Bhel Employees Welfare Association vs State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2019

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Bhel Employees Welfare Association vs State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2019

Bench: Alok Aradhe

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

         WRIT PETITION NO.24288 OF 2018 (GM-KSR)

BETWEEN:

BHEL EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE,
AT NO.7, 80 FEET ROAD,
CHANDRA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560040.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
SRI V.V.CHANDRAN.                          ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI SUNIL RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI T.SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
       VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.

2.     THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR
       CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND
       ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
       CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
       ZONE-4, NO.147, 3RD FLOOR,
       8TH CROSS ROAD, MARGOSA ROAD,
       MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003.
                                 2



3.    SRI PUTTEGOWDA
      S/O GIRIGOWDA,
      AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
      NO.115, 12TH MAIN, M.C.LAYOUT,
      VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040.

4.    SRI C.VISHWANATH
      S/O CHINNAPPA,
      AGED 67 YEARS,
      RESIDING AT: NO.150,
      METRO ROAD, NAYANDAHALLI,
      BENGALURU - 560 040.                        ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI V.SHIVAREDDY, HCGP FOR R1;
 SRI KASHINATH.J.D., ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.04.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                              ORDER

Sri Sunil Rao for Sri T.Seshagiri Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Sri V.Shivareddy, High Court Government Pleader for Respondent No.1.

Sri Kashinath.J.D., learned counsel for Caveator/ Respondent No.3.

2. Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.

3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 21.04.2018 as at Annexure - 'A'.

4. The facts giving raise to filing of this writ petition are stated below:

That the Petitioner is an Association incorporated by the Registrar of Societies, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru under the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It is the case of the petitioner that Respondents No.3 and 4 made a representation before the second respondent, namely, District Registrar to initiate proceedings under Section 25 of the Act. The second respondent, thereupon passed the impugned order dated 21.04.2018 without holding any enquiry or otherwise with the Petitioner-Association. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Petitioner-Association in response to the notice received by it appeared in the proceedings initiated before the District Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 19.05.2017, 14.07.2017 and 28.07.2017. It is further submitted that on the aforesaid dates, the petitioner filed written objections and few documents running into around 200 pages. However, the aforesaid objections were not considered and without recording any evidence, in violation of Rule 8 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Rules, 1975 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') the enquiry report was submitted on 21.04.2018.

6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 was unable to point out from the enquiry report or from the records with regard to whether the objections preferred by the petitioner were considered and whether any satisfaction was recorded by the Registrar that the recording of evidence as envisaged under Rule 8(4) of the Rules is necessary.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. From the perusal of the records, 5 it is evident that the District Registrar-Respondent No.2 while submitting the report dated 21.04.2018 has not considered the objections preferred by the petitioner and no finding has been recorded with regard to the contents of the documents filed by the petitioner on 14.07.2017. The Registrar has also not recorded any satisfaction whether or not the evidence is recorded as provided under Rule 8(4) of the Rules. Therefore, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed in violation of Rule 8(4) of the Rules. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly quashed. The matter is remitted to Respondent No.2 who is directed to conclude the enquiry as contemplated under Rule 8 of the Rules within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is needless to state that the petitioner as well as Respondents No.3 and 4 shall co-operate with the Registrar-Respondent No.2 and shall not seek any un- necessary adjournments in order to enable the second respondent to conclude the enquiry within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In the result, writ petition is disposed of. 6

Learned counsel for the parties undertake to appear before the Registrar-Respondent No.2 on 25.03.2019 along with copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE dh

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court