The Gangolli Pry. Fishermen'S Co-Operative Society Limited Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:30766 WP No. 8118 of 2019

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 8118 OF 2019 (CS-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE GANGOLLI PRY. FISHERMEN'S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.L 404, GANGOLLI-576 216 UDUPI DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND MANAGER SRI. MOHAN KHARVI, S/O LATE RAMA KHARVI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

¶14

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO.OP. SOCIETIES KUNDAPURA SUB-DIVISION, KUNDAPURA-576 201

¶15

THE SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE WELFARE COMMITTEE, KUNDAPURA TALUK-576201 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, TAHASILDAR, KUNDAPURA

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

,

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:30766 WP No. 8118 of 2019

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

(BY SRI. S.R.KHAMROZ KHAN, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; SRI. A.C.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE 2^ND RESPONDENT WHICH UNTIMATELY RESULTED IN ISSUING IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED 04.02.2019 MADE IN NO.SANI.38/RSR/S-2/16/FCS/18-19 BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO AMEND CHAPTER VI OF ITS BYELAWS REGARDING ELIGIBILITY TO BECOME 'A' CATEGORY MEMBER AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE ‘A’ DATED 04.02.2019 MADE IN NO.SANI.38/RSR/S-2/16/FCS/18-19 BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO AMEND CHAPTER VI OF ITS BYELAWS REGARDING ELIGIBILITY TO BECOME ‘A’ CATEGORY MEMBER AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.¸À¤38/DgïJ¸ïDgï/J¸ï-2/16/J¥sï¹J¸ï/18-19 dated 04.02.2019

¶27

passed by the respondent No.2 purportedly under Section 12(5) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, ‘the Act, 1959’).

¶28

,

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:30766 WP No. 8118 of 2019

¶30

3 -

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

The petitioner is a co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Act, 1959. Its bye-laws provides for four categories of members and also prescribes the eligibility and the procedure to be followed for admission as a member of the Society. The petitioner claims that its objective is to assist the traditional fishermen and their families financially and also to educate them about the new technologies for fishing. The respondent No.3 at a meeting held on 11.12.2018, discussed the issue regarding providing ‘A’ category membership to persons belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in fishermen co-operative societies. At the said meeting, it was resolved to find out as to how many persons belonging to Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes were given ‘A’ category membership in the fishermen cooperative Societies. Following the said meeting, respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 13.12.2018 directing the petitioner to admit persons belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes as ‘A’ category members and wherever they are admitted in ‘B’ category, to transpose them as ‘A’ category members. In response to the above, the petitioner informed respondent No.2 vide letter dated 08.01.2019 that it is only the traditional

¶33

,

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:30766 WP No. 8118 of 2019

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

fishermen and their families, who are eligible to be admitted as ‘A’ category members as ‘B’ category members are persons who are in the trade and who use motor boats/mechanical means. It was also stated that no persons belonging to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes had filed any application seeking membership of the ‘A’ category and in respect of those scheduled castes and scheduled tribe persons, who were admitted as ‘B’ category, their transposition as ‘A’ category members would be considered in due course. Following the above, the respondent No.2 issued the impugned order under sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act, 1959 directing the petitioner - Society to drop the words "¥ÀgÀA¥ÀgÁUÀvÀgÁV ¸ÀévÀB «ÄÃ£ÀÄ

¶38

»rAiÀÄÄªÀ" (traditional fishermen) in its bye-laws and thereby brought category ‘A’ members and category ‘B’ members on par.

¶39

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the bye-laws of the petitioner, there are 4 categories of members. The ‘A’ category members are those members who

¶41

,

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30766 WP No. 8118 of 2019

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

are residing within the limits of the petitioner for a minimum period of 18 years and who have adopted fishing as a means of livelihood and who have been carrying on the activity from a long time. While ‘B’ category members are those who use mechanical means for fishing which includes fishermen doing business in buying and selling fish, commission agents etc. while ‘C’ category members are the members of the State Government and ‘D’ category members are nominal members. He contends that the respondent No.2 by issuing the impugned order had wiped out the distinction between ‘A’ Category members and ‘B’ Category members. He further contends that respondent No.2 was bound to direct the petitioner to place these directions before its general body of the petitioner for a decision. However, he has straightway directed the petitioner to drop the words "¥ÀgÀA¥ÀgÁUÀvÀgÁV ¸ÀévÀB «ÄÃ£ÀÄ »rAiÀÄÄªÀ"

¶45

(traditional fishermen) in the bye-laws of the petitioner – Society. This he contends violates sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act, 1959 and is therefore, liable to be set at naught.

¶46

Learned Additional Government Advocate on the

¶47

other hand submitted that the intention of the respondent No.2

¶48

,

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30766 WP No. 8118 of 2019

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

to direct the petitioner to drop the words "¥ÀgÀA¥ÀgÁUÀvÀgÁV ¸ÀévÀB

¶52

«ÄÃ£ÀÄ »rAiÀÄÄªÀ" (traditional fishermen) in its bye-laws was to

¶53

bring about parity in both the categories i.e. Category ‘A’ and Category ‘B’ of members and also to ensure that people belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are admitted in the ‘A’ category. He submitted that the impugned order is passed so that the benefits of the Act, 1959 are made available to people belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

¶54

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶55

A perusal of sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act, 1959 leaves no doubt that respondent No.2 is entitled to direct an amendment of the bye-laws of the co-operative Society, if it is necessary to give effect to the provisions of the Act, 1959 or the Rules made thereunder. However, this does not empower the respondent No.2 to direct the petitioner - Society to make any amendment proposed by him. The respondent No.2 is bound in law to direct the petitioner to

¶56

,

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:30766 WP No. 8118 of 2019

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

amend the bye-laws, only in such manner as is prescribed under the Act, 1959. The only way for amendment of a byelaw for a co-operative Society is through circulating the amendment to all the members of the Society as provided in Rule 6 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (for short, 'the Rules, 1960'). Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 directing the petitioner to amend the bye-laws as suggested by him violates sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act, 1959 as well as the Rules, 1960.

¶61

In that view of the matter, without going into the merits of the need to amend the bye-laws as suggested by the respondent No.2, this writ petition is disposed off setting aside the impugned order bearing No.¸À¤38/DgïJ¸ïDgï/J¸ï2/16/J¥sï¹J¸ï/18-19 dated 04.02.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 in part in so far as it relates to directing the petitioner - Society to amend its bye-laws. However, having regard to the tenor of sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act, 1959, it is appropriate to direct the petitioner to place the amendment before the General Body of the petitioner and take a suitable decision. It is needless to mention that in case if the general

¶62

,

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:30766 WP No. 8118 of 2019

¶64

8 -

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

body of the petitioner – Society decides against accepting the recommendation made by the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 is entitled to exercise power under sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 in

¶67

accordance with law.

¶68

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶69

SMA

¶70

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

¶71

,

The Gangolli Pry. Fishermen'S Co-Operative Society Limited v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Gangolli Pry. Fishermen'S Co-Operative Society Limited v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shree Marikamba Devasthanagala Vyavasthapaka Committee Vs State of Karnataka

Amitabh Sinha Vs the Secretary

Mysore Sales International Limited Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Sharan Desai Vs the Principal Secretary to Government

Sogalapalya Milk Producers Co. -Operative Society Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

H K Sadashiva Vs the Registrar of Co. Operative Societies