Disposed

Sri.Manjunath Ramakrishna Hegde v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Sept 2022WP/5482/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking to quash revision proceedings in a co-operative society matter. The Court directed parties to appear before the Revisional Authority on 11.10.2022 to consider pending applications for impleadment and vacation of stay, while keeping existing interim orders operative.

What did the court decide?

Directed parties to appear before Revisional Authority on 11.10.2022; interim stay order continued to operate.

Sri.Manjunath Ramakrishna Hegde Vs State of Karnataka — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.5482 OF 2022 (CS-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SRI.MANJUNATH RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE S/O RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST PRESIDENT, VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITA HOSAKULI R/O GOTNAKODLU VILLAGE HOSAKULI PO, TALUK HONAVAR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 334

¶9

2 . SRI SUBRAHMANYA GANAPATHI HEGDE S/O GANAPATHI HEGDE AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST VICE-PRESIDENT, VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITA HOSAKULI

¶10

R/O GUDDEBALA VILLAGE BHASKERI PO, TALUK HONAVAR UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 334

¶11

3 . SRI NAGAPPA LAKSHMINARAYANA HEGDE S/O LAKSHMINARAYANA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST DIRECTOR, VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITA HOSAKULI

¶12

¶13

R/O MELINA GANTIGE VILLAGE HOSAKULI PO, TALUK HONAVAR UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 334

¶14

4 . SRI SHRIPADA GAJANANA HEGDE S/O GAJANANA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST DIRECTOR VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITA HOSAKULI R/O KODLAMAKKI VILLAGE HOSAKULI PO, TALUK HONAVAR UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 334

¶15

5 . SRI SURESH GANAPTHI SHETTY S/O GANAPATHI SHETTY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST DIRECTOR VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITA HOSAKULI R/O GAJANIKERI VILLAGE BHASKERI PO, TALUK HONAVAR UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 334

¶16

6 . SRI VASANTHBEERU GOUDA S/O BEERU GOUDA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST DIRECTOR VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITA HOSAKULI R/O MAKKIGADDE VILLAGE HOSAKULI PO, TALUK HONAVAR UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 334

¶17

7 . SRI PARAMESHWARA VISHNU HEGDE @ PRAKASH S/O VISHNU HEGDE AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶18

¶19

OCC: AGRICULTURIST DIRECTOR VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITA HOSAKULI R/O MUDARE VILLAGE HOSAKULI PO, TALUK HONAVAR UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 334

¶20

... PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI. VIGHNESHWAR S SHASTRI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. DINESHA M BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶24

2 . SRI H R GANESH S/O SRI RAMA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT HEBBARTAKERI POST: HOSAKULI HONAVAR TALUK UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 334

¶25

3 . ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KUMTA, KUMTA SUB DIVISION KUMTA, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 343

¶26

4 . VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA HOSAKULI HONAVAR - 581 334 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶27

...RESPONDENTS

¶28

¶29

NOTE: IN ANNEXURE-R RESPONDENT NO.3 WAS MADE AS INDIVIDUAL PARTY THOUGH HE WAS MADE PARTY AS R1. HENCE IN THIS WP HE WAS MADE AS R3 AND NOT MADE HIM PARTY INDIVIDUALLY.

¶30

(BY SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP FOR R1 & R3; SRI. VINAYAKA B, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R4 SERVED)

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.1/HON'BLE MINISTER BY RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER SECTION 108 OF THE ACT IN REVISION PETITION NO.CO/2/CAP/2022 HOLDING THAT SAME IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW; ii) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE INTERIM ORDER OF STAY DATED 10.02.2022 IN R.P.NO.CO/2/CAP/2022 BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AS PER ANNEXURE 'R'; iii) ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION THAT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

ORDER

¶35

In this petition, the petitioners have sought

¶36

for the following reliefs:

¶37

"i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the entire proceedings initiated before the Respondent No.1/Hon'ble Minister by Respondent No.2 under Section 108 of the Act in Revision Petition No.CO/2CAP/2022 holding that same is without jurisdiction and without the authority of law.

¶38

ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the interim order of stay dated 10.02.2022 in R.P.No.CO/2/CAP/2022 by Respondent No.1 as per Annexure"R".

¶39

iii) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction that deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶40

Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and learned

¶41

¶42

counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record.

¶43

The material on record discloses that

¶44

aggrieved by the order at Annexure-J dated 05.01.2022 disqualifying respondent No.2 from respondent No.4 - Society, respondent No.2 preferred a revision petition in CO/02/CAP/2022 under Section 108 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (For short 'the said Act'). Along with the said revision petition, respondent No.2 has sought for interim order of stay of the disqualification order passed by respondent No.3 - ARCS.

¶45

On 10.02.2022 the Revisional Authority

¶46

passed an interim order of stay in favour of respondent No.2. Subsequently, on 24.02.2022, petitioners herein filed two applications viz., (1) an application under Order I Rule 10 for impleading petitioners herein as proposed respondent Nos.4 to

¶47

¶48

10 in revision petition and (2) application dated 10.02.2022 seeking vacation of interim order of stay passed by the Revisional Authority. It is the grievance of the petitioners that despite said applications filed by the petitioners, the same has not been considered by the Revisional Authority apart from the fact that revision petition itself is not maintainable and as such petitioners are before this Court by way of writ petition.

¶49

Government Advocate submitted that there is no material in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶50

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in respect of their claims, having regard to the fact that the aforesaid applications seeking impleadment and seeking vacation of interim order of stay/objections to the revision petition had not been considered by

¶51

¶52

Revisional Authority, I am of the considered opinion that without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the rival contentions urged by the parties, I deem it just and proper to dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioner and respondent No.2 to appear before the Revisional Authority on 11.10.2022 without waiting for further notice from the Revisional Authority. Liberty is reserved in favour of respondent No.2 to file objections to both the applications pursuant to which Revisional Authority shall consider and pass appropriate order on both the applications for impleadment as well as vacation of interim order of stay filed by the petitioners in accordance with law after hearing both sides within a period of two weeks from 11.10.2022.

¶53

It is further directed that till disposal of the aforesaid applications by the Revisional Authority, interim order/direction passed by this

¶54

¶55

Court on 11.03.2022 directing respondent No.2 not to participate in any of the meetings of respondent No.4 - Co-operative Society shall continue to remain in force and operate between the parties.

¶56

Subject to the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶57

Sd/- JUDGE

¶58

Sri.Manjunath Ramakrishna Hegde v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Manjunath Ramakrishna Hegde v. 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

Mr Abhishek M Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri L Lohith Vs State of Karnataka

Ms.Ananya Jain Vs St.Xavier College

Sri Vasista Tevanidarara Sangha (Regd) Vs Ministry of Finance

Sri S R Vijay Shekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shree Devi Educational Trust Vs State of Karnataka