Karnataka High Court
Ramappa Hanumappa Naganoor And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka, By Its Secretary, ... on 1 July, 2003
Equivalent citations: ILR2003KAR3498
Author: N.K. Patil
Bench: N.K. Patil
ORDER Patil, J.
1. The petitioners, assailing the legality and the validity of the order dated 18.9.2002 in No. CMW/74/CAP/2002 passed by respondent No. 1 vide Annexure-D, have filed this Writ Petition.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they along with more than 120 members submitted an application to take action against respondent No. 3 for removal from primary membership and requested the matter to be listed for discussion in the AGM scheduled to be held on 29.9.2002. The said application was placed before the Committee in the meeting held on 29.8.2002. The committee passed an unanimous resolution to place the matter before the AGM and also to send all the copies to respondent No. 3 for his information. Accordingly, the said application was listed in the AGM for discussion at SI No. 7. The 3rd respondent filed a revision under Section 108 of the Act before the 1st respondent without impleading the petitioners or any members as parties. The 1st respondent, by its order dated 18.9.2002, allowed the revision deleting subject No. 7 from the AGM Notice. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition.
3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order is totally illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law. Further, he submitted that the provisions of Section 108 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act are not at all applicable and no revision can be maintained in respect of the General Body notice. He also submitted that the impugned order is passed without issuing notice and without giving an opportunity to the persons concerned including the 2nd respondent . Further, he submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the bye-laws of the 2nd respondent and that the same is passed behind the back of the persons who moved the application for removal of the 3rd respondent, from primary membership. He therefore submitted that the impugned order is not at all sustainable and it is liable to be set aside at the threshold on these grounds.
4. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents, interalia, contended and justified the impugned order.
5. Respondent No. 3 has filed detailed statement of objections alleging that the 2nd respondent is acting to the detriment of sitting MLA and instigated the petitioners and others to make an application to remove the 3rd respondent from primary membership. It is further stated that when the said application was placed before the Committee, the Committee passed an unanimous resolution without presided over by the 3rd respondent being the President and therefore the said action of the Committee is one without jurisdiction. This fact has been brought to the notice of the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent has rightly considered his request and passed the impugned order.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents.
7. After careful perusal of the impugned order, I find that the said order is passed without authority of law and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. Further, it is clear from Section 108 of the KCS Act that a revision is maintainable before the 1st respondent only against an order passed by officer sub-ordinate to it and if the said order is not revisable or appealable before the competent authority. Further, the order sheet maintained by the 1st respondent indicates that no notice as such was issued to the 2nd respondent who is a party to the proceedings. Without issuing the notice, the 1st respondent has allowed the revision petition deleting subject No. 7 from the AGM Notice. Therefore, it is clear that the 1st respondent, has not at all followed the mandatory provisions of the KCS Act and this fact itself is sufficient for this Court to set aside the impugned order.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above and taking into consideration the factual and legal aspect of the matter as enumerated above, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent dated 18.9.2000 in No. CMW/74/CAP/ 2002 vide Annexure-D is hereby set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the 3rd respondent to redress his grievance before the competent authority if he is so advised.
10. Writ Petition stands disposed of.
11. The learned Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks from today.