Allowed

Prakash S/O Ramchandra Deshpande v. the Deputy Registrar

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2024WP/107921/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, office bearers and directors of a co-operative society whose bye-law amendment had been approved by the Deputy Registrar, challenged initiation of proceedings on a member's complaint alleging forgery. The court held such proceedings were untenable where the amendment was unchallenged in appeal, quashed the order dismissing their maintainability application.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order dated 18.07.2014 passed by the Deputy Registrar (Annexure-A) quashed, liberty left for authorities to act on genuine irregularities in accordance with law.

Prakash S/O Ramchandra Deshpande Vs the Deputy… — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14987 WP No. 107921 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.107921 OF 2014 (CS-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

PRAKASH

¶10

S/O. RAMCHANDRA DESHPANDE, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: PRESS REPORTER, R/O: KHANAPUR, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶11

SHRI LIYAKHAT S/O. NAJEERAHAMAD KITTUR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: KHANAPUR, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶12

Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SHRI PRATAPRAO S/O. NILAKANTRAO SIRDESAI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KHANAPUR, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶14

SHRI NINGAPPA S/O. IRAPPA KODOLI, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O: KHANAPUR, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶15

SHRI HINDURAO S/O. NARAYAN DESAI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶16

SHRI DILIP S/O. VAMAN PAWAR, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER, R/O: KHANAPUR, TQ: KHANAPUR,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14987 WP No. 107921 of 2014

¶19

DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶20

SHRI PRAKASH S/O. SHIVAJI JORAPUR, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: KHANAPUR, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶21

SHRI HANAMANT S/O. LAXMAN HATTIKAR, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: KHANAPUR, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶22

SHRI SHAMARAO S/O. KALLOJIRAO PATIL, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: KHANAPUR, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶23

SHRI CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O. VAMAN SHETTY, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: KHANAPUR, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶24

SHRI VISHWAS S/O. MALLAPPA PATIL, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: KHANAPUR, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶25

SMT. NEETA W/O. VIJAY KAGATI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KHANAPUR, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶26

SHRI BHAURAO S/O. BABAJI CHAVAN, AGE: 41 YEARS,

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14987 WP No. 107921 of 2014

¶28

OCC: SECRETARY OF THE SOCIETY, R/O: KHANAPUR, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶29

…PETITIONERS

¶30

(BY SRI SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶33

SHRI JAYANT S/O. MUKUNDH TINEKAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: EKDANT 34 WAGALE GALLI, KHANAPUR, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶34

SRI BHAGYALAXMI MULTIPURPOSE CO – OPERATIVE, SOCIETY, KHANAPUR, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/ CHIEF EXECUTIVE.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; SRI RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.07.2014 IN NO.D.R.L./R.S.R./CR-270/2011-12 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14987 WP No. 107921 of 2014

¶41

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶42

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶43

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

¶44

The present writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 18.07.2014 bearing No.DRL/RSR/CR-270/2011-12 passed by the 1^st respondent (Annexure-A).

¶45

The relevant facts necessary for

¶46

consideration of the present petition are that the petitioners 1 and 2 are the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, and petitioners 3 to 12 are the Board of Directors of the 3^rd respondent-Society. The petitioner No.13 is the Joint Secretary of the said society. It is the case of the petitioners that in the General Body Meeting of the 3^rd respondent-Society held on 24.09.2011, a unanimous resolution was passed to convert the said society, which was earlier a Credit Co-operative Society, into a MultiPurpose Co-operative Society. Accordingly, the resolution was passed to the said effect and the same was confirmed in the next General Body Meeting held on 28.09.2012.

¶47

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14987 WP No. 107921 of 2014

¶48

It is further case of the petitioners that officials of the Department of the 1^st respondent were also present in the meeting held on 24.09.2011 who have sent their report to the Government. That pursuant to the resolution passed in the meeting held on 24.09.2011, the bye-laws of the 3^rd respondent-Society was amended and the 1^st respondent-Deputy Registrar accorded permission vide order dated 21.10.2011 for the same and requisite certificates were also issued.

¶49

Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent, who is a nominal member of the 3^rd respondent-Society, made a representation dated 26.09.2012 (Annexure-C) to the 1^st respondent-Deputy Registrar to withdraw the permission for amendment of the bye-laws. Pursuant to the said representation, the 1^st respondent issued notice dated 19.10.2012 (Annexure-D) to the 3^rd respondent-Society and its members, which was responded to by the petitioners by reply (Annexure-D1). Thereafter, the 1^st respondent by order dated 19.12.2012 (Annexure-E)

¶50

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14987 WP No. 107921 of 2014

¶51

ordered for grant of sanction for criminal prosecution against the petitioners. The said order dated 19.12.2012 was challenged by the petitioners in an appeal filed under Section 106(1)(b) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959¹ . The appellate authority, by order dated 07.01.2013 (Annexure-F), set aside the order passed by the 1^st respondent and remanded the matter to the 1^st respondent for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Consequent to the remand, the petitioners filed an application before the 1^st respondent contending that the proceedings are not maintainable under Section 111(2)(b) of the Act. The 1^st respondent by order dated 18.07.2014 dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed.

¶52

Heard submissions of Sri. Shivaraj P Mudhol, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Shivaprabhu Hiremath, the learned AGA for the 1^st

¶53

1 Hereinafter referred to as “the Act”

¶54

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14987 WP No. 107921 of 2014

¶55

respondent and Sri. Rajashekhar Burji, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent-Society.

¶56

The learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶57

assailing the order passed by the 1^st respondent, submits that the order approving the amendment of the bye-laws of the Society under Section 12 of the Act is an appealable one under Section 106(1)(b) of the Act. That, the 2^nd respondent, if he is aggrieved by the said order, is required to pursue the appeal remedy as provided under the Act. It is further contended that under Section 111 of the Act, proceedings could not be initiated by the 1^st respondent in view of the fact that the allegations made by the 2^nd respondent in the complaint have not been, in any manner, demonstrated/proved. It is further contended that although various allegations are made that the signatures of certain members, who were not present, have been put in the resolution approving the amendment, there is no material placed on record to demonstrate the same. It is further contended that the government

¶58

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14987 WP No. 107921 of 2014

¶59

officials, under the Act, were present in the meeting of the society and the members whose signatures were allegedly put in the resolution have not lodged any complaint regarding the action of the petitioners. Hence, he seeks for allowing the petition.

¶60

The learned counsel for the 3^rd

¶61

respondent-Society supports the case of the petitioners. However, the learned AGA for the 1^st respondent justifies the order passed by the 1^st respondent and seeks for dismissal of the writ petition, contending that if there is no wrong doing on behalf of the petitioners, there is no impediment for the petitioners to face the proceedings initiated by the 1^st respondent.

¶62

The submissions of the learned counsel

¶63

have been considered and the materials on record have been perused. Admittedly, the amendment made to the bye-laws of the 3^rd respondent-Society has been passed in the meeting of the society, which has also been registered and requisite certificate as prescribed under the Act

¶64

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14987 WP No. 107921 of 2014

¶65

pursuant to the said amendment has been issued. The 2^nd respondent, by his complaint dated 26.09.2012 (Annexure-C), has alleged that many signatures are forged in the minutes of the meeting of the 3^rd respondent-Society. The persons, whose signatures have been allegedly forged, have not lodged any complaint against the amendment. Further, the 2^nd respondent has not filed any appeal challenging the amendment in terms of Section 106(1)(b) of the Act alleging any irregularity in the procedure adopted for the amendment of the byelaws.

¶66

Although various allegations have been

¶67

made, the same cannot form the basis for the 1^st respondent, in any manner, to review/reopen the permission accorded for the amendment once the said amendment has been approved in terms of the provisions of the Act. The allegations that are set out in the complaint lodged by the 2^nd respondent (Annexure-C) are mere allegations and no other material has been produced

¶68

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14987 WP No. 107921 of 2014

¶69

in that regard. The 2^nd respondent also remained unrepresented before this Court. The status of the 2^nd respondent as is forthcoming from the complaint (Annexure-C) as well as the reasoning adopted by the 1^st respondent in its order dated 18.07.2014 clearly demonstrate that certain section of members are seeking to agitate various aspects/issues pertaining to the 3^rd respondent-Society. However, the course of action adopted by the 1^st respondent in entertaining the complaint of the 2^nd respondent in proceedings under Section 111 of the Act are erroneous in the absence of any challenge made in terms of Section 106(1)(b) of the Act.

¶70

Section 111 of the Act provides for

¶71

cognizance of the offences and Section 111(2) pertains to obtaining of sanction. The said provision is a general one for initiation of prosecution under the provisions of the Act.

¶72

In view of the aforementioned, the relief

¶73

sought for by the petitioners in the present writ petition is liable to be granted.

¶74

11 -

¶75

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14987 WP No. 107921 of 2014

¶76

Hence, the following:

¶77

ORDER

¶78

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶79

ii) The order dated 18.07.2014 bearing No.DRL/RSR/CR-270/2011-12 passed by the 1^st respondent (Annexure-A) is quashed.

¶80

iii) In the event of any irregularities being complained in respect of the 3^rd respondentSociety, it shall be open for the statutory authorities to take necessary action in accordance with law and this order shall not come in the way of the same.

¶81

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶82

YAN/CT-ASC, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Prakash S/O Ramchandra Deshpande v. the Deputy Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash S/O Ramchandra Deshpande v. the Deputy Registrar

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

Gejjahalli Bhasha Sab Vs Sayed Shah Mahmud Qadri

Elish S/O. Fransis Goudellar Vs Rt. Rev. R.J. Niranjan

Smt. Suvarna Vs Shri. Appasaheb

Baiju S/O Chandru Gavali Vs Shri Tukaram Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Sri Shatasthala Brahma Channabasaveshwara Shivacharya Swamigalu Gangibhavi Vs Sri Gangibhavi Sukshetra Matha

Sri Shatasthala Brahma Channabasaveshwara Shivacharya Swamigalu Gangibhavi Vs Sri Gangibhavi Sukshetra Matha