Dismissed

H.D. Narayanamurthy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Oct 2019WP/38767/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions were dismissed as petitioners lacked locus standi. The Court held that since petitioners were not appointed as Secretaries in accordance with Section 29-G of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and relevant Rules via proper resolutions, they could not challenge circulars imposing a 60-year age limit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed for lack of locus standi due to non-compliance with mandatory appointment provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.

H.D. Narayanamurthy Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NOs.38767/2019 & 43867-43876/2019/(CS-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

H.D. NARAYANAMURTHY S/O DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEAR HOSAKERE, CHELUR HOLI GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 214.

¶8

2 . T.N. SHANKAR S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS THIPPUR POST, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 214.

¶9

3 . A.R. SHIVAKUMAR S/O PATEL REVANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS ADALAGERE POST GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 214.

¶10

4 . M.D. NANJUNDAPPA S/O DODDANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS MADENALLI POST GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 214.

¶11

5 . P.S. UMESH S/O SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS THAYGTUR POST

¶12

¶13

NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 214.

¶14

6 .	CHENNIGAPPA
	S/O GANGANNA
	AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
	GOPALAPURA, KASABA HOBLI
	GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR
	DISTRICT – 572 214.

¶15

7 .	B.L. SHANKRAPPA S/O NANJAPPA
	AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
	BYALAHALLI VILLAGE
	KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 214.
8 .	H.G. BASAVALINGAPPA
	S/O LATE GANGANNA
	AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
	HEREUR POST, KASABA
	HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK
	TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 214.
9 .	PALANETHRAYYA S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
	BASAVA PATTANA CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR
	DISTRICT – 572 214.
10 .	GANGADHARAIAH S/O CHENNABASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
	SAGARANALLI, ADALAGERE POST, NITTUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR
	DISTRICT – 572 214.
11 .	K.K. RANGASWAMY
	S/O KEMAPANNA
	AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶16

¶17

KODIYALA VILLAGE CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 214.

¶18

...PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. AJAY PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B.S, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION RSR SECTION O/O THE REGISTRAR -01 CO-OP SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA BENAGLURU – 01.

¶22

2 . MANAGING DIRECTOR TUMKUR CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LTD. NH 206 MALLASANDRA TUMKUR – 572 107.

¶23

3 . REGISTRAR REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NO.1 AKLI ASGAR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 052.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT. H.C. KAVITHA, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-3)

¶26

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DATED:27.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND CIRCULAR DATED:03.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-3 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS AS PER ANNEXURE-A & B AND CONSEQUENTLY DECLARE THAT THE CIRCULAR DATED:27.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND CIRCULAR DATED:03.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-3 IS NOT BINDING O THE PETITITONERS AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND B.

¶27

¶28

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

Though matters are listed for preliminary hearing by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties they are taken up for final disposal.

¶31

Petitioners are calling in question circular dated 27.01.2018 and 03.11.2017 –Annexures-A and B issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively and to declare the same as not binding on petitioners whereunder the age limit has been fixed as 60 years for being employed.

¶32

Petitioners herein are claiming to be members and elected and are posted temporarily as Secretaries in the respective Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd. (for short ‘Milk Union’) and to substantiate said claim they have produced resolution passed by respective Milk Unions, which are at Annexures-C to C-10. Though petitioners have contended that they are members/elected, resolutions

¶33

¶34

passed by respective Milk Unions would indicate that respective Milk Unions have resolved to appoint petitioners as the Secretaries of Milk Unions and contentions raised in the petitions are contrary to the pleadings available on record.

¶35

Petitioners having not been appointed as Secretaries of respective Milk Unions as required under Section 29-G of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short ‘Act’) r/w Rules 17 and 18 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (for short (Rules’), they have no locus standi to question the impugned circulars, which have been issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3, which discloses that Secretaries working in the institutions registered under Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, would not be eligible for being continued in the event they having crossed 60 years of age.

¶36

A perusal of impugned circulars would also indicate that it refers to Secretaries who have been appointed under the Act and Rules made thereunder.

¶37

¶38

Since petitioners herein are claiming to be appointed as Secretaries by resolutions having been passed by respective Milk Unions, which appointments are not in accordance with Section 29-G of the Act r/w Rules 17 and 18 of Rules, this Court is of the considered view that petitioners have no locus standi to question the said circulars. Hence, writ petitions stands dismissed.

¶39

SD/JUDGE

¶40

H.D. Narayanamurthy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.D. Narayanamurthy v. State of 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

Shri. Kanick Raj Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sri Ansar Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Gowramma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Sampangiramaiah Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

Shri George T Ramapuram Vs the State of Karnataka

H N Premakumar Vs State of Karnataka