IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.No.34205/2017 (CS-RES) BETWEEN BHADRA SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITHA, DODDABATHI, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 566, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN. ... PETITIONER (By Sri VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001.
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER & ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (RULE 441), DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD, DAVANAGERE 577 006.
3. THE SALE OFFICER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT CENTRAL, CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD, DAVANAGERE 577 006. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri A.MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADV. FOR R2, R3; Sri M.A.SUBRAMANI, HCGP FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER VIDE ANNEX-H DT.17.7.2017 PASSED BY THE R-1 AUTHORITY IN R.P.NO.CO 5 CAP 2017 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondent No.1. Sri A.Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel undertakes to appear for respondents 2 and 3.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the order dated 17.07.2017 passed by 1st respondent – State Government, Department of Co- operation. Said order is produced at Annexure-H. It is necessary to extract the order passed on 17.07.2017 by the State Government which reads as under:
Objections to the impleading application filed by advocate for respondents 1 and 2 and also objections on the main revision petition. He says that this Court has not taken up suo moto proceedings. It is taken up only on the application of the revision petitioner and hence, it cannot be said that suo moto this authority has taken up the proceedings, maintainability of the R.P. may be decided first and then impleading application be decided.
Posted for orders”
3. Grievance of petitioner is that without considering the application filed for impleading the financiers of petitioner – Factory and the KIADB and without passing any order on the same, the matter has been posted for orders on the merits of the revision petition.
4. It is urged by Sri Virupakshaiah P.H., learned counsel appearing for petitioner that 1st respondent is in a hurry to pass the order without following due procedure of first hearing the application filed for impleading and then, if the proposed respondents are found proper and necessary parties, to allow them to come on record and thereafter by providing an opportunity to them to have their say in the matter, decide the case on merits.
5. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the writ petition is premature. Petitioner has rushed to this Court without waiting for the orders to be passed in the matter; that the 1st respondent cannot be prevented from discharging his quasi judicial functions by issuing a direction not to proceed in the matter further.
6. I see considerable force in the contention urged by learned counsel for respondents. If the apprehension of petitioner is that the authority is likely to commit an error in not following due procedure, the same will emerge only after the order is pronounced. Petitioner will be in a better position to appreciate as to whether the impleading application was considered along with the main matter or prayer made in the impleading application was ignored while deciding main matter. At this stage, it would be premature to interfere with the proceeding initiated by 1st respondent.
7. Therefore, keeping open all contentions of petitioner and respondents, this writ petition is disposed of declining to interfere at this stage. Contention urged by learned counsel for petitioner that direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.20763/2017 is also ignored in posting the matter for orders could also be urged after the orders are passed if the decision goes against the petitioner.
8. Learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance for respondent No.1 within three weeks. Sri A.Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel is permitted to file vakalath for respondents 2 and 3 within three weeks.
Sd/- JUDGE VP