Karnataka High Court
Milk Producers Women Co-Operative ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 July, 2018
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
WRIT PETITION Nos.14620-14621/2018 (CS RES)
BETWEEN
MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
SHANTHIPURA VILLAGE
H.D.KOTE TALUK - 571125
MYSURU DISTRICT
REPTD BY ITS CEO/SECRETARY
SHURTHI H.S. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B S NAGARAJ, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPTD BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION
VIDHANASOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIEITES
HUNSUR SUB-DIVISION,
HUNSUR-571105.
3. SMT. H.R.BHAVANI
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
W/O RAJESHA M
SHANTHIPURA VILLAGE
H.D.KOTE TALUK-571 125
MYSURU DISTRICT.
2
4. THE PRESIDENT
MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
SHANTHIPURA VILLAGE
H.D.KOTE TALUK-571125,
MYSURU DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, HCGP FOR R1)
THESE WPs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
ANNEXURE-A i.e. THE ORDER DTD:28.2.2018 PASSED BY
THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, [CH:5] BENGALURU
IN REVISION PETITION NO.52/2017 AND ANNEXURE-B i.e.
THE ORDER DTD:11.4.2017 PASSED BY R-2 ASSISTANT
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, HUNSUR SUB-
DIVISION, HUNSUR PASSED IN THE DISPUTE NO.3/2015-16
[OS] ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION DTD:19.7.2016 FILED
UNDER ORDER XVI RULE 6 OF CPC.
THESE WPs COMING ON FOR 'PRELIMINARY HEARING'
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is before this court being aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in R.P. No.52/2017 and the order of the second respondent dated 11.04.2017 allowing the I.A. preferred under Order XVI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil 3 Procedure thereby, directing the petitioner-society to produce the documents summoned by the respondent No.3 herein.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 proceeded on maternity leave without obtaining any authorization. The fact that the respondent No.3 was pregnant and thereafter delivered a child is not in dispute. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 while proceeding on leave carried away all the books of accounts and the audit reports and other material documents which are now sought under the I.A. On the directions of this court the Secretary of the petitioner's society is present.
4. On a query from the court she would submit that she took charge on 01.12.2014 and that charge was handed over to her by the then President of the Society with instructions to carry on the day-to-day work.
5. On a further query as to whether any complaints with the jurisdictional police was lodged, as the books of accounts and other documents which are properties of the society have been unauthorisedly removed, she would answer in the affirmative. To a query as to when the complaint was 4 lodged, she would evade an answer and would submit that the details are with her counsel. On being further queried, she would submit that the police on receipt of the complaint, enquired with respondent No.3 and that the respondent No.3 stated that she has not removed the said books and audit report and police recorded the statement and closed the file. To a further query, she would submit that the society has not taken any further action on the closure of the case by the police authorities.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order is unsustainable in the light of the proceedings dated 21.03.2017 whereby, the respondent No.2 himself has ordered for reconstruction of the files and having ordered re-construction of the files on 21.03.2017, the second respondent could not have directed the production of the copies.
7. On a perusal of the pleadings and the answers elicited from the Secretary of the petitioner who is present before the court, this court is of the opinion that the allegation of the third respondent having removed the 5 documents appears to be a concocted one. It is admitted by the Secretary who is present before the court that the charge was handed over to her by the President and that she was directed to carry on the day-to-day activities. From the gist of allegations leveled the only inescapable conclusion one can gather is that the entire records pertaining to the day-to-day business activities, audit reports etc. have been unauthorisedly removed and taken away by the third respondent. If that be so, it is not explained as to how the petitioner society, thereafter carried on its day-to-day activities. On what basis the payments were made and on what basis the quantity supplied by the farmers was calculated, as to how the accounts with regard to payments and receipts came to be adjusted none of these are brought on record. The attempt to take shelter under the proceedings of the second respondent dated 21.03.2017 is a weak and a feeble attempt.
8. It is also be noted that the third respondent was not a party to the proceedings dated 21.03.2017 and it is also surprising that the petitioners have approached the issue of removal of the books of accounts and audit reports in a very 6 casual manner. It is this approach which forces this court to infer adversely against the petitioner. This coupled with the fact that the petitioner has acted in a manner unbecoming of an employer and that too in a cooperative sector a lady employee who was in the family way and has proceeded on a maternity purposes is undisputed, and such a person is sought to be removed in a most unceremonious manner and a candidate who is unqualified to occupy the post has been appointed. For reasons best known to the petitioner the third respondent has been removed and the excuse of unauthorsed absence brought out is an excuse which has no legs to stand on in the light of the fact that the third respondent was in the family way and also delivered a child. It is also not known as to how and why the present incumbent Secretary came to be appointed despite the fact that she is not qualified and even by her own admission she has just completed II PUC course. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that there is more to the matters than meets the eye. Probably, the vested interests have devised this excuse of handing over the books of accounts and other documents to do away with the records, this court is constrained to infer so, for the 7 simple reason that it is inconceivable that the third respondent was going to gain in any manner whatsoever by taking possession of the books of accounts and other records pertaining to the day-to-day transactions of the society. The very fact that the petitioner has thought it fit to abandon the criminal action alleged to have been initiated against the third respondent by itself creates a doubt with regard to the genuineness of the allegations against the third respondent. It is not in doubt that the audited reports, the books of accounts etc. are vital for the day-to-day functioning of the society and it is these records alone which would enable the society to make payments to the farmers from whom they procured milk. Despite the matter having been adjourned on several dates, the so called police complaint is screened from this court. For the reasons best known to the petitioners it is also interesting to note that the petitions do not disclose any pleadings with regard to initiation of any criminal action or lodging of any complaint with the jurisdictional police. Hence, the statement of the Secretary that indeed a criminal complaint was registered against the third respondent has to be taken with a pinch of salt. If the petitioner, even 8 assuming for arguments sake, was indeed concerned about the removal of books of accounts and etc. that too in respect of a society which indulges in trading on a day-to-day basis, certainly, the petitioner would not have sat back and allowed things to take their own course. In all probability, the police complaint appears to be a smoke screen to divert attention from the vested interest who actually stand to benefit by the loss or destruction of the books of accounts and transaction details.
9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would furnish the copy of the complaint lodged with the police authorities dated 02.09.2016. The complaints are addressed to the Sub-Inspect of Police, H.D. Kote Police Station and to the Inspector of Police, H.D. Kote Police Station and to the Deputy Superintended of Police of Hunsuru Sub-Division, Hunsuru of even date. On a perusal of the complaints it is alleged that the former Secretary, the third respondent herein, had kept the books of accounts with her and that on 08.08.2016 they received a notice in lieu of the proceedings initiated by the third respondent. That the society commenced its operation in 2004 and that the third 9 respondent had carried away the entire records pertaining to the details of the operations of the society and more importantly the account books for the period commencing from 2004 till 2014 and that pursuant to the receipt of the notice, the Managing Committee had in its meeting dated 18.08.2016 resolved to seek police help and accordingly it was prayed that the records be recovered and handed over to them. It is stated in the complaint that in the preceding two years the milk producers have been facing a lot of hardship and the records are also required for preparing the accounts of the society and for the purpose of audit. Thus as observed by this court earlier, prior to handing over the copy of the police complaint by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the police complaint as appears to be a diversionary tactic to deflect any suspicious against the complainant. The contents of the complaint and the enormous delay of two years in lodging the same by itself speaks volumes and it goes further in convincing the court that the allegations against the third respondent are highly mischievous and made with an oblique intention by vested interest i.e. by interest who would profit by the absence of the books of accounts and other 10 transactional details. The very fact that a person who was in the family way and whose motherhood is sought to be exploited, speaks volumes about the conduct in the vested interest behind this maneuver and attempt.
10. In the light of the above discussion, this court is constrained to infer that the petitions totally lacks any bonafides and is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, writ petitions deserve to be rejected by affirming the orders of the appellate authority and the original authority with costs.
Accordingly, the writ petitions stand rejected with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner. The costs shall be deposited within two weeks with the High Court Legal Services Authority. Failing which, the Registrar shall initiate action to recover the same.
Sd/-
JUDGE Chs* CT-HR