IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA W.P.No.42188 OF 2017 (CS-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. DODDAMMA W/O HUCHA HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O MADALU VILLAGE, YAGATI HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALORE DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI R.C.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING FEDERATION, NO.3, CARIYAPPA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560 004.
3. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, TARIKERE SUB-DIVISION, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALORE DISTRICT-577 228.
4. THE SECRETARY, KADUR GRUAHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA, KADUR, CHIKMAGALORE DISTRICT- 577 548.
5. SRI. M.H.HUCHAHANUMAIAH S/O HANUMAIAH, AGED 52 YEARS, EX-SECRETARY, KADUR GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA, KADUR, CHIKMAGALORE DISTRICT-577 548.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.K.BHASKARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2;
SRI A.K.VASANTH, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 25.07.2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL NO.473/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner herein is the wife of fifth respondent - Sri. M.H.Huchchahanumaiah, admittedly, who was working as a Secretary of fourth respondent namely, Kadur Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Kadur.
2. It is seen that, while conducting the audit of the fourth respondent/Sahakara Sangha, certain observations have been made by the auditors that during the period when the fifth respondent was working as a Secretary of fourth respondent, certain misappropriations have taken place, which is to the tune of Rs.6,01,018/-. In an enquiry conducted under Section 64 of Karnataka Co-operative Society Act, 1959, it is confirmed that the amount which was misappropriated by fifth respondent is to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-. Thereafter, it is stated that the third respondent herein namely, Assistant Registrar of Co- Operative Societies, Tarikere, Sub-division by initiating proceedings in SANI.27/ABS/DLS/2005-06, has passed a restrain order restraining the petitioner and her husband/fifth respondent from encumbering any of the properties referred at item Nos.1 to 6 in the schedule appended to the aforesaid order, which is at Annexure-G in this petition.
3. The said order of attachment was subject matter of challenge before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in appeal No.473/2010 and the same came to be dismissed by judgment dated 25.07.2017 and the said judgment is sought to be challenged in this petition by the petitioner.
4. In these proceedings, notice is already taken for respondent Nos.1 and 3 by Sri. A.K.Vasanth, learned Government Advocate, Sri M.K.Bhaskaraiah, learned counsel has filed vakalath on behalf of respondent No.2 and respondent No.4 has remained ex- parte.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as respondents. Perused the order impugned passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies/third respondent, and also judgment rendered by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal confirming the restrained order passed against the petitioner.
6. On going through the restrain order passed by the third respondent, it is clearly seen that though, the petitioner herein is the registered owner of three items of the properties referred to in the schedule at Annexure-G, the said properties are acquired by her under three different sale deeds when her husband-fifth respondent in these proceedings was functioning as Secretary in fourth respondent – Sahakara Sangha and it is also seen that in all the three sale deeds, which were executed in her favour do not indicate that she has paid the sale consideration from out of her personal income and it is contended that the source is not being explained and when it is enquired with reference to income of her husband who is fifth respondent, it is found that the sale consideration is being in excess of the income of the said person also and in that background prima facie it can be presumed that all these properties were acquired by fifth respondent in the name of his wife/petitioner herein by misappropriating the funds of fourth respondent during the period, when he was working as Secretary of fourth respondent.
7. It is in this background, attachment order was passed by the Assistant Registrar/third respondent and subsequently, the said order was confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal vide Annexure-A.
8. On going through these two orders, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said orders do not call for any interference by this Court.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ