VICE PRESIDENT OF
GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
C/O. GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
7. FAKKIRAPPA S/O. CHANDRASHEKAR BHUSAD
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: DIRECTOR
OF GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
C/O. GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
8. ONKARAPPA S/O. VIRUPAXAPPA GADAG
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: DIRECTOR OF
GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
C/O. GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
9. VIJAYANAND S/O. BASALINGAPPA HOSAKOTI
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: DIRECTOR OF GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
:3:
C/O. GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
10. MAHESH S/O. CHANNAVEERAPPA TEGINAKAI
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: DIRECTOR OF GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
C/O. GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
11. LAXMIKANT S/O. ALAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: DIRECTOR OF GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
C/O. GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
12. PRABHULINGAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA KORI
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: DIRECTOR OF GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
C/O. GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
13. MARUTI S/O. RAMADAS JHADAV
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: DIRECTOR OF GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
C/O. GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
14. VEERANNA S/O. BASAPPA KALLUR
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: DIRECTOR OF GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
C/O. GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
15. FAKKIRAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA BEERAVALLI
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: DIRECTOR OF GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
C/O. GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
16. PREMA D/O. HANUMANTAPPA ARATTI
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: DIRECTOR OF GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
C/O. GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
17. BASAVARAJ S/O. KALAKAYYA KORADAGIMATH
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: DIRECTOR OF GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
C/O. GURUSIDDESWAR BANK HUBLI
..... RESPONDENTS
:4:
(BY SRI CHETAN T LIMBIKAI FOR C/R5
SRI R.M. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR
SRI G.B. SHASTRI, ADV. FOR R-4, R-6, R-11, R-12, R-13, R-15 &
R-16
SRI A.G. MALDAR, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER IN
APPEAL NO. RCS/DAP/D1/CR/27/2013-14 GRANTING INTERIM
ORDER OF STAY BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BY CALLING FOR
RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H
DATED 22.01.2014.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri M.B. Hiremath, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent No.4. Sri G.B. Shastri, learned counsel submits that he has filed vakalathnama on 06.02.2014 on behalf of respondents No. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 14. He also undertakes to file vakalathnama on behalf of respondents 6, 11 to 13, 15 to 17.
2. Heard the arguments of Sri. V.R. Datar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri A.G. Maldar, learned HCGP appearing for respondents 1 to 3, :5: Sri M.B. Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, Sri R.M. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri G.B. Shastri, Advocate for respondents 6 to 17 and Sri Chetan Limbikai, learned counsel for caveator-respondent No.5. By consent of learned Advocates, it is taken up for final disposal. Perused case papers.
3. It is the contention of petitioners that on a complaint submitted by the petitioners third respondent initiated proceedings against respondents 5 to 17 under Section 29C of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act for disqualification and after adjudication, an order came to be passed on 10.01.2014 disqualifying respondents 5 to 17 and being aggrieved by said order, respondents No.5 to 17 have filed an appeal challenging the said order of disqualification and even before the said appeal was filed, petitioners had filed caveat petition on 20.01.2014 before second respondent which came to be :6: endorsed by the office of the second respondent as "call on 24.01.2014" and petitioners were under bonafide impression that notice will be issued to them in the event of appeal being filed by the respondents No.5 to
17. They contend that without any notice being issued to petitioners, who were caveators, appeal came to be entertained by second respondent which was filed by respondents 5 to 17 and an interim order of stay came to be granted by second respondent on 22.01.2014 till next date of hearing that is on 14.03.2014 and as such they are seeking for quashing of the said interim order of stay passed by second respondent on 22.01.2014 Annexure-H.
4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of case papers, it would indicate that petitioners though being the complainants, they were not parties in the proceedings initiated by third respondent under Section 29C of the :7: Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. Admittedly, they did not participate in the said proceedings before third respondent. Said proceedings ended in an order dated 10.01.2014 being passed by third respondent. Writ petitioners have filed a caveat petition before first respondent apprehending that respondents No.5 to 17 were likely to file an appeal assailing the order of disqualification passed against respondents No.5 to 17 as per Annexure-E and they are to be heard.
5. It is submitted by Sri V.R. Datar, learned counsel for the petitioners that an application was filed by writ petitioners before second respondent for getting impleaded in the appellate proceedings has been filed and as such a direction if issued to second respondent to dispose of the application for impleading filed by petitioners along with their application for vacating stay, it would suffice.
:8:
6. Sri R.M. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 6 to 17 would submit that the application filed by petitioners to get themselves impleaded before second respondent has been opposed by them and arguments have been heard by second respondent and posted the matter for orders on 07.03.2014 and as such issuing of any direction would not arise.
7. In the light of the above facts, I am of the considered view that if a direction is issued to second respondent to pass orders on the application filed by petitioners for getting themselves impleaded expeditiously and at any rate on or before 25.02.2014 it would suffice and meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, direction is issued to second respondent to pass orders on application for impleading filed by petitioners on or before 25.02.2014.
:9:
8. It is also made clear that in the event of petitioners are ordered to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings, second respondent shall consider the application filed by them for vacating the order of stay granted on 22.01.2014 expeditiously and at any rate within four weeks commencing from the date of pronouncement of orders on impleading application and after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
I.A.NO.1/2014 is hereby dismissed as not pressed.
SD/-
JUDGE Naa