Allowed

B F Kadannavar v. Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2022WP/2742/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a retired cooperative society secretary seeking to quash orders calling him to clarify an enquiry report on excess honorarium. The Court held that since the petitioner retired in 2011, requiring clarification was a futile exercise.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 06.04.2005, the order dated 14.12.2004, and the order dated 19.07.2004.

B F Kadannavar Vs Assistant Registrar of Co… — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 2742 of 2007

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 2742 OF 2007 (CS-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

B F KADANNAVAR S/O FAKIRAPPA KADANNAVAR AGED ABOUT 56 YERAS, R/O. ASUNDI SAUNDATTI, BELGAUM DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. GIRISH YADAWAD, ADV. FOR SRI.V.P. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BYALAHONGALA SUB DIVISION, BYALAHONGALABELGAUM DISTRICT,

¶14

DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,BELGAUM DIVISION,BELGAUM,

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCPAL SECRETARY,CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT,M.S.BUILDINGBANGALORE 1.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R3 DT. 6.4.2005 VIDE ANX-G, AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BELGAUM DT. 14.12.2004 VIDE ANX-F AND ALSO THE ORDER OF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BAILAHONGALA DT. 19.7.2004 VIDE ANX-E.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

WP No. 2742 of 2007

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry, submitted a report stating that though the petitioner is not entitled for receiving honorarium at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month as in-charge Secretary of the Asundi Seva Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha has received the said honorarium and the said honorarium requires to be recovered. The respondent No.1 after considering the report, passed the impugned order calling upon the petitioner to submit clarification with regard to the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner challenged the same before the Deputy Registrar and the same was dismissed and the revision petition filed by the petitioner also came to be dismissed, against which the present petition is filed.

¶24

The impugned order is passed by the 1^st respondent calling upon the petitioner to submit clarification to the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner instead of submitting a clarification has challenged the same.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶26

submits that the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2011 and as such, the respondents

¶27

¶28

WP No. 2742 of 2007

¶29

cannot proceed further in the light of the order passed by the 1^st respondent calling upon the petitioner to submit clarification.

¶30

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2011, it would be a futile exercise if the petitioner is called upon to submit the clarification. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Writ Petition is allowed.

¶33

The order dated 06.04.2005 passed by the 3^rd respondent at Annexure – G, the order dated 14.12.2004 passed by the 2^nd respondent at Annexure – F and the order dated 19.07.2004 passed by the 1^st respondent at Annexure – E are hereby quashed.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

RSH

¶36

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 76

B F Kadannavar v. Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B F Kadannavar v. Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

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

Jamal S/O Bandu Shekh Vs the State of Karnataka

Jamal S/O Bandu Shekh Vs the State of Karnataka

Basavaraj S/O. Shekharayya Chikmath Vs Smt. Savitri Alias Swetha W/O. Basavaraj Chikmath

Sri Ningappa S/O. Nandeppa Kadapatti Vs the Honble Commissioner of

Anitha D/O. Girimallappa Kadapatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajshekar Vs the State of Karnataka