Dismissed

T Amarsingh v. the Chief Adminsitrative Officer

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2023WP/2252/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash a no-confidence motion against a cooperative society President. The Court held that such motions are valid during office and the statutory two-year embargo had passed. The petition was dismissed finding no merits.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Annexures C and D and stay of relative orders dismissed; petition stands dismissed.

T Amarsingh Vs the Chief Adminsitrative Officer — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 2252 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 2252 OF 2023 (CS-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

T. AMARSINGH S/O N. TAKOOR SINGH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS PRESIDENT, PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO.OP.SOCIETY LTD., SATHAVALLI, TIPTURU TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT PIN CODE -572212

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRAIAH R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE CHIEF ADMINSITRATIVE OFFICER PRIMARY AND AGRICULTURAL CO OP SOCIETY LTD SATHAVALLI, TIPTUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT PIN CODE NO. 572212

¶14

THE CO.OPEERATIVE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CO.OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TUMKUR DISTRICT PIN CODE -572214

¶15

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CO.OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., TIPTURU, TIPTURU TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT PIN CODE -572201

¶16

¶17

WP No. 2252 of 2023

¶18

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF DISTRICT CO.SOCIETIES TUMKUR -572101

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.A.R.SHARADAMBA., ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO QUASHING THE ANNEXURE-C DTD 26/12/2022 ISSUED BY THE R2 AND ANNEXURE-D DTD 12/01/2023 ISSUED BY THE R1 AND GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY VIDE ANNEXURE-C DTD 26.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE R2 AND ANNEXURE-D DTD 12.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE R1 RESPECTIVELY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶22

THIS WP, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶25

a. Quashing the Annexure-C bearing No. ¸À¤.34/zÀÆgÀÄ/C.¤/ 57/2022-23 ¢£ÁAPÀ 26.12.2022 issued by the Respondent No.2 and Annexure-D vide bearing No. ¸ÀCD/a/C«±Áé¸À ªÀÄAqÀ£É/ 1/2022-23 dated 12.01.2023 issued by the Respondent No.1.

¶26

b. And issue such other directions in the circumstances of the case as deems fit in the interest of justice.

¶27

The grievance of the petitioner is that the term of

¶28

office of the petitioner, who is the President of

¶29

3 - WP No. 2252 of 2023

¶30

respondent No.2/Society is for a period of five years and without waiting for the said period of five years to be completed, a No Confidence Motion has been moved against the petitioner on 26.12.2022. There is no provision for moving such a no-confidence motion until the period of five years.

¶31

I am of the considered opinion that such a submission cannot be accepted by this Court.

¶32

The very purpose of moving a no-confidence motion is when the person is in office, not after he demits office. A no confidence is expressed by the other members due to the functioning of a person while in office and in terms of Section 29(h) of the Karnataka Co-operative Society Act, 1959, a motion for confidence can be moved against any office bearer after two years of assumption of office.

¶33

In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner was in the office for more than three years and as such, the

¶34

¶35

WP No. 2252 of 2023

¶36

embargo under 29(h) would also not apply. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the above

¶37

petition, the petition stands dismissed .

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

T Amarsingh v. the Chief Adminsitrative Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T Amarsingh v. the Chief Adminsitrative Officer

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

Smt Krishnamma Vs the Joint Registrar of

K.T.Muinivenkata Reddy Vs State by Its

L. K. Suresh Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Tarun Kumar Gupta Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Mrs Renuka Manghnani Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Puttathyamma Vs the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal