Karnataka High Court
Prathamik Krushi Pattina Sahakari ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 December, 2018
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
1
R
IN THE HIGH COU RT OF KARNA TAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED TH IS THE 14 T H DAY OF DECEMBER 2018
B E F OR E
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDA S
WRIT PETITION NOS.102487-491/2018
& WRIT PETITION NOS.102570- 589/2018 (CS- RES)
C/W.
WRIT PETITION NO.20375/2018 (CS- RES)
IN W.P.NOS.102487-491/2018
& W.P.NOS.102570-589/2018
BETWEEN:
1. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., CHAMAKERI,
AT: CHAMAKERI, TALUK: ATHANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
2. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., KARIKADDI TO TA ,
SHIVANUR
AT: SHIVANUR, TA LUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
3. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., GHATANATTI,
AT: GHATANA TTI, TALUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
4. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., JUNZARWAD,
AT: JUNZARWAD, TALUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
2
5. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., KODAGANUR,
AT: KODAGANUR, TALUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
6. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., DARUR
AT: DARUR, TA LUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
(PETI TION DISMISSED AS NO T PRES SED,
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 6.12 .2018.)
7. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., SAPTASAGAR
AT: SAPTASAGAR, TALUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
8. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., HALLYAL
AT: HAYYAL, TALU K: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
9. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., SATTI,
AT: SA TTI, TALUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
10. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., AIGALI
AT: AIGALI, TALUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
11. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., KOKATNU R
AT: KOKATNUR, TA LUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
3
12. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., KAKAMARI
AT:KAKAMARI, TALUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
13. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., KATAGERI
AT: KATAGERI, TA LUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
14. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., KOTTALAGI
AT: KOTTA LAGI, TALUK: ATHANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
15. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., KAGWAD, A T: KAG WAD,
TALUK: A THANI, D IS T: BELAGAVI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
16. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., ANANTPUR
AT: ANANTPUR, TA LUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
17. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., TAVANS I
AT: TA VANSI, TALUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
18. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., PADATARWADI
AT: PADA TARWADI, TA LUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
19. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., BADAGI,
AT:BADAGI, TALU K: A THANI
4
DIST: BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
20. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., SAVADI,
AT: SAVADI, TA LUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
21. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., ATHANI,
AT: A THANI, TA LUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
22. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., BALAVAD,
AT: BALA VAD, TALUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
23. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., BEVANUR,
AT: BEVANUR, TALUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
24. NANDAGAON PASCHIM BHAGH
PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., NANDAGAON,
AT: NANDAGAON, TALUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
25. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT., BALLEGERI
AT: BALLEGERI, TALUK: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ANANT MANDAGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI
SHIVARAJ P MUDHOL, ADVOCA TE, F OR PETITIONERS
NO.1 TO 5 AND 7 TO 25; IN RESPECT OF PETI TIONER
5
NO.6 - P ETI TION I S DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED,
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 6.12 .2018.)
AND:
1. THE S TA TE OF KA RNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALURU.
2. THE REGIS TRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SO CIETIES
ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALURU-1.
3. THE EX - OFFICIO CHAIRMAN
AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY, BELAGAVI, DIS T: BELAGAVI.
4. THE EX-OFFICIO S ECRETARY
AND ASSISTANT REGIS TRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SO CIETY
BELAGAVI SUB- DIVISION
BELAGAVI, DIS T: BELAGAVI.
5. THE ASSIS TANT REGIS TRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SO CIEITES , CHIKKOD I
AT: CHIKKODI, TA LUK: CHIKKODI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
6. SRI BIRAPPA S/O: VITHOBA BHANUSE
AGE: 43 YEARS .OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER
PROPOSED JAI HANUMAN PRA THAMIK
KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI SANGH
NIYAMIT., HULIKO DI TO TA, CHAMAKERI,
AT: CHAMAKERI, TALUK: ATHANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
7. SRI VITHAL S/O: S HANKAR SATTI.
AGE: 42 YEARS . OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER,
PROPOSED SRI BA SAVESWAR PRA THAMIK
KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI SANGH
6
NIYAMIT, BEDARH ATTI,
AT: BEDARHATTI, TALUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
8. SMT. PRABHAVATI W/O . OMPRAKAS H PATIL
AGE: 45 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER
PROPOSED JAI HANUMAN PRA THAMIK
KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI SANGH
NIYAMIT, TEVARA TTI CROSS, SHIVANUR,
AT: SHIVANUR, TA LUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
9. OMPRAKASH S/O. SHANTINA TH PATIL
AGE: 54 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER
PROPOSED JAI HANUMAN PRA THAMIK
KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,
SHIVANUR,
AT: SHIVANUR, TA LUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
10. SURESH S/O. HONNAPPA ICHERI.
AGE: 50 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER
PROPOSED SRI MAHALAXMI PRA THAMIK
KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI SANGH
NIYAMIT, (ADAVI TOT), GHATANA TTI,
AT: GHATANA TTI, TQ: A THANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
11. ANNASAB S/O. JINGOUDA ENDOLLI
AGE: 48 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER
PROPOSED SRI PA DMAVATI PRA THAMIK
KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI SANGH
NIYAMIT, JUNZARWAD
AT: JUNZARWAD, TALUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
12. SANJEEV S/O. SH AMARAO PAWAR
AGE: 43 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER
PROPOSED ADARSHA PRATHAMIK
7
KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI SANGH
NIYAMIT, KODAGANUR
AT: KODAGANUR, TALUK: A THANI
13. SURESH S/O. KALLAPPA MAYANNAVAR
AGE: 40 YEARS . OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER
PROPOSED SRI ARAVATTI PRA THAMIK
KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI SANGH
NIYAMIT, DARUR
AT: DARUR, TA LUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
14. APPASAB S/O. KALAGOUDA NADAGOUDA
AGE: 44 YEARS
PROPOSED SRI KA SHI ISWAR PRATH AMIK
KRUSHI PA TTIN
SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT, SAPTASAGAR
AT:SAPTASAGAR, TALUK: ATHANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
15. SANGAMESH S/O. CHANNAPPA INGALE
AGE: 40 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER
PROPOSED SRI SAI PRA THAMIK KRU SHI
PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,
HALLYAL, A T: HALLYAL, TALUK: A TH ANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
16. KUMAR S/O. SIDARAY JAGADEV
AGE: 42 YEARS , OCC: AGRIULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER
PROPOSED JAI HANUMAN PRA THAMIK
KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI SANGH
NIYAMIT, SA TTI,
AT: SA TTI, TALUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
17. BASAVARAJ S/O. RAMU SINDHUR
AGE: 38 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER
PROPOSED ANNADATA PRA THAMIK
KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI SANGH
NIYAMIT, AIGALI, AT: AIGALI, TALUK: A THANI
8
18. SHIVAGOUD S/O. BHIMGOUD NEMGOUD
AGE: 45 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER
PROPOSED SRI BA SAVANNA PRA THAMIK
KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI SANGH
NIYAMIT, CHANNAMMA CIRCLE KOKATNUR
AT: KOKATNUR, TA LUK: A THANI
19. SHAMARAO S/O. MINAPPA PUJARI
AGE: 43 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER
PROPOSED SRI RENUKADEVI PRA TH AMIK
KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI SANGH
NIYAMIT, KOKA TNUR
AT: KOKATNUR, TA LUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
20. SANJAY S/O: BHUPAL PA TIL
AGE: 45 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE
PROPOSED RAITA R PRATHAMIK
KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI SANGH
NIYAMIT, JUNZARWAD, YALLAMMANWADI
AT: YALLAMMANWADI, TALU K: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
21. GIRISH S/O . RAYGONDAPPA BASARAGI,
AGE: 48 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER
PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT, RAYLINGESWAR NAGAR,
KAKAMARI, AT: KA KAMARI, TALUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
22. SIDDAPPA S/O. G URULING PU JARI
AGE: 52 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER
PROPOSED SRI BA SAVESWAR PRA THAMIK
KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI SANGH
NIYAMIT, KA TAGERI,
AT: KATAGERI, TA LUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
23. SHIVANAND S/O. NAGAPPA MALI
AGE: 46 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE
9
CHIEF PROMOTER
PROPOSED SRI SIDDESWAR PRA THAMIK
KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT
KOTTALAGI, AT: KOTTALAGI, TALU K: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
24. SHASHIKANT S/O . BALAMBHATT JOS HI
AGE: 48 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER
PROPOSED SHETKARI PRA THAMIK KRUSHI
PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT, KAGWAD
AT: KAGWAD, TALUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
25. MAHANTESH S/O. GURULINGAYYA SALIMATH
AGE: 45 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER
PROPOSED SRI SAINT BALUMAMA
PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT, ANANTPU R,
AT: ANANTPUR, TA LUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
26. SHRISHAIL S/O . RAOSAB PATIL
AGE: 43 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER
PROPOSED SRI SANGAMESWAR
PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT, NAGANUR , P.A.
AT: NAGANUR P.A ., TA LUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
27. SANJAY S/O. KRIS HNA BHOSALE
AGE: 40 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER
PROPOSED SRIRAM PRA THAMIK KRUSHI
PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT
PADATARWADI, A T: PADA TARWADI
TALUK: A THANI, D IS T: BELAGAVI.
28. SIDDAPPA S/O. SA DASHIV JOGANE
AGE: 42 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER
PROPOSED SRI BA SAVESWAR
10
PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT, BADAGI
AT: BADAGI. TALU K: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
29. MALLAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA AVATI
AGE: 38 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE
PROPOSED SRI MAHANT PRA THAMIK
KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI SANGH
NIYAMIT, SAVADI
AT: SAVADI, TA LUK: A THANI.
DIST: BELAGAVI.
30. SANTOSH S/O. IS WARAPPA SHIVANAGI
AGE: 43 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER
PROPOSED SRI BH OOMI PRA THAMIK
KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI SANGH
NIYAMIT, A THANI, AT: A THANI.
TALUK: A THANI, D IS T: BELAGAVI.
31. SADASHIV S/O . BASAPPA AINAPUR
AGE: 36 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE
PROPOSED SRI MAHALAXMI PRA THAMIK
KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI SANGH
NIYAMIT, BALAVA D
AT: BALA VAD, TALUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
32. SHIVAJI S/O. SID DAPPA YAMAGAR.
AGE: 45 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER
PROPOSED SRI AMOGHSIDDESWAR
PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT, BEVANUR
AT:BEVANUR, TALUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
33. SURENDRA S/O. BHUPAL GIRIGOUD
AGE: 38 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER
PROPOSED SRI LA XMIDEVI PRA THAMIK
KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI SANGH
NIYAMIT, RA TNAPUR (NANDGAON)
11
AT: RATNAPUR. TA LUK: A THANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
34. PRABHAKAR S/O. BASAPPA IMMADI
AGE: 43 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER
PROPOSED SRI MALLIKARJUN PRA TH AMIK
KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI SANGH
NIYAMIT, BALLIGERI
AT: BALLEGERI, TALUK: ATHANI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAYAKUM AR S. PA TIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI B. SHARANABASAVA AND SRI SANJAY S.
KATAGERI, ADVOCATES , FOR C/R.6 TO 34;
SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADDL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCA TE,
FOR R.1 TO R.5.)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITU TION OF
INDIA, PRAY ING TO:
1. QUASH THE IMPUGNED DECISION TAKEN
BY THE 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS DATED
13.03.2018, VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO BE RES TRICTED TO
PETITIONERS ONLY AND COMMUNICA TION LETTER
DATED 13.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3 R D AND 4 T H
RESPONDENTS VIDE ANNEXURE- E AND RESOLUTION
DATED 26.03.2018 PASSED BY THE 3 R D AND 4 T H
RESPONDENT, VID E ANNEXURE-F ;
2. QUASH THE IM PUGNED ORDER DATED
26.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE 5 T H RESPONDENT, VIDE
ANNEXURES-G, G1 TO G28, ETC.,.
IN W.P.NO.20375/2018
BETWEEN:
PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PA TTIN
SAHAKARI SANGH LTD, KARAGAON,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
12
SHRI RAJEEV S/O . DEVGOUDA PATIL,
AGE 52 Y EARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. A T OFFICE, POST: KARAGAON
TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI JAGADISH PA TIL, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. THE S TA TE OF KA RNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNTAKA,
BENGALURU.
2. THE S TA TE OF KA RNTAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU.
3. THE REGIS TRAR OF CO-OPERA TIVE
SOCIETIES
ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU.
4. THE EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMAN AND
DEPUTY REGIS TRA R OF CO-OPERA TIVE
SOCIETIES,
BELAGAVI, DIS T: BELAGAVI.
5. THE EX-OFFICIO S ECRETARY AND
ASSISTANT REGIS TRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES,
BELAGAVI SUB - DIVISION,
BELAGAVI, DIS T: BELAGAVI.
6. THE ASSIS TANT REGIS TRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SO CIETIES
CHIKKODI, A T: CH IKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
7. NIYOJIT SHRI DURGAMMA DEVI PRA THAMIK
KRUSHI PA TTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,
13
POST: KARAGOAN, TQS: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.VEENA HEGDE, ADDL. GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE, FOR R.1 TO R.6;
SRI GANGADHAR J.M., ADVOCA TE, F OR R.7.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 O F TH E CONS TITUTION OF INDIA ,
PRAYING TO :
A) DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.6 TO
CONSIDER THE REPRESENTA TIONS MADE BY THE
PETITIONER DA TED 31.03.2018, VID E ANNEXURE-D ;
B) QUASH THE DECISION/RESOLU TION DATED
13.03.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-F MADE BY
RESPONDENTS NO.4 AND 5 WITH RESPECT TO TH E
PETITIONER;
C) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.03.2018
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.6 VIDE ANNEXURE-
G, ETC.,.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING ON
INTERLOCU TORY APPLICA TION THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLO WING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS, J., (ORAL) The petitioners are Credit Co-operative Societies registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 14 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved of the permission accorded by the respondent Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, which are produced at Annexure-G series. By issuing the impugned communications, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies has permitted the respondents No.6 to 34 to collect initial share capital from prospective members.
2. Section 4 of the Act provides as to which society can be registered as a Co-operative Society. Section 6 provides for making application for registration of a Co-operative Society, while section 7 provides for the registration at the satisfaction of the Registrar, if the provisions thereto are complied with. Chapter II of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) are the provisions, which would govern the mode 15 and manner of registration of Co-operative Societies and their bye-laws.
3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Anant Mandagi, appearing for the petitioners would submit that the impugned communications at Annexure-G series, by which the respondent Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies has accorded permission to the respondents to collect the initial share capital, is in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
4. The learned Senior Counsel points out to Rule 3-B of the Rules, which requires the factors to be considered by the registering authority at the time of registration. Rule 3-B of the Rules provides as follows:
3-B. Factors to be considered by Registering Authority at the time of registration.--The registering Author ity, while according permission f or the 16 collection of initial share capital at the time of registr ation of a Co-oper ative Socie ty, shall consider the f ollowing namely.--
(i) population in the area of oper ation of the proposed Co-oper ative Socie ty;
(ii) assessment of economic and f inancial f easibility like collection of share, f unds f rom the shareholder;
(iii) overlapping of the existing similar Co-oper ative Societies;
(iv) whether the dr af t bye-laws are in accord ance with the provisions of Act and Rules.
5. The learned Senior Counsel submits that a plain reading of Rule 3-B of the Rules, therefore, would require the Registering Authority, before according permission for the collection of initial share capital, to consider the factor laid down under the said provision. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that in view of Rule 3-B of the Rules, the Registering Authority, could not 17 have accorded permission to the respondents. The petitioner societies are Credit Co-operative Societies already registered and functioning in the areas where the respondents have sought for establishment of new Credit Co-operative Societies. The learned Senior Counsel submits that a close reading of the provisions of Section 4, Section 6, Section 7 of the Act and Chapter-II of the Rules would make it amply clear that, a restriction has been placed in the statute for establishment of more than one Co-operative Society in a village, which would be the area of operation as defined under Section 2(a-1) of the Act.
6. The learned Senior Counsel would draw the attention of this Court to a decision of a Division Bench in the case of Bhatkal Urban Co-
operative Bank Limited vs. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 1994 Kar. 2525. 18 The dispute before the Division Bench was centered around the fact of a Credit Co-operative Bank having obtained permission from the Reserve Bank of India to open its branches in some urban and semi-urban areas in North Canara district. The grievance of the Credit Co- operative Bank that was already operating in the said area was that if the respondent bank was permitted to open its branches, it will affect the functioning of the existing Credit Co-operative Bank. The contention of the petitioner bank was that if the respondent Credit Co-operative Bank was permitted to open its branches within its jurisdiction, the bank would be entering into the area of banking far from the jurisdiction within which the 2nd respondent bank should be operating and it would be entering area of banking business in the regions that were earlier being looked after almost exclusively by the appellant Co-operative Bank.
19
7. In the said decision it was held that where the existing societies have their area of operation, they certainly have a say in the matter of permitting the other competitors, though they may not, in given instances be able to enforce any such prohibition. Unless the pre-existing societies are heard, the Registrar himself will not be able to assess the possible damage or destruction and to this extent, therefore, the appellant Co-operative Banks were justified in their plea that the Joint Registrar was in error in having sanctioned the amendment of bye-laws without notice to them. The Division Bench went on to hold that the correct procedure would be to remand the case to the Joint Registrar with a direction that the parties be given an opportunity to produce whatever material they desire to be relied on, that they be heard and that the matter be disposed of, having regard to the special circumstances, within 20 a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order.
8. Sri. Jaykumar S. Patil, learned Senior Council appearing for the respondent Nos.6 to 34, submits that, the said decision in Bhatkal Urban Co-operative Bank (Supra) felt for consideration before this Court in the case of Sri. Subhash & others Vs. The State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.62116/2011 and connected matters, disposed of on 19.11.2011. In that matter, it was pointed out that, Chapter XI-A was inserted with effect from 03.11.2009 and the provisions of Section 98-I was discussed. It was noted that, due to the introduction of the new Chapter and in view of the provision in Section 98-I, the freedom of entry to a co-operative credit structure and freedom from restrictions of geographical boundaries for conducting business is to be ensured. On the other hand, it was held that while 21 registering the societies, the need for development of co-operative movement and its progress is not retarded, has to be kept in mind. It was therefore held that a new credit structure society cannot be prevented only because it may, in some manner, affect the existing society. However, it was also held that, it is the duty of the Registrar to find out and record his satisfaction that such registration of the new society will not affect the development of co-operative movement and in that regard, secure such information as is necessary from the existing societies and provide them a limited opportunity to furnish such information.
9. Sri. Anant Mandagi, learned Senior Counsel would submit that, subsequent to the decision in the case of Subhas (Supr a), Rule 3-B was inserted with effect from 06.06.2015 and clause A-1 was also inserted to Section 2 of the Co-operative Societies Act, with effect from 22 11.02.2013. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that, in view of the decision in Subhash's case (supr a), the legislature/ delegated authority thought it fit to clarify the position by introducing Rule 3-B and at the same time clearing the haze surrounding Section 98-I. In other words, it was submitted that, the restriction or for that matter, removal of restriction of a Co-operative Society under co-operative credit structure to conduct its 'business operations' was expressly made, providing freedom of entry and exit at any tier and the mandatory restrictions of geographical boundaries was expressly removed. But the meaning of removal of such restrictions for the conduct of the 'business operations' of a Credit Co-operative Society was clarified by inserting the definition of 'area of operation' at clause A-1 to Section 2. 'Area of operation', is defined to mean jurisdictional area from which the 23 membership is drawn or as specified in the bye- laws of the Society.
10. Smt. Veena Hegde, learned Addl.
Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent-State of Karnataka and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, would submit that Rule 3-B, requires that the Registering Authority, at the time of registration of a Co-operative Society should consider the factors enumerated in Rule 3-B. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 3 was also pressed into service, while submitting that, the Registrar, on being satisfied that the proposed Society has reasonable chances of success and is going to be economically viable may permit the Chief Promoter to collect such amount of share capital from such number of members intending to become the members of the proposed society within such period as he may satisfy. The learned Addl. Government Advocate would also submit that, the 24 permission granted by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies is in terms of Rule 3-B.
11. At this juncture, it would be necessary to note that a five member committee was constituted by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, in view of a statement made by the Chief Minister during the discussion of Budget for the year 2017-2018, on the floor of House. This becomes important because in the impugned communication issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, it is stated that, in view of the recommendation of the committee constituted by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, as a special case, permission is accorded to these respondents for collecting the initial share capital. The petitioners have produced a copy of the recommendation made by the committee constituted by the Registrar of Co- operative Societies at Annexure-D, dated 25 13.03.2018. It is noted in the discussion by the committee that, there were 106 applications for establishment of Credit Co-operative Societies in Belagavi district. It was decided by the Committee that 64 of such applications could be recommended for registration as Credit Co- operative Societies, subject to the decision of the Registrar. It has been stated in the recommendation that it is found that several persons who were not members of the existing Credit Co-operative Societies have been denied of the benefits that were given by the State Government and in order to come to the rescue of such persons who were not members of the existing Credit Co-operative Societies, there is a need to accord permission to new Credit Co- operative Societies. The same reason is given in the impugned communication, issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 26
12. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Anant Mandagi, submits that, the constitution of a committee by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, on the basis of the statement made by the Chief Minister on the floor of the House, is without authority of law and therefore, the constitution of the committee and the recommendation made by the committee is also without authority of law. The learned Senior Counsel submits that, it is the Registering Authority which has to apply its mind to the factors as enumerated in Rule 3-B and the decision to accord permission should only be based on the satisfaction of the Registering Authority and not on the basis of the recommendation made by some other person or authority much less the committee which has no sanctity in the eye of law.
27
13. On the other hand, the learned counsels for the respondents would also submit that, Section 98-B which was introduced in Chapter 11- A, with effect from 03.11.2009, provides that the provisions under Chapter 11-A will have an over riding effect over all other provisions under the Act and Rules, except some of the provisions mentioned in Section 98-B. It was therefore submitted that, this Chapter has an over riding effect even on Sections 4, 5 & 7. This argument is of no avail since there is nothing contradictory in Sections 4, 5 & 7 as against the provisions contained in Chapter 11-A.
14. The learned counsels for the respondents would submit in unison that, these writ petitions are premature since the provisions of the Act and the Rules, in particular Rule 3-B would provide that the Registering Authority is required to consider all the factors therein only at 28 the time of registration. It was submitted that the petitioners have no vested right in requiring the Registering Authority to hear them at this stage since the stage of registration has not yet occurred.
15. Heard the learned Senior Counsels for the petitioners and the respondents and the learned Addl. Government Advocate, and perused the records in the writ petition. The entire challenge revolves around the question as to whether the Registering Authority is required to hear or provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners who are the existing Credit Co- operative Societies, while the applications for registration are made by the respondents for registration of new Credit Co-operative Societies. It is necessary to point out that, the decisions rendered earlier, in the case of Bhatkal, Subhash (Supr a) are before Rule 3-B was inserted. Rule 3-B 29 having been inserted with effect from 06.06.2015, the earlier decisions may not be of much assistance at this stage. Rule 3-B, on a plain reading provides that the Registering Authority while according permission for the collection of initial share capital (emphasis supplied) at the time of registration of a Co-operative Society, shall consider the relevant factors elicited therein. The Registering Authority is required to consider the population in the area of operation of the proposed Co-operative Society; assess of economic and financial feasibility like collection of share, funds from the shareholder; whether there is overlapping of existing similar Co-operative Societies; whether the draft bye-laws are in accordance with the provisions of Act and Rules (emphasis supplied).
16. The learned counsel for the respondents would place reliance on the judgments of two 30 Coordinate Benches in the case of Devalatti Pathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Devalatti and Another vs The Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Belagavi and Others in W.P.Nos.101311-101312/2018 decided on 12.03.2018 and Mahila Halu Utpadakara Sahakari Sangha and Another Vs The Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies and Others in W.P.No.104122/2018 and connected matter decided on 04.07.2018. It was submitted that, in both these matters, it was held that, in view of Section 98-I, the plea of the petitioner-Society could not have been considered at the stage when the registering authority has only permitted the applicants to collect the initial share capital, whereas the registering authority is required to hear the existing Credit Cooperative Society only at the time of registration.
17. What is to be noticed is that, Rule 3-B was not brought to the notice of the Coordinate 31 Benches in both these matters. In fact, in Mahila Halu Utpadakara Sahakari Sangha (Supra), the Coordinate Bench has specifically observed that, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not pointed out any Rule or Section which stipulates that if a co-operative society dealing in a particular line of business or activity, another society also dealing with the same line of business or activity cannot be set up in the vicinity. If only Rule 3-B was brought to the notice of the Coordinate Bench, the decision would have been different.
18. In the light of the discussion made above, this Court is of the opinion that, in view of the introduction of Rule 3-B in the Rules, registering authority is required to consider the factors enumerated therein, even before permission for collection of initial share capital is accorded to the applicants. One of the factors 32 being "overlapping of the existing similar Co-operative Societies", it would become incumbent upon the registering authority to call for objections or afford an opportunity of hearing to the existing credit co-operative society before according such permission. If registering authority is of the opinion that, having regard to the population or growth in the population and growth in the economy, it is required to have another co-operative society to do similar business, the registering authority has to assign such reasons, before giving permission for collection of initial share capital.
19. On going through the impugned communication issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, it is amply clear that the registering authority has not applied its mind to the factors as required under Rule 3-B. At this juncture, it is required to observe that the 33 committee constituted by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies is without authority of law. There is no reference to any provision of law, which would empower the Registrar to form such a committee or delegate the powers vested with the registering authority to a committee, while considering the applications for registration of a Credit Co-operative Society.
20. In that view of the matter, the petitions are required to be allowed and therefore, the petitions are allowed. The impugned communications in Annexure-G series starting from Annexure-G, G1 to G28 and Annexure-G in W.P.No.20375/2018 are therefore, quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.
21. The registering authority, i.e., Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies may provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and 34 reconsider the applications of the respondents and pass orders in accordance with law.
22. In view of disposal of the main petitions, I.A.No.1/2018 filed in W.P.Nos.102487- 102491/2018 & W.P.Nos.102570-102589/2018 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mr k/ S v h / M BS /-