Disposed

Basappa S/O Mallappa Mantur v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2024WP/105332/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspended CEO of a primary agricultural co-operative society challenged his suspension and interim appointments as CEO. The court held suspension pending enquiry is not a punishable order, no malice or abuse shown, and directed the petitioner to exhaust the alternative remedy under the Co-operative Societies Act.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed as not maintainable; liberty to avail remedy under Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act; interim relief application under Section 71(3) to be considered if dispute raised within one

Basappa S/O Mallappa Mantur Vs the State of Karnataka — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12855 WP No. 105332 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.105332 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

BASAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA MANTUR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: CEO, PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGA NIYAMITA, SHIRAGUPPI, (NOW UNDER SUSPENSION UNDER THE IMPUGNED ORDER) R/O: SHIRAGUPPI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 301.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI GIRISH A.YADAWAD, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,

¶15

M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, JAMKHANDI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 101.

¶17

THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT,

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12855 WP No. 105332 of 2024

¶19

PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA, SHIRAGUPPI, REPRESENTD BY ITS PRESIDENT, SHIRAGUPPI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 301.

¶20

PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGA NIYAMITA SHIRAGUPPI, REPRESENTED BY ITS ALLEGED PRESENT CEO, R/O: SHIRAGUPPI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 301.

¶21

PRAKASH NINGAPPA NYAMAGOUDA, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: ALLEGED PRESENT CEO OF PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA, SHIRAGUPPI, R/O: SHIRAGUPPI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 301.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 & 2)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.07.2024 BEARING � � � � �� �� �� VIDE ANNEXURE-K, THE ORDER DATED 12.08.2024 BEARING � � � � �� �� �� VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND ORDER DATED 23.08.2024 BEARING � � � � �� �� . VIDE ANNEXURE-M, ALL PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12855 WP No. 105332 of 2024

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Writ petition is field challenging orders dated 31.07.2024 at Annexure-K, dated 12.08.2024 at Annexure-L and dated 23.08.2024 at Annexure-M, issued by respondent no.3.

¶29

Sri Girish A.Yadawad, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that, petitioner was working as Chief Executive Officer of respondent no.4-Society. Said Society being Agricultural Primary Co-operative Society is an assisted Society. It was submitted that, petitioner was serving in that capacity honestly and to satisfaction of Managing Committee. However, petitioner received a showcause notice dated 15.07.2024 as per Annexure-G calling for explanation on certain irregularities. It was submitted, when petitioner intended to file reply in person, same was not received. Therefore, petitioner dispatched same by registered post acknowledgement due, received as per Annexures-H and J. It was submitted, though Annexure-J would indicated that reply was received on 03.08.2024, order dated 31.07.2024 at Annexure-M came to be passed

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12855 WP No. 105332 of 2024

¶31

appointing one Satteppa Mallappa Patil as Chief Executive Officer of respondent no.4-Society temporarily. Later on 12.08.2024, another order was passed at Annexure-L stating that Satteppa Mallappa Patil had not shown interest and taken up appointment and therefore one Prakash Ningappa Nyamagouda was being appointed temporarily as Chief Executive Officer.

¶32

It was submitted on 23.08.2024, respondent no.3 passed an order placing petitioner on suspension pending enquiry. It was submitted, in all impugned orders, it was consistently noted that petitioner had failed to submit reply to show-cause notice at Annexure-G, contrary to fact that petitioner had in fact submitted reply as per Annexures-H and J. Therefore, same suffered from vice of non-application of mind.

¶33

Learned counsel candidly submitted that though impugned order would be subject matter of dispute, fact that orders suffered apparent non-application of mind had prompted petitioner to approach this Court directly and mere

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12855 WP No. 105332 of 2024

¶35

availability of alternative remedy under present

¶36

circumstances not bar availing extraordinary jurisdiction.

¶37

On other hand, Sri P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents no.1 and 2 on advance notice sought to oppose writ petition. It was submitted, since petitioner was having efficacious alternative remedy of raising dispute and seeking interim orders therein, directly approaching High Court was not justified. Departmental proceedings have been initiated against petitioner and he was placed under suspension invoking power under provisions of Co-Operative Societies Act which was in accordance with law and did not call for any interference.

¶38

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.

¶39

From above, only point that would require examination would be, whether petitioner has made out any case for overlooking principle of non exhaustion of alternative remedy before filing writ petition.

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12855 WP No. 105332 of 2024

¶41

Sequence of events i.e., passage of orders at

¶42

Annexures-K, L and M would indeed indicate that even prior to passing orders placing petitioner on suspension, respondent no.4 had resorted to appointing some other person temporarily as Chief Executive Officer, in place of petitioner. Though same would be questionable, fact that, at present order at Annexure-M has been passed placing petitioner under suspension pending enquiry and order of suspension by itself would not be an order of punishment of which petitioner could claim to be aggrieved of, unless there is manifest case of abuse of power or malafide or order of suspension being passed by incompetent person/authority. In this case, prima facie said grounds are not demonstrated to exist. It is seen that petitioner is alleged to have committed misconduct, suspected to be involved in misappropriation of about Rs.40,00,000/-, which would be a question of fact and for which alternative remedy of dispute would be appropriate.

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12855 WP No. 105332 of 2024

¶44

In view of above, I hold my hand from exercising judicial review of impugned order, before petitioner exhausts alternative remedy.

¶45

In view of said reasoning, writ petition stands disposed of as not maintainable reserving liberty to petitioner, to avail alternative remedy under provisions of Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act. In case, dispute is raised within a period of one month from today, Registrar or Authorized officer shall consider petitioner’s application, if any, filed under Section 71(3) of Co-Operative Societies Act for interim order and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously.

¶46

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶47

EM CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Basappa S/O Mallappa Mantur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basappa S/O Mallappa Mantur 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

Archana W/O Fakirappa Naik Alias Naikar Vs Fakeerappa S/O Bheemappa Naik Alias Naikar

Dr Kiran R Naik Son of Rudra Naik Vs State of Karnataka

Sagar S/O. Parashuram Otari Alias Vatare Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath S/O Rudrgouda Patil Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Malharu Urf Vilas S/O Ganesh Dixit Vs Smt. Aparna W/O Malhari Dixit

Mr Gopalkrishna S/O Narayan Mangalarti Vs Mr. Narsinha S/O Krishanappa Mangalari