Karnataka High Court
Devalatti Prathamik Krushi Pattin vs The Deputy Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 22 October, 2018
Bench: B.Veerappa, H.T.Narendra Prasad
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
W.A.Nos.100095-96/2018 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. DEVALATTI PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN
SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT, DEVALATTI,
AT: DEVALATTI, TQ: KHANAPUR,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE,
PIN: 591302.
2. KENCHAPPA S/O GANGAPPA ITAGI,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHAIRMAN,
DEVALATTI PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN
SAHAKARI SANGHH NIYAMIT,
DEVALATTI, R/O: DEVALATTI,
TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.
PIN-591302. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHIVARAJ P.MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BELAGAVI,
TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
:2:
3. GIRIJADEVI PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN
SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,
KAMASINKOPPA, AT:KAMASINKOPPA,
TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI,
BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE, PIN: 590001.
4. THE CHAIRMAN,
GIRIJADEVI PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN
SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT, KAMASINKOPPA,
AT:KAMASINKOPPA, TALUK:KHANAPUR,
DIST:BELAGAVI. PIN:590001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVI V.HOSAMANI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)
THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE
COURT TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 13.03.2018 IN WRIT PETITION No.101311-312/2018
C.S. AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT
APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The present intra Court appeals are filed against the order dated 13.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court made in W.P.Nos.101311-101312/2018 dismissing the writ petitions filed by the petitioners/appellants herein who had sought to issue writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 20.12.2017 passed in DRL/DAP/04/2016-17 passed by the 1st respondent/the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, :3: Belagavi, and the order dated 15.07.2016 in No.AR- 9/RSR/139/2015-16 passed by the 2nd respondent/the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society, Belagavi.
2. It is the case of the appellants/petitioners before the learned Single Judge that respondents 3 and 4 made proposal to the 2nd respondent seeking registration of new society at Kamasinkoppa village by the proposal dated 08.08.2015. The petitioners and other members of the Society had submitted written objection to the registering authority requesting not to register new Society within the area of operation of the petitioner/Society by the objection dated 11.08.2015. The 2nd respondent without considering the objections and without hearing the petitioners has passed an order dated 15.07.2016 registering the 4th respondent-Society. Therefore, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent wherein the 1st respondent placing reliance upon the order dated 19.11.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.No.62116/2011, has dismissed the appeal :4: on 20.12.2017 on the ground that the 4th respondent is already functioning.
3. The order passed by respondents 1 and 2 was the subject matter of the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 13.03.2018 has dismissed the writ petitions. Hence, the present appeals are filed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Shri Shivaraj P.Mudhol, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions is contrary to the material evidence available on record. The learned Single Judge has not properly considered the fact that respondents 1 and 2 have not properly considered the economic viability and technical feasibility for registration of new Society even though the appellant/Society has been functioning and catering to the needs of the farmers and :5: members of the Society and is open to all eligible farmers. The learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the writ petitions by setting aside the order passed by respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, he sought to allow the present appeals.
6. Per contra, on taking notice for respondents 1 and 2, Sri Ravi V.Hosamani, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned order passed by respondents 1 and 2 as well as the learned Single Judge and contended that in view of the amended provisions of Section 98-I of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, (for short 'the Act') there is no restriction of geographical boundaries of the concerned Society for the conduct of its business operations and there is freedom of entry and exit at any tier. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ appeals.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that both the authorities/respondents 1 and 2 concurrently have held that the Co-operative Society shall have the freedom of entry and exit at any tier and there shall :6: be no mandatory restrictions of geographical boundaries for the conduct of its business operations. The learned Single Judge considering the entire material available on record, has dismissed the writ petitions.
8. The provisions of Section 98-I of the Act, reads as under:
"98-I. Restriction regarding area of operation:-
A co-operative Society under the Co-operative Credit Structure shall have the freedom of entry and exit at any tier and there shall be no mandatory restrictions of geographical boundaries for the conduct of its business operations."
9. A plain reading of the said provision makes it clear that a Co-operative Society under the Co-operative Credit Structure shall have the freedom of entry and exit at any tier and there shall be no mandatory restrictions of geographical boundaries for the conduct of its business operations.
10. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioners have not challenged the validity of the mandatory provisions of Section 98-I of the Act before the learned Single Judge. :7: Therefore, the learned Single Judge is justified in dismissing the writ petitions which is in accordance with law.
11. We find no error to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 4 of the High Court Act. Accordingly, writ appeals are dismissed.
IA-1/2018 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Jm/-