Dismissed

Sri. D. v. Venkatesh Gowda v the Karnataka Co. Operative Milk Producers

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2018WP/9645/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged a tender notification by the Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Limited. The High Court, treating the matter preliminarily, declined to exercise PIL jurisdiction because alternative remedies under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act were available for disputes regarding the society's management and business affairs.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of by declining PIL jurisdiction; petitioner directed to pursue remedies under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959.

Sri. D. v. Venkatesh Gowda Vs the Karnataka Co… — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

W.P.No.9645/2018

¶2

��

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 9645 OF 2018 (GM-TEN) (PIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI D V VENKATESH GOWDA, S/O LATE DODDAVENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NUTUVE VILLAGE & POST, TEKAL HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶11

... PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. NAGARAJ T , ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LIMITED, A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, ESTABLISHED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, HAVING ITS HEAD/REGISTERED OFFICE AT KMF COMPLEX, DR.M.H. MARIGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 029, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶15

W.P.No.9645/2018

¶16

��

¶17

M/S SRINIVASA OIL MILL R NO. 211-1, MORSAPODI VILLAGE, NUZVID MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH – 521 111.

¶18

BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI PANDU RANGA RAO.

¶19

M/S SRINIVASA FEED MIXING PLANT, SY NO. 513, SANAMPUNDI VILLAGE, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH – 523 274.

¶20

M/S TEJA TIMES, D/NO.10-2-2, DBV RAJU COMPLEX, OPP: PUSHKAR GHAT, RAJHMUNDRY, ANDHRA PRADESH – 533 101.

¶21

... RESPONDENTS

¶22

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION/SCHEME, REQUEST FOR QUALIFIACTION (RFQ) TENDER REF:NO:KMF/ENGG/PPPCATTLE FEED PLANT/2007-18 DATED: 07.10.2017, ISSUED BY 1^ST RESPONDENT, THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LIMITED, A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, KMF COMPLEX, DR. M. H. MARIGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 029, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE – C , IS ILLEGAL AND VOID.

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE , MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

��

¶26

The petitioner, who is a Member and Director of Chiikkanotuve Milk Producers Cooperative Society, Malur

¶27

W.P.No.9645/2018

¶28

��

¶29

Taluk, Kolar District, said to be a part of Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited - the first respondent, seeks to question the Scheme developed and promoted by the first respondent to set up Cattle Feed mixing plant on Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Transfer (DBFOT) basis at Arakalagudu, Hassan District.

¶30

Initially, on this petition being placed for preliminary hearing, the learned Single Judge of this Court observed that since the grievance put forth herein was in the interest of entire community of livestock farmers, the petition may be treated as a Public Interest Litigation(‘PIL’).

¶31

However, having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, we are of the considered view that adequate and efficacious alternative remedies are available in the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, including those for enquiry by the Registrar as also raising of disputes touching the constitution, management or business of the co-operative society.

¶32

W.P.No.9645/2018

¶33

��

¶34

In view of the above and looking to the nature of grievance sought to be suggested that would entail enquiry into several factual aspects relating to the functioning and affairs of the co-operative society, the petitioner ought to take recourse to the appropriate alternative remedies in accordance with law.

¶35

Hence, PIL jurisdiction in this matter is declined. However, it is left open for the petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

¶36

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶37

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Bsv

Sri. D. v. Venkatesh Gowda v the Karnataka Co. Operative Milk Producers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. D. v. Venkatesh Gowda v the Karnataka Co. Operative Milk Producers

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

M/S. Madhura Industries Vs the Authorised Officer/ the Chief Manager

Revnasiddappa Vs the State of Karnataka

M. Nanjunda Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Syed Alim Vs Sri. Akthar Mateen

Ibthesam Javeed Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Danavendra Vs the Karnataka State Commission for Schedule Castes