Karnataka High Court
The State Government Employees vs The Secretary on 15 March, 2012
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DH
ARWAD
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY
OF MARCH, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'I3LE MR.JUSTICE
D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR
AND
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE B.V
.PINTO
WA.NO.6147/201 1 (EDN
-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE GOVERNMENT EMPLO
YEES
CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIE
TY, HUBLI
REP: BY ITS SECRETARY
SRI. FAKKIRAPPA, S/O:BASAPPA
NAIKAR,
AGE:38 YEARS, 0CC: SECRETARY
OF
THE STATE GOVT.
EMPLOYEES CO-OP HOUSING
SOCIETY,
HUBLI, R/O. :MALLIGWAD VILLA
GE,
POST KOLIWAD OF HUBLI
TALIKA, DHARWAD DIST
(BY SRI : D B KARIGAR, ADV.T) APPELLANT
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY
THE STATE GOVERNMENT EM
PLOYEES CO-OP
EDUCATION SOCIETY, TARIHAL
, HUBLI
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTME
NT (TECHNICAL
EDUCATION), M.S. BUILDING, BA
NGALORE-Ol
3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OP. SOCIETIES, DRARWAD
(NOTICE RESPONDENTS
- SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED
U/Ss.4 AND 10 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURTS
ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET
ASIDE OR QUASH THE IMPUG
NED ORDER PASSED BY TH
HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE COUR E
T OF THIS HONBLE COURT
IN W.P.NO.62304/201 1 DATED
23.03.2011 IN THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE AND ALLOW THE W.A
. BY ALLOWING THE W.P. AS
PRAYED THEREIN.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON
FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, D.V.SHYLENDRA
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING KUMAR, J.,
:
JUDGMENT
The writ petitioner in writ pet ition No.62304/20 1 1 is the appellant herein and he is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition at the threshold, on the ground for the want of locus-standi on the part of the petitioner to maintain the petition.
2. Writ petitioner was espous ing the cause of the first respondent Society in respect of which the second respondent the Secretary to the State Government,
-
Education Department of Ka rnataka had initiated certain action under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1978, for either replacing the management of the said 4 --
-3-Society or for action against the members in the management of the said Society etc.
3. Learned Single Judge found that if the first respondent Society was aggrieved by any proposed action by the State Government, it is for that Soc iety to become the party and not the third party / writ petitioner Society and it is therefore, the writ petition was dismissed for want of locus-standi on the part of the peti tioner.
4. Appearing on behalf of the learned Cou nsel for the appellant Society Sri D.B.Karigar, sub mits that the appellant Society has made considerable advances to the first respondent Society; that it has helped the first respondent Society to build and develop many education institutions and it has very interest and stake in the first respondent Society and therefore, the learned Single Judge is not right is dismissing the writ peti tion for want of locus-standi on the part of the petitioner.
-4-5. Sri D.B.Karigar, has drawn our attentio n to the fact of yet another financier of the firs t respondent Society having questioned the very action of the State Government before this Court, through a writ petition and pendency of such petition. Therefore, submits that present appeal also be entertained.
6. Writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary disc retionary jurisdiction meant to be exercised in deserving cases for bona fide purpose and in the absence of any efficacious remedy available to the aggrieved per son. The kind of grievance is not as a result of any acti on directly by the State Government on the appellant, but because the appellant claims it has stake in the pro per functioning of the first respondent Society. An intere st of such nature is not considered in writ jurisdiction for relief and if at all the appellant has financed the first resp ondent Society, it is left to the appellant Society to seek rem edy as otherwise provided in law but not to use writ juri sdiction as a device for such remedy.
-5-7. Learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition and the fact that a writ petition at the instance of another lender been entertained by this Court does not impress us in the least to admit this appeal.
This appeal is dismissed.
Sd, JUDGE Sd/ JUDGE nvj