Dismissed

Sri. Shrikant S/O Rajaram Mali v. the Karnataka State Souharda Federal

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2020WP/103737/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged orders disqualifying them as directors of a cooperative society. The High Court held that since an alternate remedy of appeal existed under Section 25(5) without extraordinary grounds, the writ petitions were not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed in the interests of justice as the alternate statutory remedy was available.

Sri. Shrikant S/O Rajaram Mali Vs the Karnataka… — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NOS.103737-741/2018 (CS-EL/M)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SRI. SHRIKANT S/O RAJARAM MALI AGED ABOUT: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, DIRECTOR OF SHRI ASHRAYA SOUHARDA PATTINA SAHAKARI NIYAMITH, 1ST FLOOR, GURUPRASAD BUILDING, NO.760, KALMATH ROAD, BELAGAVI, R/AT: HOUSE NO.157/29, BANDUR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶8

SRI.RAMAKRISHNA S/O MINAJI HADAGAL AGED ABOUT: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, DIRECTOR OF SHRI ASHRAYA SOUHARDA PATTINA SAHAKARI NIYAMITH, 1ST FLOOR, GURUPRASAD BUILDING, NO.760, KALMATH ROAD, BELAGAVI, R/AT: #3503, HADAGAL MINES, NARVEKAR GALLI, NEAR TARUN BHARAT OFFICE, BELAGAVI-590002.

¶9

SRI.RAJU S/O SHANKAR SHIRODKAR AGED ABOUT: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE,

¶10

¶11

DIRECTOR OF SHRI ASHRAYA SOUHARDA PATTINA SAHAKARI NIYAMITH, 1ST FLOOR, GURUPRASAD BUILDING, NO.760, KALMATH ROAD, BELAGAVI, R/AT: PLOT NO.10, JAI SHANKAR BUILDING, MAHAVEER GARDEN, HINDWADI, BELAGAVI-590008. 4. SRI.BABURAO S/O CHUDAMANI MANNOLKAR AGED ABOUT: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, DIRECTOR OF SHRI ASHRAYA SOUHARDA PATTINA SAHAKARI NIYAMITH, 1ST FLOOR, GURUPRASAD BUILDING, NO.760, KALMATH ROAD, BELAGAVI, R/AT: PLOT NO.B/1, SAI KRUPA BUILDING, OLD P B ROAD, KHASBAGH, BELAGAVI-590003. 5. SRI.VASU S/O ARJUN RAYABAGI AGED ABOUT: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, DIRECTOR OF SHRI ASHRAYA SOUHARDA PATTINA SAHAKARI NIYAMITH, 1ST FLOOR, GURUPRASAD BUILDING, NO.760, KALMATH ROAD, BELAGAVI, R/AT: #59/1, ARJUN NIVAS, NEAR KLS SCHOOL, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590006.

¶12

... PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI.MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADV.)

¶14

AND

¶15

THE KARNATAKA STATE SOUHARDA FEDERAL CO-OPERATIVE LTD., NIRMANA BHAWANA, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD,

¶16

¶17

1ST BLOCK, RAJAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560010, REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶18

SRI.BASAVARAJ HONGAL JUNIOR OFFICER, BELAGAVI DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KARNATAKA STATE SOUHARDHA SAMYUKTA SAHAKAR NIYAMITH, "SANJOG BUILDING", NEAR P AND T QUARTERS, MAHATESH NAGAR, BELAGAVI.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ALL BEARING NO. SamSa/ Sha-34/BGM-96/2017-18/1814, DATED:28.12.2017, COPY AS PER ANNEXURES-E TO E4 AND THE ORDER BEARING NO.SamSa/ Sha-34/BGM-96/ 201718/1815, DATED:28.12.2017, COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-"F" AS ARBITRARY, UN-REASONABLE, OPPOSED TO PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ULTRA-VIRES THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA SAOUHARDS SAHAKAR ACT, 1997. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, b)ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO COLLECT THE AMOUNT DUE TOWARDS THE SOCIETY BY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE BORROWERS AND DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT WITH THE SHREE AASHRAYA SOUHARDS CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, BELAGAVI.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order bearing No.SamSa/Sha34/BGM-96//2017-18/1814 dated 28.12.2017 at Annexures-E to E4 and order bearing No.SamSa/Sha34/BGM-96/2017-18/1815 dated 28.12.2017 at Annexure-F as arbitrary and unreasonable.

¶25

The petitioners claim that they are all elected

¶26

Directors of Shri.Ashraya Souharda Pattina Sahakari Niyamith. The respondent No.1 issued notices under Section 25 of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the petitioners. But, the petitioners contend that they have not received the said notices. Subsequently, the respondent No.1 passed impugned orders dated 28.12.2017 which are produced at Annexures-E to E4 disqualifying the petitioners for a period of five years from being elected as Directors of

¶27

¶28

any Society or continue as Director of any Society. Annexure-F dated 28.12.2017 is consequential order appointing special officer for conduct of election. The impugned orders of disqualifying are passed under Section 25(4) of the Act, against which appeal is provided under Section 25(5) of the Act.

¶29

Section 25(4) and (5) of the Act reads as

¶30

follows:

¶31

“25(4). Any question as to whether a member of the board is or has become subject to any disqualification specified in this section shall be decided by the Federal Co-operative after giving the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

¶32

25(5). Any person aggrieved member may prefer an appeal against the order made under sub-section (4) to the Registrar within thirty days from the date of order.”

¶33

Section 25(4) of the Act empowers the

¶34

competent authority to pass order of disqualification

¶35

¶36

after giving an opportunity to the concerned person. Section 25(5) of the Act provides for an appeal against an order passed under Section 25(4) of the Act to the Registrar.

¶37

Normally petition under Article 226 of the

¶38

Constitution of India would not be maintainable or entertained wherever there is alternate remedy of appeal, unless extraordinary ground is made out. In the present case, no such ground is made out. Since the petitioners have alternate remedy of appeal, I decline to entertain the present writ petitions.

¶39

Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed

¶40

of.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Sri. Shrikant S/O Rajaram Mali v. the Karnataka State Souharda Federal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Shrikant S/O Rajaram Mali v. the Karnataka State Souharda Federal

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

Sri.Ashok Ballolli S/O Nagappa Ballolli Vs State of Karnataka

Harijana Hanumanthappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Hussain S/O Rajesaheb Warimani Vs Smt.Zoharabi W/O Dastgirsab Mulla

Shri.Manjunath S/O Satish Amate Vs Conservation Assistant Archaeological Survey

Shri. Mallappa S/O. Shrishail Mali Vs Smt. Chandrawwa W/O. Shrishail Mali

Hanamant Bhimappa Kurer Vs the Executive Engineer