Quashed

Rajashekarayya Basavannayya Hiremath, v. Registrar of Co-Operative Societies in Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2012WP/60322/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order accepting their voluntary retirement applications, claiming wrongful withdrawal. The Court held the matter requires inquiry by the statutory authority and granted liberty to approach them within thirty days before this Court.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of with liberty to approach the appropriate statutory authority within thirty days; Government Pleader to appear.

Rajashekarayya Basavannayya Hiremath, Vs Registrar… — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶3

Dated this the 12^th day of September, 2012

¶4

Before

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH

¶6

Writ Petitions 60322 / 2011 c/w 68083 / 2010 (S-R)

¶7

Between:

¶8

In WP 60322 / 2011

¶9

Rajashekarayya Basavannayya Hiremath 50 yrs, R/a Sadhankeri 4^th Cross Dharwad Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri G R Andanimath, Adv.)

¶11

And :

¶12

1 Registrar of Co-operative Societies In Karnataka, Ali Askar Road Bangalore

¶13

2 Sri Gurusiddeshwar Co-operative Bank Ltd, Djiban Pet, Hubli by its Chairman

¶14

Respondents

¶15

(By Smt Megha C Kolekar, GP for R1; Smt Sunitha R Kalasoor, Adv. for R2)

¶16

In WP 68083 / 2010

¶17

Raja Parappa Naik, 51 yrs

¶18

¶19

Service, R/a 21, Renuka Nagar Gokul Road, Hubli Petitioner (By Sri G B Andanimath, Adv.) And 1 Registrar of Co-operative Societies In Karnataka, Ali Askar Road Bangalore 2 Sri Gurusiddeshwar Co-operative Bank Ltd, Djiban Pet, Hubli by its Chairman 3 Iranna B Savadatti, 48 yrs Service, R/behind Canara Hotel Hosur, Hubli Respondents

¶20

(By Smt Megha C Kolekar, GP for R1; Sri R K Hatti, Adv. for R2)

¶21

The Petitions are filed under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution praying to quash the communication dated 29.10.2010 – annexure H by the respondent Bank in both the petitions.

¶22

The Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioners are before this Court challenging the order

¶25

of acceptance of voluntary retirement application submitted by

¶26

them.

¶27

¶28

Petitioners have stated, they have submitted the application, but before acceptance, they have withdrawn the same. Hence, the order of acceptance of voluntary retirement is bad in law.

¶29

According to the respondents’ counsel, in the very notice it is made clear that once application is made, it cannot be withdrawn as such, applications have been accepted and they are made to retire voluntarily.

¶30

In reply, petitioners’ counsel submitted, since there was threat of compulsory retirement, they had submitted the application. However, on realization, they have withdrawn the application before acceptance of the same as such, the order at annexure H is not binding on them and requires to be quashed.

¶31

It appears, petitioners have raised a dispute with regard to issuance of annexure H. It ultimately requires to be resolved after inquiry by the inquiry authority viz., the Deputy Registrar

¶32

¶33

or Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies under S.71 (c) of the Co-operative Societies Act. After exhausting the remedy there, if petitioners have got any grievance, they can approach this Court. However, liberty is given to approach the concerned authority under the Statute as petitioners have spent time before this Court i.e., to say, they shall approach the appropriate authority in thirty days from today.

¶34

Petitions are disposed of.

¶35

Government Pleader to file memo of appearance in four

¶36

weeks.

¶37

Sd/- Judge

¶38

Rajashekarayya Basavannayya Hiremath, v. Registrar of Co-Operative Societies in Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajashekarayya Basavannayya Hiremath, v. Registrar of Co-Operative Societies in Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subaschandra Sanagannavar Vs the State Represented by Secretary

Chandusab S/O Khajesab Pinjar Vs the State Represented by

Chandrappa S/O. Putappa Haravi Vs Govt. of Karnataka

Sunil S/O Tamanna Ramshetti, Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri K C Umesh S/O Chinnaswamaiah Vs Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd.

Smt Rekhabai W/O Vithalnaik Naik Vs the Spl.Land Acquisition Officer