Dismissed

Sri Praveen Kumar v. Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Karnataka HC5 Apr 2023WP/8633/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of a Secretary in a cooperative society. The court held that a meeting could validly proceed in the President/Vice-President absence, allegations require adjudication, and the petition was barred by non-participation.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition stands dismissed. Joint Registrar directed to conclude proceedings within 6 months.

Sri Praveen Kumar Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative… — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 8633 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.8633 OF 2017 (CS-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O LATE VIJAY SINGH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS DIRECTOR, N.T.I. HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.G-5, PALACE ORCHARD APARMENTS, NO.51, 9^TH MAIN, 6^TH "A" CROSS, RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU 560 080.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. H PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BENGALURU REGION, PAMPA MAHAKAVI ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU 560 018.

¶14

N.T.I. HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.G-5, PALACE ORCHARD APARTMENTS, NO.51, 9^TH MAIN, 6^TH "A" CROSS, RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU 560 080. REP: BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

SRI. PRATHAPCHAND RATHOD AGE: MAJOR S/O PEERAPPA INCHARGE SECRETARY OF N.T.I. HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.G-5, PALACE ORCHARD APARTMENTS,

¶16

WP No. 8633 of 2017

¶17

¶18

NO.51, 9^TH MAIN, 6^TH "A" CROSS, RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU 560 080. 4. SRI. B. NARASIMHA RAJU AGE: MAJOR, DIRECTOR N.T.I. HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.G-5, PALACE ORCHARD APARTMENTS, NO.51, 9^TH MAIN, 6^TH "A" CROSS, RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU 560 080. 5. SRI. T.S. RAVINDRA AGE: MAJOR, DIRECTOR, N.T.I. HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.G-5, PALACE ORCHARD APARTMENTS, NO.51, 9^TH MAIN, 6^TH "A" CROSS, RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU 560 080.

¶19

SRI. VENKATAPPA AGE: MAJOR DIRECTOR, N.T.I. HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.G-5, PALACE ORCHARD APARTMENTS, NO.51, 9^TH MAIN, 6^TH "A" CROSS, RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU 560 080.

¶20

SRI. SURESH N. KAMATH AGE: MAJOR, DIRECTOR N.T.I. HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.G-5, PALACE ORCHARD APARTMENTS, NO.51, 9^TH MAIN, 6^TH "A" CROSS, RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU 560 080.

¶21

SMT. D.T. SHUBHA AGE: MAJOR, DIRECTOR, N.T.I. HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.G-5, PALACE ORCHARD APARTMENTS, NO.51, 9^TH MAIN, 6^TH "A" CROSS,

¶22

¶23

WP No. 8633 of 2017

¶24

RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU 560 080.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT. SHARDAMBA A.R., AGA FOR R1; SRI. P. ANAND., ADVOCATE FOR C/R3; SRI. DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 SERVED)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (CH-6) IN REVISION NO.92/2016, DATED 20.2.2017 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶28

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

¶29

ORDER

¶30

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

¶31

a. Quash the impugned order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (CH-6) in Revision No.92/2016, dated 20.2.2017 produced as Annexure-A

¶32

b. Quash the impugned order passed by the 1^st Respondent dated 9.12.2016 in Dispute No. JRB/MD/52/2016-17 produced as Annexure-B

¶33

c. Confirm the order passed by the 1^st Respondent in Dispute No. JRB/MD/52-2016-17, dated 7.11.2016, against the meeting proceedings held by the 2^nd Respondent dated 27.10.2016.

¶34

d. Issue any other writ, order or direction and such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶35

¶36

WP No. 8633 of 2017

¶37

The petitioner is the Director of NTI Housing Co-operative Society Limited – 2^nd respondent herein. A dispute was raised by the petitioner insofar as appointment of respondent No.3 as Secretary of 2^nd respondent-Society, which is still pending. In the said proceedings, an interlocutory application had been filed seeking for stay of the resolution appointing the 3^rd respondent as the Secretary. Initially there was an order of stay. Subsequently, the said order came to be vacated on 09.12.2016. A Revision Petition being filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the Revision Petition came to be dismissed. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶38

Sri.H.Pavan Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit:

¶39

3.1. that a notice having been issued on 20.10.2018 calling for a meeting on 27.10.2016 what was only mentioned therein was to discuss

¶40

¶41

WP No. 8633 of 2017

¶42

regarding the post of full-fledged Secretary. On 27.10.2016, the President and the Vice President not being present, from and amongst the Directors who were present, the Chairman of the meeting was elected and the said meeting was continued not only to discuss but appoint 3^rd respondent as Secretary of the Society.

¶43

3.2. The submission is that it is only the President or the Vice President who could have chaired the meeting in terms of Bye-laws of the Society inasmuch as the Bye-laws provide only for the President to chair the meeting and in his absence, the Vice-President. If either of them are not present, he submits that the meeting is required to be adjourned to enable their presence. The meeting could not have been held in their absence.

¶44

3.3. That there are serious allegations against respondent No.3 inasmuch as the Assistant

¶45

¶46

WP No. 8633 of 2017

¶47

Registrar has written to the Joint Registrar raising allegations as regards the functioning of the 3^rd respondent and in that background his appointment as full-fledged Secretary could not have been considered.

¶48

3.4. The dispute having been raised, 3^rd respondent continuing as Secretary would impact on the proceedings inasmuch as the Society itself being represented by a person against whom allegations are made and he should not be allowed to so function is the submission of Sri.Pavan Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶49

3.5. The resolution dated 27.10.2016 insofar as appointment of 3^rd respondent as a full-fledged Secretary could not have been made. On the basis of the above, he submits that the petition required to be allowed.

¶50

¶51

WP No. 8633 of 2017

¶52

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 and 3 submits that:

¶53

4.1. in terms of Rule 14-AK (11) of the Karnataka

¶54

Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (for short, ‘the Rules’) in the event of the President or the Chairperson is unable to attend the meeting of the Board, the Vice-President or the ViceChairperson or in his absence, any other member of the Board elected by the Directors present at the meeting amongst themselves could preside over the said meeting. It is in that background that when the President and Vice-President were not present, from and among the Directors, who are present, a chairman was elected and the meeting continued. As such, it is contended that the same cannot be found fault with.

¶55

4.2. Insofar as the allegation made against respondent No.3, it was contended that the

¶56

¶57

WP No. 8633 of 2017

¶58

same is only an allegation which is required to be established and the same cannot be considered as of now, which is required to be considered in the dispute, which is pending. On these grounds, he submits that the above petition may be dismissed.

¶59

Heard Sri.H.Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Sharadamba A.R., learned AGA for respondent No.1, Sri.P.Anand, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.3 and Sri.Devi Prasad Shetty, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the papers.

¶60

The first contention of Sri.Pavan Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice dated 20.10.2016 was regarding the discussion to the post of full-fledged Secretary and therefore, he submits that since it was only a discussion, an appointment could not have been made. Undisputedly, the notice of the meeting was served

¶61

¶62

WP No. 8633 of 2017

¶63

on the petitioner who is also a sitting Director and the petitioner chose not to attend the said meeting. Having chosen not to attend the meeting, it is only after the resolution having been passed, that a dispute has been raised. It was for the petitioner to have attended the meeting and raised his objections, if any, to any of the resolution and/or discussion taking place at that point of time. Not having done so, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot raise this issue now before this Court especially relating to an interlocutory application.

¶64

Rule 14-AK (11) of the Rules is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶65

” (11) If for any reason, the president or the chairperson is unable to attend the meeting of the board, the Vice-President or the Vice-Chairperson, or in his absence, any other member of the board elected by the directors present at the meeting from among themselves shall preside over the said meeting.”

¶66

It is clear from the reading of the above provision that from and amongst the Directors present, Chairperson of the meeting could be elected to

¶67

10 -

¶68

WP No. 8633 of 2017

¶69

preside over the meeting in the absence of the President and Vice-President.

¶70

If the second submission of Sri.Pavan Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, that in the absence of President and VicePresident, no meeting could be called for or no meeting could be held. In terms of Rule 14-AK(1) of the Rules, a Board meeting is to be held in terms of the Act or the Rules or the Bye-laws submission of Mr Shetty is that the bye-laws not providing for the same, the meeting of the Society could not be held in the absence of President and Vice-President would lead to a complete incongruity. The word ‘or’ which has been used in Rule 14-AK gives primacy to the Act and then to the Rules and then to the bye-laws. The Rules if provided for a particular situation unless there is something contrary in the bye-laws, the Rules would prevail. What is only stated in the byelaws is that when the President is present, he would

¶71

11 -

¶72

WP No. 8633 of 2017

¶73

preside over the meeting and in his absence, the Vice-President would preside over the meeting. The bye-laws does not provide for a situation that in the absence of the President or the Vice President, no meeting can be held. Such an incongruity would lead to a situation where meeting of a Society will not be held if the President and Vice-President are not present for any reason whatsoever.

¶74

It is for that reason that Rule 14-AK(11) of the Rules prescribes and/or provides for an unlikely situation of the President or the Vice-President not being present entitling the Directors who are present to elect the Chairperson. In the present case, the President and the Vice-President not being present, the petitioner who is also a sitting Director, not being present, it is from and amongst the Directors who were present, a Chairperson was elected who continued with the meeting.

¶75

Though the notice of the meeting speaks of discussion regarding the post of full-fledged

¶76

12 -

¶77

WP No. 8633 of 2017

¶78

Secretary, it does not restrict itself to the same disentitling the appointment of a full-fledged Secretary. The discussion having taken place and the Directors present at the meeting being of the opinion that 3^rd respondent is to be appointed as a full-fledged Secretary and more particularly when he had been discharging his duties as incharge Secretary for a long period of time, cannot be found fault with by this Court since the same pertains to internal democracy of the society and the Directors have chosen who to appoint as a Secretary.

¶79

The petitioner having raised a grievance by way of a dispute, the said dispute pending, all these issues would be decided by the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Soecities-Respondent No.1 on the basis of the evidence which may be placed on record.

¶80

The last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that serious allegations have been made against respondent No.3 in the letter of the Assistant

¶81

13 -

¶82

WP No. 8633 of 2017

¶83

Registrar to the Joint Registrar. The letter by itself cannot result or lead to a conclusion that the allegations are proved. These aspects are seized of by the Joint Registrar who is consider it in the dispute pending before him.

¶84

Considering that the matter is pending for a long time, appropriate directions for expeditious disposal of the matter would have to be given. As such, I pass the following:

¶85

ORDER

¶86

i. The Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶87

ii. Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies – respondent No.1 is directed to complete and conclude the proceedings pending before him relating to the above matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶88

Sd/JUDGE

¶89

PRS

¶90

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Sri Praveen Kumar v. Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Praveen Kumar v. Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

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

Sri Srinivas Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ramesh Kumar Tainwala Vs the Commissioner

Mrs Mary Thannickal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Malaprabha Sahakari Vs the Commissioner of Cane Development

Suvarnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Rathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka