Allowed

Smt. Kalavathi v. the Deputy Registrar of

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2021WP/1704/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a Deputy Registrar order preventing a co-operative milk society from collecting milk due to alleged law and order issues. The court held the Deputy Registrar lacked statutory power to issue such a direction during law and order disruptions, which belong to Police and Administrative Authorities.

What did the court decide?

The communication dated 13.01.2021 and the consequential order dated 22.02.2021 directing the Society not to collect milk are quashed and set aside.

Smt. Kalavathi Vs the Deputy Registrar of — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.1704 OF 2021 (CS-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SMT. KALAVATHI W/O HARISH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶8

SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O LATE BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶9

SRI. PUTTEGOWDA S/O LATE CHIKKAHONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶10

SRI. GOVINDEGOWDA S/O GOPALA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶11

SRI. P. MOHAN S/O N. PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶12

SRI. Y. CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE YAPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶13

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶14

¶15

SMT. NINGAMMA W/O MARISIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶16

SMT. THOLASAMMA W/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶17

SMT. ROOPA W/O UDAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶18

SRI. S. SIDDARAJU S/O LATE SHIVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶19

SRI. HONNEGOWDA S/O HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶20

SRI. NINGAPPA S/O LATE KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶21

SMT. C. NAGAMMA W/O CHALUVAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶22

SMT. SHIVARUDRAMMA W/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶23

SRI. VENKATEGOWDA S/O LATE HONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARRS

¶24

SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE NINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶25

SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶26

¶27

SRI. VIJENDRA S/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶28

SRI. REVANNA S/O K. GOVIDAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶29

SRI. NAGANNA S/O. LATE GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶30

SRI. PUTTASWAMAIAH S/O LATE MARIDASAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶31

SMT. CHIKKATHAYAMMA W/O PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶32

SRI. SHIVAKUMARA S/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶33

ALL ARE R/O DASEGOWDANADODDI VILLAGE, KAILANCHA HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159 …PETITIONERS

¶34

(BY SHRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE) [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE]

¶35

AND :

¶36

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RAMANAGARA DISTRICT D.C. OFFICE BUILDING 3^RD FLOOR, ROOM NO.401 B.M. ROAD RAMANAGARA-562 159

¶37

¶38

BENGALURU URBAN BENGALURU RURAL AND RAMANAGARA DISTRICTS CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LTD., BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR DR. M.H. MARIGOWDA ROAD

¶39

BENGALURU-560 029

¶40

MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED DASEGOWDANADODDI VILLAGE KAILANCHA HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159 REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶41

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶42

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA-562 159

¶43

THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE RURAL POLICE STATION RAMANAGARA-562 159 ... RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1, R4 & R5)

¶45

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DTD.13.01.2021 OF F-1 ADDRESSED TO R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND THE INSTRUCTIONS DTD.22.01.2021 OF R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

¶46

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

¶47

¶48

ORDER

¶49

Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 22.01.2021 passed by second respondent directing third respondent - Society not to collect milk from Milk Producers as there was breach of 'law and order'.

¶50

Shri. M.R. Rajagopal, learned Advocate for

¶51

petitioners submitted that the first respondent has no authority in law to issue such a direction as he is not the Law Enforcing Agency.

¶52

The Deputy Registrar is present before the Court. He submitted that since there was breach of 'Law and order', he has issued the impugned order. The reason mentioned in Annexure-G is that there was commotion between the two groups in the village.

¶53

The Deputy Registrar also submitted that presently, a Contingent and Reserve Police is camping in the village and the situation is normal.

¶54

¶55

Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned AGA argued

¶56

opposing the writ petition.

¶57

Admittedly, first respondent is an Officer in the Co-Operative Department. Should there be any 'Law and Order' disruption, it is for the Police and Administrative Authorities to take note of the same and pass appropriate orders. Shri. Rajagopal is right in his submission that the order passed by first respondent is not traceable to any statutory power invested in second respondent.

¶58

Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed. The communication dated 13.01.2021 as per Annexure-G and the consequential order dated 22.01.2021 as per Annexure-H are set-aside.

¶59

No costs.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

SPS

Smt. Kalavathi v. the Deputy Registrar of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kalavathi v. the Deputy Registrar of

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

Smt. Nagamani Vs State of Karnataka by

Hunasakatte Prathamika Vs the State of Karnataka

Habitat Micro Build India Vs Sambandh Finserve

J Devarajappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. S Shobha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri J G Krishnaiah Vs the State of Karnataka