Allowed

Sri B. Somanna v. Secretary

Karnataka HC28 Jan 2021WP/260/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed a writ petition directed at quashing an appellate order in a surcharge proceeding before the Assistant Registrar. The Court, finding that denying a cross-examination opportunity would cause injustice, quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter for the petitioner to be heard and for the proceedings to be completed within a time-frame.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stood disposed of with the sector adjudication order being quashed and the matter remitted to aford the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine PW-1.

Sri B. Somanna Vs Secretary — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.260 OF 2016 (CS-SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI B. SOMANNA S/O LATE BASAVE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, EX.SECRETARY, VANDARAGUPPE MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (LTD) CHENNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA 571501.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SADANANDA SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . SECRETARY VANDARAGUPPE MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (LTD.,) CHENNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA 571501.

¶13

2 . ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION, RAMANAGARA 571501.

¶14

3 . THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,

¶15

-2-

¶16

MULTISTORIED BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI K ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI SHRIDHAR N HEGDE, HCGP FOR R2 R3 IS DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 13.11.17)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.08.2015 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.102/2012 ON THE FILE OF R-3 AT ANNEXURE-A CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF R-2 DATED 16.07.2011 PASSED IN PROCEEDINGS AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶23

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that one of the main ground raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that an opportunity was not granted to the petitioner to crossexamine PW-1, who had entered the witness box on behalf of the 1^st respondent-Society. The allegations against the petitioner is that being a erstwhile Secretary of the 1^st respondent-Society, he has misused his position as the Secretary and has caused financial loss to the society. When the 1^st respondent initiated proceedings to recover a sum of Rs.91,649/- from the petitioner, the petitioner suffered from gangrene. Learned Counsel would

¶24

-3-

¶25

therefore submit that if an opportunity is given to examine PW-1, the petitioner would cross-examine PW-1 and without wasting any time the matter could be disposed of. Learned Counsel further submits that at the relevant point of time due to gangrene the big toe of the petitioner was removed and subsequently the petitioner has lost the foot and is a person disabled.

¶26

Learned Counsel Sri Ananda K appearing for the 1^st respondent-Society submits that the petitioner has been removed from service for the irregularity that he has committed. The petitioner had challenged the order of dismissal and the dismissal order has been confirmed. Learned Counsel submits that the surcharge proceedings to recover the amount due to the 1^st respondent-Society was initiated way back in the year 199899. The learned Counsel would further submit that the records would disclose that several opportunities were given to the petitioner for a period of nearly two years and the petitioner has not come forward to cross-examine the witness of the 1^st respondent-Society and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is only a ruse to delay the proceedings.

¶27

-4-

¶28

Having heard the learned Counsels and on perusing the petition papers this Court finds that no harm will be caused to the 1^st respondent-Society if an opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 is given to the petitioner and the matter could be disposed of in a time bound manner. Ultimately, in the interest of justice, what is required is a fair hearing of both the sides. When a submission is made on behalf of the petitioner that if an opportunity is granted, he would cross-examine PW-1 and the matter could be disposed of within a time bound manner, the same is required to be accepted as fair and in the interest of justice.

¶29

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, the impugned order dated 26.08.2015, at Annexure-B is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the 2^nd respondent-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ramanagara Sub-Division to afford an opportunity to the petitioner herein to cross-examine PW-1, the witness of the 1^st respondent-Society. The 2^nd respondent shall take up the matter on 08.02.2021 at 3.00 p.m., and the 1^st respondent-Society shall keep PW-1 present on the said date and time in order to enable the petitioner herein to cross-examine

¶30

-5-

¶31

PW-1. No adjournments will be granted even at the instance of the petitioner. After the cross-examination of PW-1, the matter shall be posted for arguments and the entire proceedings shall be completed and final orders shall be passed by the 2^nd respondent on or before 05.03.2021.

¶32

It is ordered accordingly.

¶33

SD/JUDGE

¶34

Sri B. Somanna v. Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B. Somanna v. Secretary

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

Anuradha College of Physiotherapy Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri Vijayakumara Vs the Chief Secretary

Dr.Ktb School of Nursing Vs the Registrar

L Karthik Vs Karnataka Power Transmission

Sri T Narayana Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Naveen Kumar B Vs the State of Karnataka