Dismissed

Smarty Rego v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Sept 2023WP/20464/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged observations in an inquiry report by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies alleging collusion and loss of funds to the society. The court held the order did not conclusively establish petitioner's liability as proceedings were initiated against the society and allowed defence. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition praying to quash the observations in the inquiry report and the notice issued against the petitioner was dismissed.

Smarty Rego Vs the State of Karnataka — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:33322 WP No. 20464 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.20464 OF 2023 (CS-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMARTY REGO S/O. MR. STANLEY B.REGO AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT VICTORIA GARDEN 5TH CROSS, SHIVABAGH MANGALURU-575 002.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI ROHITH B.J., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES NO.1, ALI ASKER ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES MYSURU DIVISION HAVING OFFICE AT GOVERNMENT OFFICE BUILDING NEW SAYAJI ROAD MYSURU-570 001.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:33322 WP No. 20464 of 2023

¶16

YASHASWINI GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA HAVING OFFICE AT NO.43 1ST CROSS, BANURU RING ROAD HD DEVEGOWDA CIRCLE MYSURU-28 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

R.4: SOCIETY IS REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT, 1959.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI SIDHARTH, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.3)

¶20

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASH THE OBSERVATIONS SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN AS FOUND IN ALLEGATION NO.4 SL.NO.6 FOR DOLLARS SATELLITE LAYOUT AND ALLEGATION NO.4 AT SL.NO.7 FOR SAROOVAR LAYOUT IN THE INQUIRY REPORT BEARING NO.HSG1/87/HHS/SECTION 64/2019-20 DATED 11/05/2023 ORDER PASSED BY THE R.2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Respondent No.4 is a Co-operative Society involved

¶24

in the business of development of land and distribution of sites to its Members. It had availed the services of the petitioner who is a developer of lands. Proceedings were initiated against respondent No.4 - Society under the

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:33322 WP No. 20464 of 2023

¶27

various provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act') on the allegation of misappropriation of funds and maladministration. The Society has been found guilty of the said charges and in the process of passing the impugned order at Annexure-'G' to the writ petition by respondent No.3, observations have been made that certain office bearers of respondent No.4Society have colluded with the petitioner and have caused loss to the Society. Further, the Society has been directed to initiate action against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶28

The case of the petitioner is that he has not committed any illegality and he has been ready to perform his part of the contract with the Society and he cannot be held guilty for malfeasance and misfeasance committed by the office bearers of the Society. It is further submitted that he was not a party to the proceedings before respondent No.3 and such observations and directions could not have been made against the petitioner in the

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:33322 WP No. 20464 of 2023

¶31

impugned order at Annexure-'G' to the writ petition. It is also further submitted that the notice issued by the Society (Annexure-'H' to the writ petition) in pursuance of the order at (Annexure-'G' to the writ petition) is erroneous.

¶32

Admittedly, the order at Annexure-'G' to the writ petition is passed against the respondent No.4 - Society and not the petitioner. Based on the documents made available by the Society and upon enquiry, respondent No.3 has come to the conclusion that certain office bearers in collusion with the petitioner has caused loss to the Society and hence, the same is observed in the impugned order and further direction is also issued to initiate action against the petitioner by the Society. It is not an order which concludes that petitioner is liable to the Society or its Members and that it can be executed without any further proceedings against the Society. It is an order where the affairs of the Society has to be enquired into and it is found

¶33

that the Society is required to initiate civil and criminal action against the petitioner and if such an action is

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:33322 WP No. 20464 of 2023

¶35

¶36

initiated, the petitioner is always at liberty to defend himself in the manner known to law. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 (vide Annexure-'G' to the writ petition) or the notice issued by respondent No.4 (vide Annexure-'H' to the writ petition).

¶37

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is hereby dismissed .

¶38

SD/JUDGE

¶39

VMB

Smarty Rego v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smarty Rego v. the 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

Vishwabharathi House Building Co. Operative Society Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N Balasubbaiah Vs the Managing Director

S.D.V. Iron Works Vs the Official Liquidator

Sri Gangadhar Vs the State of Karnataka

Dodderahalli Milk Producers Co. Op Society Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H . R Thimmaiah, Vs the State of Karnataka