Allowed

Sri K P Champakadhamaswamy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2023WP/13650/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order by the Joint Registrar regarding an enquiry into alleged mismanagement in a cooperative society. The court held that the impugned order failed to conform to earlier judicial directions mandating a fresh enquiry with framed charges and prior hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22.11.2016 and notice dated 26.12.2016 were quashed. Petitioners were directed to appear and file objections, after which the third respondent must frame charges and conduct t

Sri K P Champakadhamaswamy Vs State of Karnataka — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39986 WP No. 13650 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 13650 OF 2017 (CS-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI K P CHAMPAKADHAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O LATE K S PUTTASWAMY RESIDENT OF PREMISES BEARING NO 291, 1ST A MAIN, WEST OF CHORD ROAD II STAGE MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BANGALORE – 560086

¶7

SRI A H KOTRAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA NO 184, SHIRDI SAI SOUDHA RMS COLONY, BATTARAHALLI, OLD MADRAS ROAD BANGALORE- 560044

¶8

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SRI C R HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O LATE REVANNA C/O PUTTAPPA NO 32, KPTCL QUARTERS RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE – 560010

¶10

SRI CHAMUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O LATE CHAMAIAH NO 1357/A,5TH MAIN, E BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE – 560010

¶11

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:39986 WP No. 13650 of 2017

¶12

SRI H M KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA NO 134/1, LAXMAIAH LAYOUT GANGANAGAR BANGALORE – 560024

¶13

SMT B N ANASUYA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS W/O D M THIMMARAYAPPA NO 50,PALACE LOWER ORCHARDS MALLESWARAM BANGALORE – 560003

¶14

SRI MIRZAMA HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE MD ILYAS NO 851/6,10TH CROSS, DIRANAPALYA, GOKUL, 1 STAGE, BANGALORE – 560054

¶15

SRI P N MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O PERIYAPPA REDDY NO 26/5, 9TH C CROSS ROAD, PARIMALA NAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT BANGALORE – 560096

¶16

SRI MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O LINGAIAH NO 70, SRIRANGA NAGARA BANASHANKARI, 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE- 560085

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI K SUMAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶20

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39986 WP No. 13650 of 2017

¶21

BANGALORE – 560001

¶22

THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE – 560001

¶23

THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (URBAN BANKS CELL ) OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE – 560001

¶24

ENQUIRY OFFICER KPTC EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD ANANDA RAO CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560009 AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BANGALORE 4^TH ZONE BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT K H B COMPLEX CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE

¶25

5 THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE 560009 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI M RA RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI K S KALLESHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 SRI SIDDHARTHA BABURAO, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.11.2016 ISSUED BY R-3 I.E., ANNEX-P AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, UNJUST AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC.

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:39986 WP No. 13650 of 2017

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri K.Suman for the petitioners, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned Senior Counsel Sri M.R.Rajagopal for respondent No.5.

¶33

In the present petition the petitioners are challenging the order dated 22.11.2016 passed in proceedings No.JRB/Section 64/12/2016-17 by the third respondent and notice dated 26.12.2016 issued in proceedings bearing No.DRB-4/Dispute/Section 64/01/201617 by the fourth respondent.

¶34

The present petition is the third round of

¶35

litigation.

¶36

The relevant facts necessary for consideration of the present petition are that 16 allegations of mismanagement and misutilization of the funds of the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Employees’ Cooperative Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’) were enquired into insofar as the petitioners are

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:39986 WP No. 13650 of 2017

¶38

concerned and after a detailed enquiry, 2 charges were held to be proved and 14 charges were held to be not proved. Thereafter, a fresh enquiry was ordered in respect of 20 charges alleged against the petitioners. Being aggrieved, WP Nos.25506-25515/2010 was filed by the petitioners and this Court permitted the petitioners to withdraw the said writ petitions with liberty to submit a representation for considering their contentions.

¶39

Accordingly, the petitioners submitted a representation seeking for rejection of the report. The request of the petitioners was rejected by an endorsement dated 21.12.2010. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred WP.Nos.23158-167/2011. This Court by it order dated 4.8.2011 allowed the writ petitions, quashed the endorsement dated 21.12.2010 and remanded the matter to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to re-hear the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶40

The petitioners furnished detail representations

¶41

dated 2.12.2011 to the third respondent – Joint Registrar.

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:39986 WP No. 13650 of 2017

¶43

However, the third respondent passed the order dated 3.12.2012. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred WP Nos.14136-145/2013 alleging that the order passed by the third respondent – Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies was not in accordance with the directions issued by this Court. This Court by its order dated 22.1.2016 allowed the writ petitions. The relevant portion of the order dated 22.1.2016 is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:

¶44

“5. Therefore, it is left to the Joint Registrar – third respondent to verify whether any of the charges now sought to be framed would overlap the charges of the earlier enquiry and then frame such charges and proceed therefrom, making doubly sure that the charges which are to be framed by him were not subject matter of the earlier enquiry. The third respondent shall now hold a fresh enquiry after framing fresh charges and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners on the charges so framed, before proceeding with the enquiry. With that direction, the petitions stand disposed of.”

¶45

(emphasis supplied)

¶46

Consequent to the said order dated 22.1.2016

¶47

passed by this Court, the impugned order dated 22.11.2016 has been passed and the notice dated 26.12.2016 has been issued.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:39986 WP No. 13650 of 2017

¶50

It is the case of the petitioners that while passing

¶51

the order dated 22.11.2016 which is followed by the notice dated 26.12.2016, the direction issued by this Court in the order dated 22.1.2016 has not been followed and the petitioners have not been afforded an opportunity of being heard by the third respondent as specifically directed by this Court in para 5 of its order.

¶52

It is contended by the respondents that the scheme under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, does not contemplate an enquiry to be conducted only by the third respondent – Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and he can delegate the said power. It is further submitted that the petitioners could appear in the enquiry in terms of the notice dated 26.12.2016 for the purpose of putting forth their case.

¶53

It is also relevant to note that the third respondent, vide order dated 22.11.2016 has noticed that it has considered the order passed by this Court in WP.Nos.14136-145/2013. However, the third respondent was specifically required to “verify whether any of the

¶54

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:39986 WP No. 13650 of 2017

¶55

charges now sought to be framed would overlap the charges of the earlier enquiry” and thereafter, frame charges “making doubly sure that the charges which are to be framed by him were not subject matter of the earlier enquiry ”. It is clear that the order dated 22.11.2016 does not satisfy the said aspect, which is specifically noticed herein.

¶56

It is relevant to note that this Court in para 5 of its order dated 22.1.2016 has specifically ordered the third respondent – Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to hold a fresh enquiry after framing charges and after affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard on the merits of the matter. Further, this Court has also specifically ordered that the third respondent – Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies was required to conduct the enquiry.

¶57

Admittedly, in the present case, consequent to the order dated 22.11.2016 passed by the third respondent – Joint Registrar, the notice dated 26.12.2016 is issued by the fourth respondent requiring the petitioners to attend the enquiry. The notice dated 26.12.2016, having been issued

¶58

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:39986 WP No. 13650 of 2017

¶59

by the fourth respondent is not in conformity with the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 22.1.2016.

¶60

The enquiry as contemplated under Section 64 of the Act would enable the third respondent to go into the aspects sought to be enquired into. The third respondent consequent to the order dated 22.1.2016 passed in WP.Nos.14136-145/2013 has noticed the order passed by this Court and proceeded to frame the charges in terms of the said order. While it is the contention of the petitioners that the third respondent is required to hear the petitioners before passing the order dated 22.11.2016, such a direction is not forthcoming from the order dated 22.1.2016. Having regard to the scope of enquiry as contemplated under Section 64 of the Act, it is open to the petitioners to putforth their say and the enquiry is required to be conducted by the third respondent in terms of the order dated 22.1.2016.

¶61

However, it is relevant to note that the enquiry is sought to be commenced in the 2011 itself and the same is still pending at the enquiry stage. Hence, it is expedient that a specific date be fixed, on which date the petitioners shall

¶62

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:39986 WP No. 13650 of 2017

¶63

appear before the third respondent and also file their say and thereafter, the third respondent shall conduct further proceedings in accordance with law as also by specifically following the directions issued by this Court in para 5 of its order dated 22.1.2016 passed in W.P. No.14136-145/2013 as noticed above.

¶64

In view of the aforementioned, the following order is passed:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i. The Writ petition is allowed;

¶67

ii. The order dated 22.11.2016 passed in proceedings No.JRB/Section 64/12/2016-17 by the third respondent and notice dated 26.12.2016 issued in proceedings bearing No.DRB4/Dispute/Section 64/01/2016-17 fourth respondent are quashed;

¶68

iii. The petitioners shall appear before the third respondent on 4.12.2023 at 3.00 pm., and on the

¶69

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:39986 WP No. 13650 of 2017

¶70

date of appearance before the third respondent they shall file their response/objection.

¶71

iv. Upon appearance and after filing of response by the petitioners, the third respondent itself shall frame the charges and conduct the further proceedings as also shall complete the enquiry by specifically complying with the directions issued by this Court in para 5 of the order dated 22.1.2016 passed in Writ Petition Nos.14136145/2013 and in accordance with law;

¶72

v. It is needless to state that having regard to the fact that the enquiry was sought to be initiated since past more than 12 years, the petitioners shall cooperate with the third respondent in proceedings to be conducted without taking unnecessary adjournments.

¶73

No costs.

¶74

ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74

¶75

SD/JUDGE

Sri K P Champakadhamaswamy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K P Champakadhamaswamy 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Rahman Khan Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

G.M. Neelakantaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Abusa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Venkateshappa K Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. R. Kumaraswamy Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Smt Geetha Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co. -Operative Societies