Karnataka High Court
Appasab S/O Hawagirao vs The Registrar Of Cooperative Societies ... on 28 September, 2022
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No.202433/2022 (CS-EL/M)
BETWEEN:
APPASAB S/O HAWAGIRAO
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC: EX-PRESIDENT,
P.K.P.S. DONGAON (M)
TQ. KAMALNAGAR, DIST. BIDAR
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.G.CHAGASHETTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE
SOCIETIES, ALI ASKER ROAD,
BENGALURU-01
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
P.K.P.S. DONGAON (M)
TQ. KAMALNAGAR, DIST. BIDAR
3. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
BIDAR, DIST. BIDAR
4. SENIOR INSPECTOR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES &
SPECIAL OFFICER APPOINTED FOR
TAKING DECISION OF NO CONFIDENCE
MOTION AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF
P.K.P.S. LIMITED,
DONGAON (M), TQ. KAMALNGAR
2
DIST. BIDAR
5. P.K.P.S. LIMITED DONGAON (M),
TQ. KAMALNAGAR, DIST. BIDAR,
BY ITS SECRETARY
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 14.09.2022 IN NO.NIL DRAWN BY
RESPONDENTS 2 AND 4 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 and 3.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the proceedings dated 14.09.2022 produced at Annexure-F whereby 'no-confidence motion' is moved against the petitioner who was the president of respondent No.5-Society, by majority of members of respondent No.5- Society.
3
2. The petitioner was the president of respondent No.5-Society. The Society is represented by 12 Directors. Out of which, one Director by name Pramod S/o Shivajirao Deshmukh died on 18.04.2021. Without filling up the vacancy by election or by nominating any member, no confidence resolution has been passed as per Annexure-F. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Sri G.G.Chagashetti, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.5-Society is represented by 12 Directors. Out of which, one Director by name Pramod S/o Shivajirao Deshmukh died on 18.04.2021. Section 29-E of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, (for short 'the Act'), provides for filling up of vacancy by conducting election or by nominating any member. Without complying the said provision, the members have moved 'no-confidence motion' against the petitioner and the resolution has been passed by the impugned proceedings. The same is contrary to Section 4 29-E of the Act. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
4. Sri Sharanabasappa M. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 70 of the Act. He further contended that just because provisions of Section 29-E of the Act are not complied, there is no bar for moving 'no-confidence motion' against the petitioner. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ papers.
6. The petitioner was a president of respondent No.5-Society. Respondent No.5-Society is represented by 12 Directors. Out of which, one Director i.e., Pramod S/o Shivajirao Deshmukh died on 18.04.2021. As per Section 29-E of the Act, if any vacancy arises due to death 5 or resignation or removal or otherwise of the member and if remaining term of office of the board is less than half of its original term, the Board may fill up the vacancy by nomination out of the same class of members in respect of which casual vacancy has arisen, for remaining term. If the Board fails to fill up the vacancy within three months, the Registrar shall fill up the vacancy through nomination. In the case on hand, even though vacancy has arisen on 18.04.2021, casual vacancy has not been filled up as per Section 29-E of the Act. But, it is very clear from the above provision that, non-filling up of casual vacancy does not create bar for moving 'no-confidence motion' against the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that without filling up the casual vacancy members have no right to move 'no-confidence motion' against the petitioner cannot be accepted. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB*