Allowed

Sree Sreekanteshwara Credit v. Director of Co-Operative Audit

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2023WP/10919/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed to quash proceedings initiated by the Joint Director of Co-operative Audit based on a complaint by a non-member of the society. The High Court of Karnataka allowed the petition and quashed the notice, holding that a non-member cannot maintain such complaints.

What did the court decide?

The communication dated 9.3.2020 issued by the second respondent bearing No.UNITHU/LEPA-1/SREE KAM SAM/41/2019-2020/1724 is quashed.

Sree Sreekanteshwara Credit Vs Director of… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41895 WP No. 10919 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.10919 OF 2020 (CS-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SREE SREEKANTESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, NO.74/1, 5^TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE – 560 003. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY B.S. MUKUND S/O. SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. ... PETITIONER

¶8

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

(BY SRI G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

DIRECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE AUDIT, SHANKARAPURAM, BENGALURU – 560 004.

¶12

JOINT DIRECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE AUDIT, 13^TH CROSS, S.S. PURAM, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR – 572 102.

¶13

MOHAN .K MAJOR, NO.1131, 18^TH CROSS, 24^TH MAIN, BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 070. ... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI MILIND DANGE, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI SAILESH S.K., ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF COOPERATIVE AUDIT, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR DATED 09.03.2020 AS PER ANNEXURE-M ON THE BASIS OF A COMPLAINT MADE BY THE NON MEMBER R-3 IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND QUASH THE SAME.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:41895 WP No. 10919 of 2020

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The present petition is filed seeking for the following

¶21

reliefs:

¶22

“ i) Declare that the proceedings initiated by the Joint Director of Co-operative Audit, Tumkur District, Tumkur dated 09.03.2020 in No.UNITHU/LEPA-1/SREE KAM SAM/41/2019-2020/1724 as per Annexure-M on the basis of a complaint made by the non member 3^rd respondent, is illegal and without jurisdiction and quash the same.

¶23

ii) Issue any other writ or direction to meet the ends of justice.”

¶24

Notice dated 9.3.2020 which is impugned in the

¶25

present Writ Petition has been issued by the second respondent enclosing the complaint filed by the third respondent.

¶26

Admittedly, the third respondent is not a member of the petitioner – society. Further there is no mention of any provision of law in the notice dated 9.3.2020 requiring the petitioner to respond to the same.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶28

the third respondent has repeatedly been harassing the

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:41895 WP No. 10919 of 2020

¶30

petitioner – society on one pretext or the other and on an earlier occasion when the third respondent had sought sanction to prosecute the members of the petitioner – society and the same having been granted, the said aspect was the subject matter of challenge in WP No.6798/2007. This Court by order dated 22.9.2008 allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the order according sanction. The observations made at para 3 of the said order dated 22.9.2008 are relevant which reads as under:

¶31

“ 3. The sanction is accorded under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. Before a person could invoke the jurisdiction under the Act he should be a member of the society. The third respondent was a member. Because he acquired the member of another Co-operative Bank, on a complaint filed by the Petitioner herein he was declared to be ineligible to be the member of the petitioners society. The said order has been confirmed in the revisional jurisdiction. When the third respondent ceased to be a member he cannot maintain any complaint before the Registrar and seek sanction. The Registrar did not apply his mind to this aspect of the matter, and therefore, the order is vitiated for non application of mind. “

¶32

In view of the aforementioned, it is clear that

¶33

the third respondent not being a member of the petitioner – society is attempting to ventilate his vengeance against the society. The communication dated 9.3.2020 issued by

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:41895 WP No. 10919 of 2020

¶35

the second respondent has been done mechanically and as

¶36

a result, the second respondent entertained the complaint by a non member and called for comments or the say of the petitioner without referring to the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, on the basis on which the response was sought.

¶37

In view of the aforementioned, it is clear that

¶38

the relief sought for in the writ petition is liable to be granted.

¶39

Hence, the following order is passed:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶42

ii. The communication dated 9.3.2020 in proceedings

¶43

bearing No.UNITHU/LEPA-1/SREE KAM SAM/41/20192020/1724 issued by the second respondent is quashed.

¶44

iii. Liberty is reserved to the State authorities to initiate action against the petitioner – society under the requisite provisions of the statute and the order in

¶45

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:41895 WP No. 10919 of 2020

¶46

the present writ petition should not be construed as

¶47

absolving the petitioner of any irregularities/infirmity

¶48

in compliance with the provisions of the Act.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Sree Sreekanteshwara Credit v. Director of Co-Operative Audit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sree Sreekanteshwara Credit v. Director of Co-Operative Audit

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

The Grain Merchants Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Vs the Joint Registrar of

Sri. a Thiruneelakantaswamy @ neelakanta Vs the Registrar

Sri. Chandrashekar Vs Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Society

Kusumavati Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Suresh G Muddebihal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ravikumar Kakade Vs the State of Karnataka