Karnataka High Court
Sri G C Singegowda vs State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2020
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 8219 OF 2020 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI G C SINGEGOWDA
S/O G S CHALUVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
THE PRESIDENT,
THE PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CREDIT
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
ANTHARASANTHE, H D KOTE TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT 571114
AND RESIDING AT GUNDATTURU VILLAGE,
ANTHARASANTHE HOBLI,
H D KOTE TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT 571114.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D N NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ANANDA K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
M S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BENGALURU 560001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERAIVE SOCIETIES
MYSORE DIVISION, PUBLIC OFFICES BUILDING,
NEW SAIYYAJI RAO ROAD,
MYSORE 570001.
3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
HUNSURU SUB DIVISION,
MANUJUNATHA BADAVANE,
NEAR MARUTHI PETROL BUNK,
B M ROAD, HUNASURU,
MYSORE DISTRICT 571105.
2
4. THE PRIMARY AGICULTURE CREDIT
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
ANTHARASANTHE, H D KOTE TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT 571114,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C N MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 06.06.2020 ISSUED U/S 29 C OF
KCS ACT IN CASE BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, HUNSUR SUB-DIVISION, HUNSUR
I.E., THE R-3 HEREIN AT ANNEXURE-M AND QUASH THE
DISQUALIFICATION PROCEEDINGS INTIATED U/S29C OF
KCS ACT IN CASE ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, HUNSUR SUB-
DIVISION, HUNSUR I.E., THE R-3 HEREIN.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner being the President of the subject Co- operative Society is invoking the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for assailing the Notice dated 06.06.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent-ARCS u/s.29 C of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 at Annexure-M, asking him to Show Cause against the proposal for disqualifying him from membership.
3
2. Subsequent to filing of the petition, petitioner has filed an application seeking leave of the Court for producing the order sheet of the enquiry proceedings which disclose rejection of his request for engaging the services of an Advocate; petitioner seeks to lay a challenge to this rejection as well.
3. After service of notice, the official respondents having been represented by learned AGA Sri C.N.Mahadeshwaran, oppose the writ petition making submission in justification of the orders under challenge.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to quash the statutory Show Cause Notice in question since it was open to the petitioner to file his reply thereto, in the absence of a concrete case of apparent error of law or the competence; it is needless to mention that even now petitioner can seek extension of time for filing the reply belatedly which aspect would be looked into by the answering respondent.
4
5. There is some force in the submission of learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Nanjunda Reddy appearing for petitioner's counsel that regard being had to the complexity of fact matrix of Inquiry and the serious consequences of its culmination into a likely adverse order, the answering respondent should have permitted the petitioner to hire the services of a lawyer for representing him in the Inquiry proceedings, which have a semblance of quasi criminal nature; true it is that ordinarily in the proceedings of the kind & nature, a party is not as a matter of right entitled to engage the services of lawyer; at the same time there is no legal prohibition for engaging one; it is a matter of discretion & prudence for the Enquiry Officer to take a reasonable decision in this regard; no cogent reason is emanating from the impugned proceedings for denying legal services to the petitioner; the loose ground assigned for rejecting petitioner's prayer in that regard does not stand legal scrutiny.
6. This Court with lot of penury at heart notes that there is some legislative and administrative trend to exclude participation of lawyers even in proceedings that culminate into entailment of serious civil consequences to 5 the persons concerned; this abhors the importance of the Institution of Bar which is an integral part of the judicial process; it needs to be recognized as a part of quasi judicial process too; what prejudice would have been caused either to the society or to the Inquiry proceedings, should the petitioner be permitted to take the assistance of a lawyer, remains still inscrutable; if appearance of a lawyer tilts the balance in favour of the person being proceeded against, the scale can be restored by the Co- operative Society engaging the services of its own lawyer. All this having not been considered, the impugned proceedings to the extent of denying participation of a lawyer have error apparent on their face, which needs to be set at naught.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition marginally succeeds; the order denying the services of a lawyer having been quashed, the answering respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to hire legal services subject to the rider that the proceeding should be accomplished preferably within an outer limit of two months and that petitioner or his counsel shall not take more than two short adjournments at costs, in any 6 circumstances. It is open to the Co-operative Society or the Enquiry Officer to engage the services of a lawyer, if so desired.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv