Disposed

Sri.Uttangi Kotreshi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2021WP/113164/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner complained that Society misappropriated funds and his representation seeking an inquiry under Section 64 was ignored. The Court directed the Assistant Registrar to consider the representation within three months, leaving merits open.

What did the court decide?

To consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.08.2019 under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and communicate the decision within three months.

Sri.Uttangi Kotreshi Vs the State of Karnataka — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^th DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.113164/2019 (CS-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.UTTANGI KOTRESHI @ K.M.V. KOTTRAIAH S/O LATE K.M.BASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O WARD NO.1, NEAR FIRST CAR CHITTAWADAGI, HOSAPETE, DIST:BALLARI.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri.G I GACHCHINAMATH, ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-1.

¶13

2 . THE REGISTRAR REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BENGALURU.

¶14

3 . THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR BALLARI, DIST BALLARI.

¶15

4 . THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶16

OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,

¶17

N.C.COLONY, HOSAPETE,

¶18

TQ:HOSAPETE, DIST:BALLARI.

¶19

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT COOPERATIVE

¶20

¶21

SOCIETY LTD., CHITTAWADAGI, HOSAPETE BY ITS SECRETARY, CHITTAWADAGI, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BELLARI.

¶22

…..Respondents

¶23

(By Sri.SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1-R4; SRI.MADANMOHAN M KHANNUR, ADV. FOR R5)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03.08.2019 OF THE PETITIONER PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND FURTHER DIRECTIONS MAY KINDLY BE ISSUED TO TAKE ACTION AS PER SECTION 64 OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT AND ETC.,

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

In this writ petition the petitioner has sought the

¶28

following relief:

¶29

“a. Issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent No.4 to consider the representation dated 03.08.2019 of the petitioner produced at annexure-F and further directions may kindly be issued to take action as per Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act.

¶30

b. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶31

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner

¶32

is a member of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Chittawadagi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’, for

¶33

¶34

short). The grievance of the petitioner is that the Director, President and Secretary of that Society have misappropriated the funds of the Society which has effected the right of the petitioner who is also a member of the Society. Hence, the petitioner has given a representation vide Annexure-F dated 03.08.2019 to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society, Hospet to conduct an inquiry under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) and initiate proceedings under the Act. Since his representation Annexure-F is not considered by respondent No.4, he is before this Court.

¶35

Sri.G. I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Director, President and Secretary of the Society have misappropriated the funds of the Society to the extent of more than Rs.11 lakhs. Since the petitioner is also a member of the Society, it has effected his right. Hence, he has given a complaint to respondent No.4 to conduct an inquiry under Section 64 of the Act. His representation is

¶36

¶37

not considered and no inquiry has been initiated. He further submitted that the only action taken by respondent No.4 is disqualification of the director under Section 29-C of the Act but there is no order for recovery of the amount.

¶38

Per contra, Sri.Shivaprabhu S Hiremath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri.Madanmohan M Khannur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 have submitted that respondent No.4 has conducted an inquiry and it is found that there is no misappropriation of funds but they have committed only irregularities. Therefore they have been disqualified under Section 29-C of the Act.

¶39

Be that as it may. The representation vide Annexure-F which is submitted by the petitioner has not been considered. Under these circumstances, it is suffice for this Court to direct respondent No.4 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-F dated 03.08.2019 in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶40

¶41

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any

¶42

opinion on the merits of the case.

¶43

All contentions of the parties are left open.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Kgk

Sri.Uttangi Kotreshi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Uttangi Kotreshi 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

Sri Lava R. Katti S/O Ramesh Katti Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Vasanth S/O Timmanna Bhat Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Keteshwar Handloom Weavers sc/st Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Balappa S/O Venkappa Naik Vs Sri Laxmappa S/O Bhimappa Mirji

Sri Mahalaxmi Prathamik Sahakari Sangh Niyamit Manjariwadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Shree Bhuteshwara Grahakara Vs the State of Karnataka