Karnataka High Court
Sri Samaja Seva Sahakari Bank Niyamit ... vs The Deputy Registrar Of Co-Op Societies on 20 June, 2003
Equivalent citations: ILR2003KAR3240, 2003 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 2356, 2003 AIHC 4848
Author: N.K. Patil
Bench: N.K. Patil
ORDER Patil, J.
1. The petitioner - Sri Samaja Seva Sahakari Bank Niyamit (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank'), questioning the correctness of the other dated 13th May 2002/2/2003 in No DRP/S8/AMD/UBC/3/ 2002-03 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-op Societies, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore vide Annexure A, has presented this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - Bank submitted that the suo-motu proceedings initiated by the respondent is contrary to sub-section (5) and (6) of Section 12 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act ('Act' for short) to Substantiate his submission he referred to Section 12(5) and 12(6) of the Act. By a reading of Section 12(6) of the Act, it is clear that a registrar, may after giving the co-operative society an opportunity of being heard, pass the order. In the instant case, after careful perusal of the order passed by the respondent, it does not show anywhere that the authority has given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Bank except making a reference in the order passed by him Further , he pointed out that the date of order is shown at the top of the order as '13th May 2002' but after the operative portion of the order, at the bottom, the date is indicated as '2-03'. He submits that on the face of the record and beyond all reasonable doubt, it shows that the instant order passed by the respondent is one without proper application of mind. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent is liable to be rejected at the threshold itself.
3. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, inter alia, contended and justified the impugned order passed by the respondent. He submitted that sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioner and after considering the references referred in the order, the respondent has proceeded and passed the order under Section 12(6) of the Act. He submitted that no error or illegality, as such, has been committed and that the petitioner has not made out any good ground for interference by this Court.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner - Bank as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. It is not in dispute that the petitioner - Bank has been registered as early as on 7th July 1980 in No REGD DRMG/7149/ 80-81. From day one of the starting of the Bank, the Bank has made substantial progress and at no point of time, it has given any room for inefficiency of the Bank nor it has been necessitated by the petitioner - Bank to change its name from 'Bank' to 'Society'. When it received the communication from respondent under Section 12(5) of the Act, it has considered and passed the necessary resolution and sent back to the respondent. The respondent, without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner - Bank, as envisaged under Section 12(6) of the Act, wherein it is clearly stated that the respondent can proceed with the matter after giving an opportunity of being heard, has passed the impugned order But, in the instant case, as stated supra, after careful perusal of the impugned order, it seen that no opportunity as such, has been given to the petitioner - Bank nor it has been stated. Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned order passed by the respondent is liable to be set aside. One other reason the impugned order passed by the respondent is liable to be set aside is on the ground that the said order has been passed without proper application of mind. On the face of the record, the order passed by the respondent is bad in law and the respondent has committed a grave error by mentioning the date of passing the order at the top of the first page as '13th May 2002' and in the last line of the second page of the said order, as 2-2003. This, in my view, clearly shows that the respondent has proceeded and passed the order without proper application of mind. Therefore, by no stretch, the impugned order can be sustained by this Court. Hence, In my considered view, the impugned order passed by the respondent is liable to be set aside.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the totality of the case on hand, as stated supra, I do not find any good ground to sustain the impugned order. Accordingly the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is allowed with the following observations -
1) The impugned order passed by the respondent dated 13th May 2002 made in No DRP S8 AMD UBC 3 2002-03 vide Annexure A, is hereby set aside and matter stands remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration of the matter afresh,
2) The respondent is directed to proceed with the order, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner - Bank and decide the same in strict compliance of the mandatory provision of the Act and the Rules as stated supra.
7. Sri M Keshava Reddy, learned Government Pleader is given four weeks' time to file his memo of appearance.