Allowed

Sri. Prasanna C v. the Deputy Registrar of Co. Op Societies

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2024WP/6561/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners co-opted into a society's executive committee sought copies of documents relied on in a pending Section 26 Karnataka Societies Registration Act enquiry. The registrar had granted copies but later recalled that order. The court set aside the recall order and directed furnishing of documents, with the enquiry to conclude within six months.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 19.02.2020 quashed; respondent No.1 to furnish documents per its order dated 16.01.2020; pending enquiry to conclude within six months.

Sri. Prasanna C Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co. Op… — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:31379 WP No. 6561 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6561 OF 2020 (GM-KSR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. PRASANNA C., S/O LATE A. CHANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.899/1063, JAYALAKSHMI VILAS, 8^TH B CROSS, 1^ST E MAIN, SAIMANDIRA ROAD, GIRINAGAR, 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶9

SRI. LAKSHMAN M., S/O LATE MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.680, 2^ND CROSS, 7^TH MAIN, HOSAKEREHALLI CROSS, BSK III STGAE, BENGALURU-560 085.

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

PRAKASH N.S., S/O LATE N.S. SATHYANARAYANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT N.108/D, 7^TH CROSS, 7^TH A MAIN, THYAGARAJANAGAR, 3^RD BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 028.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. P ANAND.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OP SOCIETIES AND DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, BENGALURU, II CIRCLE, "SAHAKARA SOUDHA" NO.146, 8^TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31379 WP No. 6561 of 2020

¶17

ENQUIRY OFFICER SRINAGAR ASSOCIATION ® AND SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP SOCIETIES, II CIRCLE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 085.

¶18

SRINAGAR ASSOCIATION ® SRINAGAR, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER R/AT NO.3325, 3326, OLD NO.373, 80 FEET MAIN ROAD, GIRINAGAR, 4^TH STAGE, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU-560 085.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 & R2 SRI. G.V. SHASHIKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE INTERIM ORDER DATED:19.02.2020 IN SURCHARGE CASE NO.DRB-2/SOR/SU/01/2018-19 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1, VIDE ANNEXURE - E AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The only grievance of the petitioners who claim themselves to have been co-opted with the executive committee of the respondent No.3-Society is that in a proceeding initiated by the respondent-authority under Section 26 of the Karnataka Society Registration Act, 1960, which is still pending consideration, they have not

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:31379 WP No. 6561 of 2020

¶28

been furnished with certain documents which they had sought for.

¶29

Sri.P.Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the order sheet maintained by the respondent No.1 more particularly order dated 16.01.2020 and order dated 19.02.2020 submits that the respondent No.1 on 16.01.2020 had indeed accepted the plea of the petitioner and had directed furnishing of the copies as sought for by them. However, the respondent No.1 has recalled the said order subsequently on 19.02.2020 on the premise that the documents sought for by the petitioners have been relied upon in a report submitted by the respondent No.2 as such he has opined that the petitioners were not entitled for the documents sought for. It is this order which is called in question.

¶30

Sri.G.V.Shashikumar, learned counsel for the

¶31

appearing for the respondent No.3 drawing attention of this Court to the order of the Enquiry Officer produced at

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31379 WP No. 6561 of 2020

¶33

Annexure-A, submits that the petitioners herein have filed their statement of objections to the proceedings and as such they cannot cry of they having been deprived of an opportunity to participate in the proceedings. He submits that the documents sought for have already been reflected in the report submitted by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.1 and the petitioners can avail the contents

¶34

of the same in furtherance to the statement of objections

¶35

filed by them. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶36

4. Heard and perused the records.

¶37

5. Order dated 16.01.2020 read as under:

¶38

''ಪ�ಕರಣದ ��ಾರ�ೆ�ೆ ಸಂ�ೆ�ಯ ಪರ�ಾ� ವ�ವ�ಾ�ಪಕ�ಾದ ��ೕ ಕೃಷ�ಮೂ� !ಾಗೂ 1 #ೇಪ��ಾ$ಪರವ%ೕಲರು 6 #ೇಪ��ಾ$!ಾಜ)ರುಾ+�ೆ . ಪ��ಾ$ 7,10,11 & 12 ಪರ ವ%ೕಲರುಅ- ಸ./0 1ಾಖ3ಾ�ಗಳನು6 7ೕಡಲು ಮನ� 9ಾ:ರುಾ+�ೆ . 1ಾಖ3ಾ�ಗಳನು6 7ಡಲುಸೂ;0 $#ಾಂಕ 03-02-2020 ರಂದುಮ1ಾ�ಹ6 3.00 ಘಂ>ೆ�ೆ ಮುಂದೂ:1ೆ .''

¶39

6. Order dated 19.02.2020 read as under:

¶40

''ಪ�ಕರಣದ��ಾರ�ೆ�ೆ ಸಂ�ೆ�ಯಪರವ%ೕಲರು , ಪ��ಾ$ 2,35,6,8& 9 ಪರ ವ%ೕಲರು ಮತು+ಪ��ಾ$ 7,10,11 & 12 ರ ಪರ ವ%ೕಲರು !ಾಜ)ರು*ಾ+�ೆ .

¶41

ಪ�ಕರಣವ@ ��ಾರ�ಾ ವರ$ಯAೕ3ೆ ಕಲಂ 26 ರಅBCಾರಅ- ಯ Aೕ.ನ ��ಾರ�ೆDಾ�ದುE ಈ�ಾಗ3ೇ ��ಾರ�ಾ ಸಮಯದ./

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31379 WP No. 6561 of 2020

¶43

��ಾ�ಾ�ಾBGಾ)ಗಳH ಈ�ಾಗ3ೇ 1ಾಖ3ಾ�ಗಳನು6 7ೕ: ��ಾರ�ಾ ವರBಯನು6 ಪIೆ$ರುವ@ದ)ಂದ$#ಾಂಕ 16-01-2020 ರಂದು ಪ��ಾ$ 7,10,11 & 12 ರ ಪರ ವ%ೕಲರು7ೕ:ರುವ ಪತ�ದ./ �J0ರುವ 1ಾಖ3ಾ�ಗಳH ��ಾರ�ಾ ವರBಯ./ರುವ@ದ)ಂದ ಮೊ+AK7ೕಡುವ ಅವಶ�ಕೆ ಇರುವ@$ಲ/�ೆಂದು ಪ)ಗN0 ಸದ)ಯವರ ಅ- ಯನು6 ಮುGಾ+ಯ�ೊJ01ೆ .

¶44

!ಾಗೂ ಪ��ಾ$ 2,3,5,6,8& 9 ರ ಪರ ವ%ೕಲರುತಮKಆPೇಪ�ೆಯನು6 ಸ./0ರು*ಾ+�ೆ . ಆPೇಪ�ೆ ಸ./ಸಲು ಅವGಾಶ7ೕ:$#ಾಂಕ 25-02-2020 ರಂದುಮ1ಾ�ಹ6 3.00 ಘಂ>ೆ�ೆ ಮುಂದೂ:1ೆ.''

¶45

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for

¶46

the petitioner when the respondent No.1 had made up his

¶47

mind to grant the prayer of the petitioners by furnishing

¶48

the documents as sought for, the reasons assigned to recall the said orders cannot be countenanced. Merely because of the documents sought for by the petitioners find mention in the report submitted by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.1 the same could not disentitle

¶49

the petitioners, benefit of the documents inasmuch as the petitioners may have their context of presenting the said documents. Principle of natural justice would be met if the Order dated 16.01.2020 passed by the very same respondent No.1 are complied with.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:31379 WP No. 6561 of 2020

¶52

In that view of the matter, the petition succeeds. Order dated 19.02.2020 is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to ensure furnishing of the documents as directed by him in his own order dated 16.01.2020 by the next date of hearing.

¶53

Since the enquiry is pending, the respondentauthority shall proceed and conclude the enquiry within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶54

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶55

Sri. Prasanna C v. the Deputy Registrar of Co. Op Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Prasanna C v. the Deputy Registrar of Co. Op 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. v. Gopalappa Vs the State of Karnataka

R. Krishna Murthy Vs M Manohar

Smt Padma Vs the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Mrs Anitha N Vs Mrs N Sunanda Bai

Sri. Prakash Vs Sri. Muniyappa

Athrijalu Sree Mahalingeshwara Temple Vs the State of Karnataka