Disposed

Jalaluddin S/O. Hussain Mulla v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Feb 2020WP/110200/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held petitioners could not be deleted from the voters list for absenting three consecutive meetings without receiving proper notice under Rule 14-AJ. The petitions were disposed of without examining the constitutional validity of the challenged Act sections as they were relieved from pressing that prayer.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners cannot be deleted from eligible voters list as they were not served notice of annual general meetings; writ petitions disposed.

Jalaluddin S/O. Hussain Mulla Vs the State of Karnataka — Election Law | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

Dated this the 26^th day of February 2020

¶3

Before

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶5

W.P.Nos.110200-110204/2020 & W.P. Nos.110205-110229/2020 (CS-EL/M)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

JALALUDDIN S/O: HUSSAN MULLA AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 1179 PIN: 591242

¶8

AZMUDDIN S/O: HUSSAN MULLA AGE:67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 655

¶9

PIN: 591242

¶10

NIJAMUDDIN S/O: HUSSAN MULLA AGE: 41YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 1109

¶11

PIN: 591242

¶12

ASLAM S/O: HUSSAN MULLA AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 1180

¶13

PIN: 591242

¶14

SUNITA W/O: VIDYASAGAR SANGLE AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK

¶15

¶16

R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 1873 PIN: 591242

¶17

AKKATAI W/O: JINNAPPA SANGLE AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 1872. PIN: 591242 7. SANTOSH S/O: BANDU MALI AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 1165 PIN: 591242 8. SURESH S/O: CHANDRAKANT MALI AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 1166 PIN: 591242 9. MALUTAI S/O: BANDU MALI AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 1168 PIN: 591242 10. SUNIL S/O: CHANDRAKANT MALI AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 1169 PIN: 591242 11. SADASHIV S/O: DADASAHEB MALI AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 1551 PIN: 591242

¶18

¶19

12.	RAVINDRA S/O: BANDU MALI
	AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 1609 PIN: 591242
13.	SUNIL S/O: APPASAHEB SHINDE AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 1428 PIN: 591242
14.	SUNITA W/O: SURESH TARDALE AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO:1672 PIN: 591242
15.	RAJU S/O: SHANKAR PUJARI AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO:1869 PIN: 591242
16.	SHALINI S/O: GANAPATI DHANAWADE AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 1847 PIN: 591242
17.	LAGAMANNA S/O: SHRIMANT JUGUTE AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 1862 PIN: 591242.
18.	SHANKAR S/O: VISHNU JADHAV AGE : 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 423

¶20

¶21

PIN: 591242

¶22

SHIVAJI S/O: VISHNU JADHAV AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 1042 PIN: 591242 20. SHANKAR S/O: DHAREPPA MAGADUM AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 1050 PIN: 591242 21. APPASAB S/O:JINNAPPA KORVE AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 1799 PIN: 591242 22. SUSHILA W/O: SHRIPAD SAGAME AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 1878 PIN: 591242 23. SADASHIV S /O: SATTEPPA KOLI AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 998 PIN: 591242 24. APPASAB S/O: BABU JUGALE AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO:502 PIN: 591242 25. CHANDRAKANT S/O: SADASHIV MALI AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO:522

¶23

¶24

PIN: 591242

¶25

DADU S/O: SADASHIV MALI AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 526 PIN: 591242 27. RAMESH S/O: CHANDRAKANT MALI AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 653 PIN: 591242 28. SHARA S/O: BHUPAL TERDALE AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 670 PIN: 591242 29. GOPAL S/O: BALU SHINDE AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO:852 PIN: 591242 30. SHAMAKKA W /O: MAHADEV TERDALE AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK R/O: INGALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI SL.NO: 1321 PIN: 591242 PETITIONERS. (BY SRI.SHIVARAJ P.MUDHOL, SRI.ANAND BAGEWADI, ADVS.) AND:- 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO- OPERATION MS BUILDING BENGALURU

¶26

¶27

THE STATE CO- OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY 3^RD FLOOR, A BLOCK SHANTI NAGAR, TTMCBUILDING BENGALURU – 560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶28

THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION OFFICER AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO- OPRATIVE SOCIETIES BELAGAVI.

¶29

THE RETURNING OFICER PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT, INGALI. TALUK: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI

¶30

PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT, INGALI. TALUK: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS.

¶32

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S.HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR L.HAVARAGI, ADV FOR R2 TO R4) (R5 IS SERVED BUT UNPRESENTED).

¶33

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF APPROPRIATE NATURE TO DECLARE THAT SECTION 20(2)(a-iv) (a-v) THE KARANTAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT IS ULTRA VIRUS AND LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE AND ARTICLE 243ZI AND 243ZO OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

ORDER

¶37

In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of Section 20(2)(a-iv) and (a-v) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, ‘the Act’) as ultra vires and also violative of Articles 243ZI and 243ZO of the Constitution of India and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to participate in the election without applying the provision of Section 20(2)(a-iv) and (a-v) of the Act.

¶38

This Court by interim order dated 16.1.2020 permitted the petitioners to vote in the election of the respondent-Society without reference to Section 20(2)(aiv) and (a-v) of the Act, if they are otherwise eligible to cast their votes, subject to the result of these writ petitions.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners voted in the election in pursuance to interim direction of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are

¶40

¶41

not pressing the prayer challenging the constitutional validity of Section 20(2)(a-iv) and (a-v) of the Act and that the writ petitions could be disposed of on the ground that the respondent-Society could not have applied the provision of Section 20(2)(a-iv) and (a-v) of the Act to the petitioners or to delete the petitioners’ name from the eligible voters’ list. It is also contended that the petitioners have not received the notice of Annual General Body Meeting as required under Rule 14-AJ of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (for short, ‘Rules, 1960). Rule 14-AJ(2) of the Rules 1960 reads as follows:

¶42

14-AJ(2).- The Chief Executive, after the board decides the date and time of the general meeting to be convened, shall convene the annual general meeting by giving a notice of at least fifteen clear days as specified in the bye-laws. However, in the case of exigency, a special general meeting may be convened by giving a notice of at least ten clear days in writing. The notice may be sent in the following modes, namely.-

¶43

¶44

(a) by ordinary post; or [by bulk post; or by courier]

¶45

(b) by e-mail; or (c) by local delivery under proper acknowledgement; and

¶46

(d) by publication in the newspaper having wide circulation in the area of operation.

¶47

The above Rule contemplates, giving of 15 days clear notice of annual general meeting and same shall be sent by the modes mentioned therein including ordinary post. The respondent-Society even though served with Court notice has remained unrepresented. The Society has not come forward to deny or controvert the contention of the petitioners that they have not been served with the notice of annual general meeting of the respondent-Society. If the petitioners were not served with the notice of the annual general meeting of the Society as required under Rule 14-AJ of the Rules 1960, one cannot expect the petitioners to attend the annual general meeting of the Society. Hence, only on the ground that the petitioners have not attended three consecutive annual general meeting, the respondent-

¶48

¶49

Society could not have deleted the names of the petitioners from the eligible voters’ list as they have not been served with notice of annual general meeting. Prima facie, principles of natural justice not having been followed, I hold that the petitioners could not have been deleted from the eligible voters’ list on the ground that they have not attended three consecutive annual general meeting of the respondent-Society in the absence of service of notice of the annual general meeting of the Society. Presently, as the petitioners have exercised their franchise in the election held to the Society in pursuance to the interim order and the petitioners have not pressed the prayer-A with regard to validity of Section 20(2)(a-iv) and (a-v) of the Act, the writ petitions would no more survive for consideration. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the writ petitions are disposed as above without examining the validity of the above stated provision.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Kms

Jalaluddin S/O. Hussain Mulla v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jalaluddin S/O. Hussain Mulla v. the 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. Shankarappa Nagappa Alur Vs the State of Karnataka

Ashok Appanna Vannur Vs the State of Karnataka

Sree Banni Mahankali Temple Vs the State of Karnataka

Gundappa Gunaki S/O Basappa Gunaki Vs State of Karnataka

Mallikarjun S/O Vishnu Ashtekar Vs State of Karnataka

Bhimappa S/O Satyappa Mokashi Vs the State of Karnataka