Karnataka High Court
Pentamma And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 22 November, 2023
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8744
WP No. 203145 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 203145 OF 2023 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.PENTAMMA
S/O PRABHAKAR REDDY,
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC:MEMBER OF DIRECTOR,
R/O # 29, BAROOR, TQ: BIDAR
AND DIST: BIDAR-585 403.
2. SANGAMESHWAR S/O VERANNA,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: MEMBER OF DIRECTOR,
R/O # 1-20, NEAR PANCHAYAT BAROOR,
TQ: BIDAR AND DIST: BIDAR-585 403.
3. JAIPAL REDDY S/O ANJAREDDY,
Digitally signed AGE: 38 YEARS,
by SACHIN
Location: HIGH
OCC: MEMBER OF DIRECTOR,
COURT OF R/O # 69, MAIN ROAD,
KARNATAKA
NEAR LAKHSHMI MANDIR, BAROOR,
TQ: BIDAR AND DIST: BIDAR-585 403.
4. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O RAM REDDY,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: MEMBER OF DIRECTOR,
R/O H.NO.93, BAROOR,
TQ: BIDAR AND DIST: BIDAR-585 403.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAIRAJ K. BUKKA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8744
WP No. 203145 of 2023
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY IT PRL. SECRETARY,
CO-OPERATIVES SOCIETIES,
RAJ BHAVAN ROAD,
NO.16, BANGALORE-01.
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
REP. BY ITS CO-OPERATIVES SOCIETIES,
MARKET COMMITTEE,
RAJ BHAVAN ROAD,
NO.16, BANGALORE-01.
3. THE DIST. REGISTRAR AND
CO-OPERATIVES SOCIETIES,
DEPUTY REGISTRAR, BIDAR,
DIST: BIDAR-585 401.
4. THE ASSISTANT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
AND ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,
BIDAR SUB-DIVISION, BIDAR,
TQ: AND DIST: BIDAR-585 401.
5. THE PRESIDENT,
PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CREDIT
CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD., CHITALGERA,
TQ: AND DIST: BIDAR-585 403.
6. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CREDIT
CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., CHITALGERA,
TQ: AND DIST: BIDAR-585 403.
7. HANUMANTH REDDY S/O SANGAREDDY,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DIRECTOR
PKPS, CHINTALGERA,
R/O DHARMAPUR,
TQ: AND DIST: BIDAR-585 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G. B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1 TO R6;
SRI. MAHADEV S.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8744
WP No. 203145 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)
ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
WRIT QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT VIDE NO.SANIBI-1/V-3/CR1/KALAM29/(C)/2023-
24 ON DATED 16.11.2023 WHICH IS ANNEXURE-K; B) ISSUE A
WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER IMPUGNED
APPLICATION FILED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 19-10-2023 AT ANNEXURE-C AND ISSUE
DIRECTION TO THE 4TH AND 6TH RESPONDENT TO
PARTICIPATED THE PETITIONERS AT NO CONFIDENCE MOTION
AGAINST THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 23.11.2023 AT
PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
CHINTALGERA, TQ. & DIST : BIDAR IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Objection raised by the Registry is over ruled.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 6/State and learned counsel Sri Mahadev S.Patil, for caveator/respondent no.7.
3. This petition is filed seeking to quash the order passed by fourth respondent issued under Section 29C of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. 1959 (for short 'Act') dated 16.11.2023 vide Annexure-K. -4- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8744 WP No. 203145 of 2023
4. Petitioners are the permanent resident of Baroor Village. Petitioners and eight other members contested the election from the Cooperative Society, Baroor and Chintalgera Villages, Taluk and District Bidar and they were elected as Directors of the Cooperative Society on 21.01.2020, same is not in dispute.
5. Petitioners gave a representation for 'no confidence motion' on 16.10.2023 against respondent no.5 whereas respondent no.7 filed a representation before fourth respondent on 19.10.2023 against the petitioners that the petitioners were absent for three continuous meetings and to cancel Membership/Directorship.
6. In view of 'no confidence motion' moved by the petitioners, the fourth respondent fixed the meeting for 'no confidence motion' on 23.11.2023. In the meanwhile, sixth respondent filed a request letter before the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Society - respondent no.4 dated 02.11.2023 with regard to the petitioners not attending the meeting and having been absent continuously for more -5- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8744 WP No. 203145 of 2023 than three meetings. Based on which, respondent nos.5 and 6 call for a meeting on 05.12.2022, 08.01.2023 and 06.02.2023. Fourth respondent issued a notice to the petitioners on the strength of the application made by seventh respondent dated 19.10.2023 and issued notice to the petitioners under Sections 29C of the Act and disqualified the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by the inaction of respondent no.4 in not conducting 'no confidence motion' as scheduled on 23.11.2023, but disqualified the petitioners even prior to the said date. This order of disqualification of the petitioners under Section 29C of the Act the petitioners are before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for respondent no.7 contends that there is nothing wrong in the order of disqualification issued by fourth respondent under Section 29C of the Act as Section 29C(1)(p) of the Act contemplates that the disqualification can be ordered for not participating in the meeting proceedings for three consecutive meetings. Therefore, the order of disqualification is well within the -6- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8744 WP No. 203145 of 2023 provisions of the Act of 1959 and it is also his vehement contention that the petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable in view of the fact that against an order of disqualification under Section 29C of the Act, an appeal is to be filed under Section 106(1)(d-2) of the Act. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable.
8. Same is also contended by learned High Court Government Pleader as the disqualification ordered is in accordance with the provisions of Section 29C of the Act and there is nothing wrong or arbitrary or illegal act committed by fourth respondent and also there is an efficacious appeal remedy available the petitioners would have to explore such efficacious remedy before approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. I have perused the impugned order of disqualification passed under Section 29C of the Act at Annexure-K. The fact remains that prior to disqualification, it is not in dispute that the petitioners had moved 'no -7- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8744 WP No. 203145 of 2023 confidence motion' against fifth respondent before fourth respondent on 16.10.2023 and based on which the fourth respondent had fixed for consideration of the same on 23.11.2023 for 'no confidence motion'. In the meanwhile the seventh respondent moved an application before fourth respondent against the petitioners herein which was considered and accordingly the petitioners were disqualified under Section 29C of the Act.
10. The fact remains that the fourth respondent has not taken into consideration the earlier representation for 'no confidence motion' against fifth respondent on 16.10.2023 and has accepted the seventh respondent application for disqualification of petitioners under Section 29C of the Act. It appears that all is not well something is amiss in this case and fourth respondent has without considering the representation for 'no confidence motion' against fifth respondent has proceeded to pass an order under Section 29C of the Act disqualifying the petitioners.
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8744 WP No. 203145 of 2023
11. It is no doubt true that an order passed under Section 29C of the Act an appeal provision is provided under Section 106 of the Act and the petitioners would have to approach the Appellate Authority to readdress their grievance, but admittedly the consideration of representation for 'no confidence motion' is listed on 23.11.2023 i.e., tomorrow, before that date, the petitioners have been disqualified. I am of the opinion that the petitioners rights would have to be protected by providing an opportunity to them to challenge their disqualification ordered against them by the fourth respondent before the Appellate Authority and in the meanwhile the petitioners shall be permitted to participate in the 'no confidence motion' fixed on 23.11.2023 which would however be subject to the outcome of the appeal. The petitioners are provided one week time to file the appeal till then the order of disqualification passed by fourth respondent vide Annexure-K is suspended. -9-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8744 WP No. 203145 of 2023
12. It is needless to mention here that the Appellate Authority shall decide the matter in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations or opinion expressed by this Court.
13. The result of the 'no confidence motion' shall be kept in a sealed cover which shall be presented before the Appellate Authority which would take it decision on the merits of the appeal.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. Learned High Court Government Pleader to communicate this order to fourth respondent.
Sd/-
JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15