Allowed

Prathamika Krushi Pattina v. the Registrar of Co-Operative Society

Karnataka HC24 Aug 2021WP/144571/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the writ petition, quashing an order permitting a new society to collect share capital. The case was remitted to the Registrar for a fresh decision after noticing the existing society and hearing both parties in accordance with Rule 3(b) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960. The Division Bench view that the legal issue remained open was distinguished.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order permitting new society to collect share capital quashed; matter remitted to Registrar for fresh decision after notifying both parties and holding a hearing.

Prathamika Krushi Pattina Vs the Registrar of… — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

W.P. No. 144571/2020 (CS-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA, KALHALLI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALAKOTE, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY/ CHIEF EXECUTIVE SHRI SHIVALING SHRISHAIL GUDLI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC.: SERVICE, R/O KALHALLI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALAKOTE.

¶9

PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA, KALHALLI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALAKOTE, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SHRI SANGAPPA DUNDAPPA UPPALADINNI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, R/O KALHALLI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALAKOTE.

¶10

PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI F.V. PATIL, NANDISH PATIL AND REBEENA R.S. ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT REGISTERAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, JAMAKHANDI, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALAKOTE.

¶15

¶16

BAHUBALI DHAREPPA HANUMAGONDA, THE CHIEF PROMOTER FOR ESTABLISHING PRIMARY KRUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA AT KALHALLI VILLAGE, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALAKOTE.

¶17

SIDDU K. SAVADI, MLA OF TERDAL CONSTITUENCY, TQ. BANAHATTI, RABAKAVI, DIST. BAGALAKOTE.

¶18

RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2, SRI SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCTAE FOR R3, NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.02.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-H & ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the

¶24

following reliefs.

¶25

a) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 10.02.2020 filed by the 2^nd petitioner and its Directors vide Annexure-H and afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner society and its members and to the petitioner society and its members and to take a decision in terms of the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in the case

¶26

¶27

of Prathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit and others Vs. The State of Karnataka and others passed in Writ Petition Nos.102487-491/2018 and connected matters vide Annexure-J, in the interest of justice and equity;

¶28

b) A direction may be issued to the 2^nd respondent not to process the application filed by the 3^rd respondent on Nil.10.2019 vide Annexure-D and not to pass any others till the consideration of the representation filed by the petitioner No.2 and other members of the 1^st petitioner society, in the interest of justice and equity. c) Quash the impugned order vide Annexure-K dated 24.02.2020 in the interest of justice and for other reliefs.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondents No.1 & 2 and the learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the material on record.

¶30

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the writ petition by referring to various documents, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit,

¶31

¶32

Athani Taluk, Belagavi District and others V. State of Karnataka and others reported in 2019 (2) Kar.L.J. 49 in order to contend that the impugned order at Annexure-K dated 24.02.2020 permitting the respondent No.3 to collect the share capital is vitiated in as much as the same was passed without issuing notice to the petitioners who are an existing co-operative society and without hearing them or following the procedure prescribed under Rule 3-B of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960. It is therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 at Annexure-K deserves to be quashed by this Court.

¶33

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 in addition to reiterating various contentions urged in the statement of objections, invites my attention to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 100180100202/2019 dated 09.12.2019 arising out of the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Court and submits

¶34

¶35

that the issue raised by the petitioner has been kept open and as such no reliance can be placed on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Court for the purpose of assailing the impugned order.

¶36

I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

¶37

As held by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision, in the light of the undisputed fact that the petitioner is an existing society and the parameters contained in Rule 3(b) includes ascertainment as to whether there is overlapping of the proposed society with an existing society, in my considered opinion it would be just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioners as well as the respondent No.3 to putforth their respective claims and to pass appropriate orders in

¶38

¶39

accordance with law bearing in mind Rule 3(b) of the said Rules of 1960.

¶40

Insofar as reliance placed on the order of Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A. No. 100180/2019 is concernd, a perusal of the same will indicate that the order of the learned Single Judge has not been interfered with and the question of law has been kept open and as such, the same will not come to the aid of the respondent No.3 in the present petition.

¶41

In the result, I pass the following order.

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i) Writ petition is allowed;

¶44

ii) Impugned order at Annexure-K is quashed;

¶45

iii) Matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 for

¶46

reconsideration of the application filed by the respondent No.3 afresh in accordance with law and after notifying the petitioner and the respondent No.3 and granting them opportunity to putforth their respective claims and hearing

¶47

¶48

them and to proceed further in accordance with law and in terms of Rule 3(b) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960;

¶49

iv) All rival contentions urged by both sides in this petition as well as in relation to all applications and documents filed by them including the applicability / nonapplicability of the circular dated 24.06.2020 are kept open to be adjudicated by the respondent No.2 while passing appropriate orders as stated supra.

¶50

SD JUDGE

¶51

bvv

Prathamika Krushi Pattina v. the Registrar of Co-Operative Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prathamika Krushi Pattina v. the Registrar of Co-Operative Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shantavva @ Savitravva W/O Hanumantappa Vs Hirur Gram Sabha

Sri.P.G. Ravindranath S/O P. Gurunath Setty Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Veerabhadrappa Narayanappa Mannapur Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Kanti Veeresh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sudarshan Ramachandra Patil, Vs the Housing Commissioner

Sri.Satish Vs S.Y. Ullagaddi