Karnataka High Court
Sri Sanjay B Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 December, 2009
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer
AND :
State of Karnataka
Rep. by its Secretary to Government.
Department of Cooperation
iVI.S. Building. Banga10re--1 ~
The Registrar of Co--operative Societies
Officer of the Registrar of Cowop€1*_ative
Societies. No.1 " V
Ali Askar Road M
Bangalore W 560 0:01
The Joint Regis1i1'ar'o'f Co--'.Qf3.ei'aiive Societies
Beigaum Division 1
UdayBui1d1'ng V .
Dr.Rair1p'rasa_d* Mukehrjree Road -- ..
Beigau.m*..59ij)_G_Oiv jg «
'I'h_e._Bijéspi;ir*Qist.riei .Cer1i«ra_iH_C.o~operaiive
Eiarlk 'L"i'i'1"v'.}l','vt€(f1.:nI, K. C .' »:.\}a;gar .
S'o1a1iit.ir.R'o;a'd._"A_ ' ' '
Bij--:.1pL:1r ~» 017 " r V.
'V s1ging»..Ef)ire(*1.or
Rep Nflan ... RESPONDENTS
[By :3..S. KLi'm._}_.1i£u1 (1.A.. a/W.
* _Sri.v-Keshzlxia. Reddy;'-My,' Acidl. GA for R1 to 3
Sri, E-:1s'a\:{e1_P1'2;bhLi S Paiil. Sr. Adv. for
5.1-i.f;>~.s_imig'i:\393:11. Adxnfor R-4}
7 VThis'V§Ei-ii: Petition is filed under Articles 226 3: 227 of
'V "the Ccw;1ét.it£1iio11 of India. praying to can for rec:ords and et<:..
IN V\/RY!' PETITION NOs.287287/34/2009
BIBTWEEN:
1.
Shri. Shivanand
S/cusiddramappa Pan] _
Aged about 47 years
Occ: President, BDCC Bank, B.ijap ur';
Near Miiam Medical, M.G_. Roadx.
Bijapur - 586 I01 '
Shri. Rajshekhar
S/0. B. Gudadim1Ii~..
Aged about 37 yeargf V .
OCC: Di1'eCE'.0r/Vice Pr§iSid0.5"l.;'V
Near Zfiia.Pamchayat.O'i:{'ic(: .
Bijailur . V
Hosue No.5.83. Kar.1.'a_.k€i'aTs 'Bada{».\};'9.11 e"~-' =
Sh_r_i_V. T21.§1i11iaI}11a . 4'. VHar"1ga_1'ag£§
Aged 55vyea1'sf ' ' '
()_cc:._{7)ire(:Vt.c;::_ *
A1":,P0.:_ T i 1:012.» ':i".q : ' {J :I;3ij ap ur
Shri. I"€.an'an1z'1--111i*--:f1ya"
j S/Q. ML1f't21}3Vp:1 Biradar
-----
" O{trj:{)irg~.ct1c)1'
" = . AL; Poi'-St):--I1a1je11
&Sind«s1g,i.'i*q;'; Dist: Bijapur
A Shh'.
S/0., Gurulingappa Kori
Aged 51 years
x 'T OCC: Director
__5Near Siddeshwar Bank (SR. Coiony}
Jayanagar. P3ijapLn' 586 104
Shri. Basavaraj
S/0. M. Aneppanavar
Aged 59 years
OCCI Director
Inamdar Coiony
B.L.D.C. Hospiiiai road
Bijapur 586 10}
Shri. Gurupadappa
S/0. S. Yadawad
Aged 72 years _
Occ: Director
K.C. Nagar. Near DCC Bar1_}_{"»vV_
Bijapur 586 101 i5ETITIONERS
(By Sri. Jayakumar S. Pai:,iv1.~i.'SAr.'
for Sri. Amresh S..R0ja. VAd'v..):f "
Se.(:1~e£a1"y T'
I)e;)2i._rtIne11173i' 'CAO~.Qperaiive
G()\'€1'rT}I1€'1flj. of K2é._1'nai.aka
4;:vi.s, Biiiltiirig. Ambedkar Veedhi
-ii"B2¥1i1e§:.1.1£)1'e -- E" ----------
~ of C0--0peraiive. Socieiies
' Aivi~.Askari'f?.<jad
""iBang?;iDré
h;eAJ0Vi.nt Registrar 0fC0--0peraiive Societies
Beigéium Division
AA «Dr. Sham Prasad Mukheijee Road
" -. "Opp. Prakash '1'-alkies
Beigaum
4. The Deput"y Regietma' of C()--0pe1'aEi\/e
Societies. Anti Famine Buiiding
Opp. Dr. Ambedkar Circle
Bljapur M 586 101
5. The E\/Iarlaging Director --»
The Bijapur District Central Cooperative
Bank Ltnlited. KC. Nagar "
S()1E1DU1' Road
Bijapur -- O1
6. The Deputy Conlxnisstoneij
Bijpur {)tst'ric'.1' V" ._ "
E-3i'japur * ;.~._R'ESPO1}lDEE\HS
(By Srt. 1'§'e.Vl'f"1"1I;i'1'.:';:-1_l1V C~,._}"x V.},;/'xv_,__ ,
Sr}. Kesj.(hava"Re5ddy.7fM.. Adtii. G._A.""Ibr R1 to 4 and 6
Srt. B21sg1xra_ Prab'hL1~. S'.'tI?£1't.tI".'vvSI; Adv. for
Sri. Asshok N. Pam'~At;1v.':v'a;4'eRy~5.)
'1'hisx'w.:'tt peE:.1€_i(V)1"._ under Articles 226 and 227 of
the 'C;C')1'V1S.1'.it.L1t.i0VI'..,'dfv'II'1dta praying to quash the order dated
~,HQ.2.O9':'20'O9 '1).assed«hy'"R--3 in A_rmexurewL. respectively.
Writ" Petitions having been heard and reserved
for. cjrderst. 't7!}--Es..1'da1y the Court pronotlnced the ibliowirtgz
ORDER
Since common questions oi" law and fact aif!:.._i11vo'}veci"< V. in all these writ. petitions. they are dubbed togé:tii1ei";V'et!CiVea0rd--,1 and disposed of by this common ordgihmi "
2. In these petitions. the petitior5iei's'iVhave"~Ci§a10EVengeEilZi the order at Annexure~A in No.JRL/E/207/SSN/200809 .3'*<«*.0_:v'resf>ondent removing the managing "€:.0'1nn'i.tttej_e'of-_'yt;nqe'tBijapur District Central Cooperative BanE<...,Ltd.7{here'inai'teij"ieferred to as 'the Baiiig') antiVappointiiiguan 'a-dniinistrator to manage its aiiaii-s. =..yThe p"ei:1"ii.oi'i--ers were eEe(ri.eci as the niembers /_di1-eetoitsioi' the managing committee of the Bank in on 19.03.2008 for the term of five years.
T'i1et«n1a0i1~e»gg:i«i'1;g1 oo.n'1mii.tee consists oi' 12 menibers, who were 0 elected byv'the]=nA1embers of the society. The 15* petitioner in flu"'".EVW.P.yNos...2S'728~734/2009 is the President of the managing _eoynimii.:'tee oi' the Bank since 1997.
its
3. E1 is contended that since the a.fo1'esaid managing committee of the Bank_,.."see«n :3._n upward trend due to the efforts of at} i.fieiz;__di.ijg the petitioners. The Bank hasebeen eVar_n'i":1g pa:oi'i1:e_in c1*o1'es.
The Bank is administered and has been raking profits of V3A/Sears. The activities of the Bank continuously without. scopé" £'o~§L."any:=._ pubiic and the beneficia1'ies.'h nisnaging committee of the £321i:iVR.'"iVt.'se~"beneficiaries are striving to enhet'1--1ce«. the of the Bank. It is further contencied tihet. Vt.i1.eVBa1i'ivkVh'iis been seiecteci as one of the best ;_C_eii.t:'z11 Co?'o'p'ei'a1i\»*e Banks in the Karnataka State. Patti. the present President of the manéiging 'C'.{5.l_"T:I'11iH€€ of the Bank was a member of the 'gHmgisia.ti\'}e_ Assembly elected on the Congress ticket. There is »._':«.1 V1'i\?a.F.ry between S1'i.Shivanand S. Patil and his opponents U13. Sarvabhoma Bagali. Sri. SK. Belhibbi, Sri. Ramesh B. 10 State Government has unilaierally passed an *-.oI'der 21.10.2008 withdrawing the acquisition proeeedi_1j}gs' _ an the instance of the Bank. Being aggrieved order. the Bank filed a writ. petitiion this Court. This Court by itsorder dated" 16. the aforesaid order and direeted " the VP1ri.n0eip':a1 Secretary Revenue Department. C;oV=e1*na_neni i"o:fVKa'1~*nataka.A hear the Bank and pass appropriateioifdere fihe-'1~'eo'n:._':
6. The 4i?rivneipa1 Seel Revyenue Department, Bank and the said Sri. GL1Eappe1V. and SL}bfI1iU,€d his statement. opposingaecguisition of land For the Bank and also 1'e'porti"daied 19.02.2009 prepared as per the 'dii'eT(i'ii_()i1s0'oI"~tiie.Managing Director of the Apex Bank. Sri. Guiapipa produced a copy of the said statement ',.before.. iiige Principal Secretary. Revenue Department, {"{}o\lfe1:nn1e11t of Kamataka. On the next. date of hearing.
Si;i.Gu1appa Shetagar submitted one more report dated % \ 11 21.2.2009 which is prepared as per the directionsxoeiI_'th_e Managing Director of the Apex Bank.
Secretary, Government. of Kainataka, by his...o_i'deVr'-tttiateri0"
23.3.2009 upheld Bank's c0I1te11t.bi(H)i1$ continuance of acquisition procee_dings*tfoi""2 acrceé--t.of:iai1df';
7. In the in.te'i'r.egnii'1ii; "j"MLAs tvvlodged the compiaints with the H0n'1'3ie}'Mini'et':e1' __i1':;§1'.bA.§«'fl=C0>5~'_L7peration with an oblique n1ot.ive "_-to §:cies§ti:_a1:biii:¢e"*v0'*fLj§<1e. effected body and overthrow the ycidoptiiag back door methods" ((1lVV1dVA'.i£:(() landwvacqiiisition proceedings initiated E'ac'(:.orc1ii1g'v'0to Subsequentiy. the Hon'bie iVEiniste_r for C-o-opeifi-1t.io--.nV'i13rwarded the said eomplaints to Diiiectewot' the Apex Bank. The Apex Bank fir V':a'ppo'inLAed,tone»lSri. K.H. Thimmaiah. internal auditor and J0.i'1l'E""' Di1'ee1f;017e:; of C0~operative Society to conduct. 'vihqiiii"y/inspection with respect of complaints iodged against 'K051:-1'11ag€I}'l€T1t. of the Bank. Sri. K.l---i. Thimmaiah alleged '~-'tohave conducted inspection/inquiry without issuing notice 1'?
2* 12 or intimation to the members of the managing con1n1vittee*of the Bank.
8. The Joint Registrar of Co~operativ.e":'*S(3c:i'eties:""*i V' Beigaum Division (for Short 'JRCS'};"-the V herein. issued a show cause notice undei--.'__S'e-Jction 3Q(i]& ofid"the"i--. Karnataka Cooperative So(tiei.ies..V Aci} Vi9~59:'»[i'it3:I"(:Z'§171£1fL€I' referred to as 'the Act') on 24.O8V._2_(u):O9 to the 'n'1'erI_1'be_r§s of the managing committee oi'"'the., Bariiki. upon them to submit their expia-nation""onfQrV On the same l.et,ter"Vdated 24.8.2009 under Section i3O{4i}._a1nd to t.he Reserve Bank of India [R.B.i.}. Nai;i.onalV for Ag:-i(tt11t,t1re and Rural 'V._I)eveio§3rn_e'1"itV__ (NABAR.D}' and Apex Bank to offer their .V'..A:"e1na.r.§§s"on 'the."p_ro13osed action under Section 30(1) of the Act- 'I'ii.ej*: fpetit.io11e1"s submitted a represeniation requesting the JRCS to provide sufficient time their explanation to the show cause notice The JRCS passed an order dated 2.9.2009 t& 13 extending time up to 14.9.2009 to furnish explanation to the show cause notice. It is contended that after exanlininghhthe show cause notice dated 24.8.2009 issued by the petitioners came to kriow that in the 0.3"' respondent has reiterated the ._ i*ep()rts" 2_d,at"ed 19.2.2009 and 21.2.2009 submitted bi/1__Sr'i,_.I{.I-1. *ri:imma'ia:ii;~.:V"
who was appointed at the ii1sta.1>ice. of the Without obtaining the copy of ¢.th'e*c:onipi..aints;"t'he"daiieged report submitted by Sri fafid the actions taken pursuant _ the said9_'rep.or'i.',9"'«theylwere unabie to submit. Ttheredfore. they submitted applicatiohsdated:'1.d0;9t.20:09:'..--and 11.09.2009 under the provisions oi' the 'Ri.gVh;.t to 1v1"'i'i&Oi'II}Eti'.i()I'i Act to the Qmi and 3m 'vV':*e_Spovri__de1its seeking"c:e1'i'.'ii'ied copies of the complaints. the by the Honfbie Minister for Co~operatioh.
the.'directiohs'i__issued by the 2%"? respondent and reports referred cause show notice dated 24.08.2009. Since tiiei34%.;-espondeiit fixed the time iimit up to 14.09.2009 to "'~.__"'st1i<5.:r1it the explanation to the show cause notice. they la \h { 14 Submitted their interim expianation on 14.09.2009 'and requested for grant of some more time to file their repdlyu as they are in the process of obtaining the documer1ts§V_:ttkltie.1j.'*are . necessary to meet the akiegations made in t.1ie'vsh0W""eattse.._ notice. Between the evening of 17.0.9.20A09:'and1the of 19.09.2009. the respondent-s..V ru1¥i-i:_§1aecVt documents sought for by the the letter dated 17.09.2009. did "fA1CV)At furnish the copies of the eomplaints:'a.nd9_the o't'hVVe'r»~:V.fjoeuments. It is contended that" "sent a letter dated t.0..:V5a11 ftfitrectortstv""intimat.ing convening of nianagernentt.comntittee'Hte'0t.:ii'--ig on 25.09.2009. The Apex Bank has also eii'<:t.ii;atte:i agenda for the meeting along with dated 'V2160-9;20O9. One of the agenda of the .V'=.1fnee.tftr1g on 25.9.2009 is providing remarks of the Apex""tBar12k'.V*V'..t:nider Section 30(4) of the Act reiating to '.superuse.dtn.g of the Bank. Since the petitioners have sought ..ti1ne2to&£"u.r11is11 the documents and sttbmit their explanation.
-.0.'.-theybtoelieved that after furnishing the documents. the JRCS it 15 would grant time to submit their explanations. It isv.f;urtlh.er contended that the petitioners were also waiting fkorllthe A r. of other documents. However. the JRCS exereisingtheilipoyver under Section 30(1) of the Act passed:-t:h.e superseding committee of n1an'agez11le:1i'"of i}TIV(5"'L',.'g1Hvru1Vl< and appointing the Deputy Con1rniss\i'o.ner_of Bijapttr Digsstrict as its Administrator.
9. The 3'? filed":ét'ateTrnent', of objections in WP. eontended that the lgflzood, but. that does not mean it the «of the committee of the management are"perI7eei'*v_an'd beyond scrutiny according to "law. It conterzde"'l' that the present Committee of ":nar.i1age.rrient"haslleome into existence from 1.4.2008 and as such, they eanijtdt claim the credit of the performance of the previouuseornrnittee placing the Bank in 'A' Class and ea'rIii1'ig..thellprofit of Rs.265.2O iakhs and NPA around 4.71% itihas no relevance while Considering the conduct of the 15 committee of managements willful default. violations of the provisions of' the Act, Rules. and bye--laws and also vio1.at-ions of the guidelines issued by the Registrar of Societies and NABARD. The indulgence of the 'T "
other Directors of the Bank amounting'"to- .ijr1is'_maVnag:e;ne:I.ti_ol"V, the a.fI'ai1*s of the Bank and misuse oIi_'._powers'cann0t'"'be7.. washed away just because thelB.a"r:.E: eai'r1edv~,pro_:fi't'; The administration is the pe.rsonalVAiat1'rib_u'tep of each arid every director of the Bank. niolrelisoli oi' 'P_resident of the Bank. The acts o4.ltf:t1'1._e conltrni'ttee 'o'lf:'mai1ag_;.e.r"nenit and that of"
the Prevsideritfeire 7ui1d_e.i={questliolii and the irregularities committed by theVni":are*p__o'inted out and an explanation is calledlor i'r<;}n t.l1er:n,: I1:A"i_sl'tirthe1* contended that the charges V' '=f1'an':e€i i:i}.AlLl'l€AShO\N' 'c:"a'ti'se notice speaks that all was not well _in"tijte' i.fu'n_ci,io'n_ing of the committee of management. It has denied the lilssuiance of the show cause notice at the instance lV.,ofS1*i. Ghulappa and some other persons. The complaints "i.dwere"'l«odged to the Registrar of Co~operative Societies with a copy to the l\/linister and Apex Bank. in pursuance of which, kl 17 the Registrar has directed the JRCS attached to the office of the Registrar to visit the Bank and enquire intoilithe complaints. The 3"' respondent. visited the made a thorough. investigation with regard to.th.e_:c:oni§51a.int's' "
and submitted a report to the Registra1'.b_"Th.c also conducted an inspection_an'd s1ib_Ini€.ted such, the 3"' respondent. is statititorily t'.a'k§eHactior1 whenever and Wh€F€V€E;M'6..}3y igthie._e.o#~--operatit}e"societies registered under the Co:o_p'eA1jati'yVe 1959 are functioning in §;rioi':gV1.?;on bf the7p1'o\(isions_H(:}f the Act. and the Rules 'oL\_'2e'V"laurs and the guidelines issued Governtm_ei1.t;i"-RiEf--¥ and NABARD. It is admitted that the pet'iti.oVi'aei's--. h2':._ve"~"sought. for two months time for V' ~.fi1ing "th*;2:-s.0lJj€CtiOEiS'.'"'Ti"1V€ charges framed in the show cause _ spertaining to the loans sanctioned by the ctornmitt.ee."Ro__fManagement which is the part of the 'proceedings 01 the committee of management which was in fthe ictist.ody of the committee of management. As such. the qtgiestion of obtaining ocuments under the Right to K _ not 20 recovery of its dues. the Bank had already initiated re_coyjery proceedings before the Registrar oi" Co~operative;'"f:3ot;iet'iesla under section 70 of the Act. The policy regarding financing sugar mills by laid down in the circular No.245/PCE).l'}5/:2,(l)A(l3AC)?ldissued.:"bybVl* NABARD. It is provided that 'C.(:'-{.hyp¢th¢catidn_) li_:n*1'its"lor stores and spares (including lgunny bags)'. could be sanetioned/ renewed by ."V1})i. .to".._1_2_(}%_ oi' the average rnaximuin utilization of theVli'h1_ll.s."duririg. tlieigirecediiig three years of Rs.2.0():.c'ro.re's whichever les's..V__W'ith.dra\vals under such li1i';'iVtslvwouev'l.cI have _t:'oa_be perrnitted only against fresh stock of c"ionsuniable."'a.nti._p'a§;l{:1gii1g material purchased for the sugar selasori.yi.e'. .pL1A_{fC'ha_us'e on l-'-"-' J U 1y of the year. 11. was }i_{§gi.ljle for 'any hypmhecation loan beyond the limits :.by4:"the NABARD. There is no provision For Sai1C§"iOrl1fl.g"--,lf)ainl-.1701' construction of go-down or harvesting and iLi:anspor.ta*tion. More so. there was no security for the said loans and as such. grant of loan could not have been "c:o1iis_idej.'ed. En the light of the dismal financial position as 23
11. 1 have heard Sri. P.S. Rajagopal. 1earne_d"'Ser1~i.o:r3 Counsel appearing for the petitioners V No.28726/2009. Sri.Jayakurnar S. i?ati1:.AA4p'1cfs:ar_11et:Al' Counsel appearing for the petitioners Ain_"W.P. 734/2009. Sri. Basavaprabhu "1«:.z.u'-"n.:?¢1 'Senior Counsel appearing for Sri.""Keshava Radc§y_ learned AGA and ]}{u.--rn_pfr;a_t1.__wearned GA appearing for the ;ot't'ir:i;§1 res._pondent's_A " ..
12. the ;jetitio11ers would contend that the petitioners- the managing Committee of t.he Bank on a term of 5 years. The supersession of the nranaging committee of the Bank has serious"adverse"eiviit consequences. Having regard t.o the ' p1'o\;i¢so"to st1b's_eci:tic)r1 3 of Section 30 of the Act, the member _.uof_.the comrntttee removed under section 30(1) of the Act is .__r1'o.t eiigibie for being elected as a member of the committee ..__"t"o'r agperiocl of four years from date of supersession of the / 24 eommiii.ee. Section 30(1) of the Act proviciesu supersession of the eomrnittee. after giving the e()n1rh'it"i:ee* ;_. ' opportunity to state its objections. The petitio_n~ers_:'wereiinoi provided with a reasonable opportunity tog..eéiu"se notice. it is argued that the show cause nioticeewlasvllissuejd on 24.08.2009 and it stipulated to file reply. The notice petitionlers on 25.08.2009. which did not vAAi'jor__s~upersession.
Therefore. the l'i_le<:l on 10.09.2009 for extension cause notice and sought l0llbelrelai"ter, reserving liberty to file at information, an interim reply weyxs i'iledl°enVV l4.09.2.0l0'9. The inl'ormai.ion sought was 'llp*;"o\ridled' on l9.A09.§2l009";*"Aiter furnishirig oi" the information, no t)ppori1ui_1'iiy'i'was given to submit their reply. The JRCS subn:iiti11g_glliiliriself to external dictation, passed the 'impugned 'order. Thus, the proceedings before the JRCS was eo"nigi'e.rj«,t 1.0 Section 30(E} of the Act. It is further argued that ____"i'he§JRCS ought to have granted an opportunity of personal kg 25 hearing. it is argued that. the order is vitiated for non» consultation with the financing Bank. It is further suhr11i'tted._ that the JRCS having referred the matter to _ State Co--operative Apex Bank Limited t,tn_der SOME of it the Act found it inconvenient. to wait.'-.for;t:1:e:'viewi 'of"th'e:said::;r Bank for the reasons that the said_gBan1x._ 1~c.¢¢'g;ias¢d Bank as one of the well managed-.gE$anksp1aCed before its Board meeting_tii'Qposing.1. t"e._'gra~n_t third prize in appreciation of thei.perf0rn:a,noe ot'Aat.he".«BanV}.{_tirider the selfm same C1i1'6Ct.OI"_VfCE?.:1" .'O.3;20'O8 classifying the Bank as petitioners wanted to examine the report's:t:hini.i_tVt'ed..--~by Sri. K.H. Thinimaiah and all A11i'1CXt1I'€é§ said report. The petitioners wanted to "}<_now._ di~rections""*i"ssued by the respondent--authorities 7f_rcji;1_ Without ascertaining the above facts, it was possiiiiyle for the petitioners to effectively defend their "ease and submit their explanation to the JRCS. It is further "«ieonteii';ded that the President of the Bank was a member of ti 27 to the petitioners is efficacious in nature. Therefore. the Writ petitions should not be entertained by this Court. He taken me through the impugned order "and subn1__i;tt'ed--.';th.at the Bank is persistently negligent. in the performance its duties. It has committed acts which}are_;oreju.di'oia'l._ interest of t.he Bank. it is further _argued.that not been functioning in E1CCOI'dE1I'lC'é'v\"'.Z\%l"lh the lprOlV'isi'ons;:of the Act. the Rules and the Bye 'laws. _«"l'hlelrefiore;"the JRCASAhad no other option but to supercede 'the r1'1a1:iagingvAe'o1fn'.anittee of the Bank.
17. 'Keslia\}a_ljV'Ready:learned Addl. Government Advocate. _appeari.iigi.tl'or "i.he'". offieial~respondents has also fJs'o:i1gl1t:._tlE> jgustirfy the'li_n'1p'uvgned order. It is argued that the reiztsonalblev"opportttr;ity has been afforded to the petitioners ' to file' areply.'t'ol3.V_ihe show cause notice. It is l"tn'ther argued the over: all performance of the Bank has no relevance ._WnileV eon.sider'ing the conduct of the management's willful l"=..__'defau§lt._ violations of the provisions of the Act. Rules. and it 28 bye~1aws and also violations of the guideiines issued Registrar of Co--operative Societies and AGA at the time of his arguments has coneede_.r§~ it no evidence of persistent. default. or per_sist-entf :. .« submits that the action taken rig-a_instV"the"Ba1'1?.;"v's.hot1id iipedvt tested under Section 30(1}(b] of that the reasons for avlged U16 documents required for under the Rigiii t.o I11f'o1'n'12_i'tio?j_..liftct 't"i:nfii2tt:1:e'd""£7o_r3be(:at1se all the charges {ranted notieie are pertaining to the of Managenient whicla is the of the con1n1it:t.ee of manage1}1_e1'1t \»\?hicVi'1a.r..e re.qLi'ired to be reduced into writing in Vt.h_e to-::._ni _reso1L1t.§on"11:'the IT1iI1'LIi'E*.S book, which was in the custody' . o'i7,_ the .__co.n'1mitt.ee of maziagenient. As such. the qttestion oiftdobtlaining documents under the Right to 'i'n_for1I1aE.ion';.Ae't is absurd. Certain documents sought for vfie-1'Ve§Vd"2tvaiEa3oEe with them. They are not entitled for V"-.___"'op';5'ortun'ity of personal hearing as the section does not it r' 29 provide for the same. Therefore, the violation of pi'inei_p~Ees._of natural justice does not arise. He prays for disniissatl.'Vo--!l_fth.e_l' . writ petitions.
18. Before dealing with the o;'ther"eontent.io,nV:sl«s,n'ge'd"
.\.
teamed Counsel for the parties.l".__lelt__'me S';;v_r)nsiciei~*:_rthe'3 contentions of the learned CounseiibI"o1* the revspoiidveritl Bank as to the availability of the""a'lt_ernat_ive refined}? to the petitioners for challenging _a_the' The order passed by V" the committee of iiianagenietit'ofjtheli3arai{'~i.s under section 30 of the Act. A perusal oi'Vseet.ion_.3C};'oi'"'t;hle~.A;ct shows that the order has to be passed t.he..l'2egisi:rE1r in aecoi'clance with law. Sub '«--.ssec:':ioi'1 {ii civi'A.seeiioii'"'Zof the Act defines tlzim the Registrar'. inf ll appointed to perform the functions of . W'-' .
the ,__l§egistii;a'ij. of Cooperative Societies under the Act, and sineludesv an Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies, a "«lJoint""Registi'ai- of Co--operative Societies. a Deputy Registrar A " oi"%Co-operative Societies and an Assistant, Registrar of Co- in 30 ope1'at:ive Societies appointed to assist. the Registrar_--when exercising all or any of the powers of the Regist'rar;':""i7h'atViAs how, the JRCS has passed t.he order impugned V' 30 of the Act. The order impugned ».hereTin it under section 106 of the Act. The sub 106 of the Act. states that stzbgjevet-..to the _r)rov_isVions.__o'i'isection " V lO8~A of the Act. an appeal shall V:live_2ig_»ai:1st 't'he_cJIjde1* of the Registrar removing the "t3ofinirnitte--e:.o£'*a" .co-uoperative society made under section 30:.o'i""i;h.e' As'. pet7sub~section 2 of section iO6 ol':'i,.he5:Ae_t. an appeal aigairistlllany act. decision or order seci,4iond{'lV.,i'_'shall lie to the State Government if the acrtiderrisioaiag 'Of;o.r»cie..r1'w.as made by the Registrar. if the act. clecisio1"1"o_1* orc.i--e1'"wa's made by any other Officer. the shfalhlie to t.ha't"'Of"ficei~'s immediate Superior Officer. A l9_..~Adfriittedly. the Registrar is the immediate superior "'«.__Vl'oiA'licer oiflthe JRCS. But the question is whether the Registrar it appellate authority is able t.o deal with the appeal _'§)1H3:j€'(?1i\"€1uV-'. fairly and impartially. ln this cronriection. it is Kt 36 Connection. the Court. held that official bias is likely to arise when an adjudicator has previous knowledge of the material facts of the case before him by virtue of his dealing:
those facts in some other capacity. in such Ca_.se:5;-..t.l1er» possibility of pre--dispositions hoveri'nglAoVer« the minldtof an I adjudicator for or against a party inl'the".V_cas€ .:t?I'7'~i"oi?e'~ cannot be ruled out and there"'ve«is"t.every*--iaoseaibillitylllland probability that the adn1irii'strati.on" ol7:"}t1s't'iee was"le"ss than fair. Further. there is every p-ossibility adjudicator. who has adjlldifgfiléd ioetweenthe"--._parties. has not adjtidieated theVitagctrter»'with,an independent mind and without leanli-ngliiovt?2:1'd'sonhexpéarty or other. The Court has _. VEu1'ther}helci. as under: V H ._ x"«'_7". ltfl «is";an~,el'ementary rule of natural justice that who tries a Case should be able t.o deal ll / 3?
with t.he rnatter before him objectively. fairly and impartially. The word 'impartially' is the antonyrn oi' the word 'partialit':y' or bias. Bias is a Condit.iori.._ of mind. which sways judgment and i*ei1r:ier.s'«._"'- judge unable to exercise his lunc:t,ions imp_a"r'tial.ly..___" ' in a particular case. Bias on the part:"'.ol"t:_h~e person acting in a jL1di(éial-leap-zicitjf is ':c1;alleVci-fl 'J'Liciicial Bias'. The broad priiicipie'eyolye_ci"~by Courts is that a person? E'4ryi1'1g"'a "eause>ever1 in quasi-judicial pro(:eedings"-vmltist no['onl'y.aet. fairly but must be able to fclst yabotze sus'pie.iori: of unfairness. This is»._baseCl 0;{_1'vth'e_l'l\/larcim which is often repeated that ju.st.ir5[_e ishou1'd--[_'n._ot only be donebni.'fsl1oti:}ii be .seen to"'be' "done. "
lt has been lfL:'11.,il'1.er"he'ld. as under: _''9. ...... .. After completion oi' ._':L_:'"ele3:1artrnemai'enquiry proceedings. on an appeal delirtquem. officer. the same authority yi/l'i~:i:"ih;:ui.ili-sat:ed the notice, in the Capacfly of the l' .__llappetllalfie'authority' decides the appeal and rejects s_ar1'ie. It is the apprehensiori of the petitioner that justice is not been done to him by the _appellat,e authority. who had personal knowledge it s 38 of the material facts of the case and had 1'ejected_l~. his explanation. In a case like this, official , A' likely to arise when an 8.djLJdiCEH,OI' has 'p_reviot,is' knowledge of the material the;'céise=bve£'oI'e'_' him by virtue. of his dea1ing=__withthose.' £}'i(é.t/\,,i'I1__ some other capacity. In such the plo';3sAibilit;y'=--' ll of pre-dispositions hovering. _ over " the rm'r1_dl"'oVfV adjudicator for or a.gainst"':1_ ;:1.23_i*ty..ii~.._the ease before him (?E1{1l]OT:"'lf}~';T r1,t'Exed:_oi;t._end,there every possibility and probetblillityvtrhat ]_adn1__inistration of }'ustiee_wa_s less there is every ut'he:_4ladjijdiceitor. who has adjtidlicat_ed_r.bet.we'é.i§'~._/theuV.:part.ies. has not a£i}tiC1i€1ti1'1j,i,3dfi:iii'ie l"-1eTiE1tEerl"'befbre him with an 'without leaning towards one pairty or o1.he_r".'=--.t_n" thy view. nothing is to be done which_c'reaL'ied".a doubt or suspicion in the of the.._...party that there has been an in_'ip1jo.per, interference in the cause of justice. i'l".I€V.:Oi'f'i(T€r who had issued the show cause llllnoticleclliand who had rejected the defence oi' the deliindoent. also hears the appea} and decides it, any reasonable person will definiteiy entertain. a jeasoiiable apprehension that his case has not been considered on its merits and justice has not i r' 39 been done to him. In cases of this nature. the testy is not whether in fact the judicial bias official bias has affected the judgment. The :"
whether a litigant could reasonably_.a--npreVhe--n:d.A that bias attributable to thefllappellate might' have operated against;hi.En'l:inll"t.hpe..'i'ir1a'i.l_l;:.,,,it decision. It is in this sense. thata. is otftepj.'s.:1i§l that injustice must not be (:lllOnelAiblut,l:';:1ls0 appears to be donef
22. Rule otexclusiidn"efl'wrii;.jti_ris(.licption by availability of an alternatyive 1'e'n1.ev_dy rule_4«off:'disereti0n and not one of Compulsion; -.I_nt-appi$.:3pria.te'-casesfin spite of availability of £tllCI'I"laI'.lV_€' l'remedy;.'f{:~ligh_l"CQti_!.*t may still exercise its writ gurisdictionlffriae. Ap«g_=xr..Co«t.{-~£-1 in HARBANSLAL SAHNIA &
-V V. vs. l'I'ND.IA..I\.-'V OIL CORPORATION LIMITED 32. V':iOftTHERE3_4'{2'O@3) 2 sec 107, has held as under:
of exclusion of writ _jurisdiction by availjability of an alternative remedy is a rule of A' 'i>.g:&lisereti0n and not one of Compulsion. ln an
-.:--tppr0priate ease. in spite at availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still ll 41 Case. petitioners have made out a case for entertaining the writ petition despite availability of alternative ren1edy,'"'--.
25. The JRCS issued notice _to...the p_eti'ti'on.ers""uiideru Section 30(1) or the Act dated 24.08-,2oQ'8..e;nd».ctn~eet.eel[itineit<:.j to submit their explanation to the Show Cause'V_no[t'ieeWo.i1 or --. 2' before 2.9.2009. The mos sarne.l_dayvvf?i.e.. on 24.8.2009 also sent '1'€'l£-.'1.€1?V:".#i退:'d'A:".2>é;.8.2OOg under Sections 30(4) and (5) oAf.T.th.._efA(rt. ie {tie NABARD. and the Apex [3a11lc3_jt.o theii:_rernalrirsloh'the proposed action under Section *3jO_{l] oi"tl1e'z'.lt_ci., which is Clear from Annexurew J. St.ibseo«:,;ei1tly.' submitted a representation the JRCS to provide S{,ilh{1Cl€f}E "=t.in'1e.t.'o gs-ubinit. tlheirwefxplanation to the show cause notice The said representation is at An:oexure--K. The passgezd an order dated 2.9.2009 extending time up "to .l4.9;'2009 to furnish explanation to the show Cause notice ":ld;t.ted"24.08.2009 as per Annexure--L. Without obtaining the ix".__"°(:oi;nplai'r1t'.s lodged by the Complainants, the alleged report (wt 42 submitted by Sri. K.H.'l'hinm1aia1'1 and the a(:t.io.nVli'~t,a1{en pursuant to the said report. the petitioners :,t;9\ H submit their explanation to the show eau.se»..nfo1.ie*e: dated 24.8.2009. Therefore. the petitioners dated l0.9.2009 and 11.09.2009 underlthe p1fV5iil'is.io'n.s the Right to information Act to respondeiits seeking eertil-'led (20pi€9w'Ql' by the Complainants. t.--'i~«.§" Minist.er for Cooperation, .direol.i011s__ respondent and reports ltxause notice dated
24.o8.:_:ooé."'.si»:jic€3:'§,l.iqe:l:jaifzcsl".fi§;éa the time imm. up to 14.09.2009--t.o to the show cause n()ti('C__Vde1ted" 24;08.2A0.09'I: on l4.09.2009. the petitioners l"~v.st1b:fn:it.t.2;;s<:1 their inte'r'i'1n explanation and requested for grant of solrnedrncire' tinge as they are in the process ol' obtaining the do'o_1.trnen_i;s.Wvihicth are necessary to meet the allegations l'._.Vn1ade'~fnA':.t.he show cause notice dated 24.08.2009. The ,,..0e).;pllanation is at AI1i'1€XtE1'€~l\l. On 17.09.2009 and El9.09.2009. the respondents furnished some of the it 43 docurnents sought for by the petitioners under the letter dated i7.09.2009. However. it is clear that the respondents have not iiirnished the Copies of the complaints lodged by the Complainants and the other documents. It is the hi"
the petitioners that since they sought for time 0 documents and submit their exp1ar1'a'tion.to'.4t1ie.sihowieauseu notice. they believed that after fur'nis'i.1_in'g the'. before 37.09.2009, the JRCS w§u_1d grant taxi-ieih to " ' submit their explanation. Howetter. the JRC*S,tias passed the impugned order the Committee oi' alfiiliEtIia§{e"i1i_e5i'1.t"of theWE3arik. The contention of the respo.1icient.s-- isvthaitV«the._doCument.s sought for were very miicrh_aV21i1a'b1e'with At--he"~'petiti()ners cannot be true. The 'V'~..,'repo_i*t.~ ;S_ub._miited'"~--byV Sri. K.H.'I'hin'1niaiah and other ideciurherits _Wei'e-.with the authorities concerned. Therefore. the pdetitioriejrseiwere justified in seeking some more time to file theiroioieetions. Without. granting reasonable time. the i~:'~tIxR;C"S_has passed the impugned order. It is evident from the letter of the Registrar to the JRCS dated 13.03.2009 that. he Km.
45 I am of the View that since this m1'nin1um has not been Clone. the p1'in(*.iples 01' r121tt.:I'al jL:st.iCe have been vi()lat,ed§LW' l.;ef'ot~37._D{'e::1__ _ Counsel for the parties have advanced argu_ment.S~.atE~.l:er1gt,hll on the merits of the matter. All these q.1.1eSLlllgnhsdhavetr} be .0 COl'}SiClC'.1'CCl by the JRCS V.e'3ft.er l"g_§ra'z1t.i:1g~"'lA t'e,a.s()né:1blle opportunity to the petitioners to l'l0ie_thei_r reply? '
26. In the light V0§7.__t.he .etbl<)V'el:dilszjussioffl'l'"pasS the following:
[i] 'l'h._e V.'v'1'it.V pletf}-t,lt)*n_sl'stitrceed and they are ac(r01*dingly"
allowed. The tt0rdle1.'l',g)lassle.d by the 3"" resp0ndent--J0ir1t1 Registijralr of l'C.r__>V~0p::%1'at.i\Ie Societies. Belgaum. dated l22.VQé.2.(_50f9 .{Annexure~L in we l.\I0.28"728~"734/2009 and l\E0.28726/2009) is hereby quashed.
{ili}--.'Fh..;:i lpetitiioners are granted time till l5.02.2010 to file ."g.t'l1eiVd1i additional objections to the Show cause notice dated _ 2.4_;;0e.lA2009.
ll 46 {iii} "I'he 3"" resp0ndem.--J0im Rcgist.r21r of CL)--()pci*a.1'iv€ S0cielie.9. Belgatlrll. is directed 1.0 consider_;"¥'i;€fu'~._sda{d_ objections and pass appropriaie o1'de1's.....t1_i€:'€t)h ._ in"
accordance with law on or before 15.04->._2O:O'._V\'.h,h.E)_LiI'.,b§3ih,g7 A' iniitmrlced by the Cozltents QE7 ihe cfrrhtilL1:1i(jé1*i.idh:
Régistral" dated 13.3.2009 WW.P. I\io.28726/2009]. V' 'V 'V
(iv) The Depufi C<)1'1'11hi§'§,fVd1'1d6_fd: or any other auth0:'i1.y ;'u?i'igL:VI'121s :heeI'1a£r1 a.dminist.rator to look after *direct.ed to hand over the C11211jvg'<éd"V<d)Vi?' Co--operative Bank Li m it ed . u 1'. f01't.h w i 1 h .
{V} The p<é::11.i01'1c>:'s eufe*z:£}SIre-1i11ed from 1.a1<i1'1g_{ any policy dc'cris5.f«a§:s1sd'~IiII E:'1ia._d%sAp()s3a] of {he :'11a{,t,er by the 3"
1'fi%spQf1d€':I1.AEg.IQ'I;1t Regisilnz' of C0--0pc?1'a1iv€ S0('.ieI,ie$. ABfi'.VIé_','_'c71LE1'"11.._:v'i"'E."'i aztC.:<)1fda1r1L>e with this Order. No (rosis. sd/=-
"JUDGE d._«CAsf/'m.iM/-