IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO.40682/2019 (CS-EL/M) BETWEEN:
MARADEVANAHALLI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., MARADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE AATHAGURU HOBLI MADDURU TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 434.
(BY SRI. SANDESH T.B, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION M.S. BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 01 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.
2. THE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY 3RD FLOOR, T.T.M.C. ‘A’ BLOCK SHANTHI NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.
... PETITIONER 4. THE MANDYA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LTD., GEJJALAGERE MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
5. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AND NODAL OFFICER THE MANDYA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LTD., GEJJALAGERE MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.C. KAVITHA, HCGP FOR R-1, R-3, R-4 & R-5; SRI. G.V. SHASHIKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-3 CONSIDER THE DELEGATION OF THE PETITIONER SOCIETY IN THE ELECTION OF THE R-4 WHICH IS SCHEDULED TO BE HELD ON 08.09.2019.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri.Sandesh T.B., learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Smt. H.C. Kavitha, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5 and Sri.
G.V. Shashikumar, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2.
2. Delegation forwarded by petitioner’s society to the fourth respondent has not been accepted by the Returning Officer and as such petitioner is seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct third respondent to consider the delegation of petitioner/Society for the elections being held to fourth respondent on 08.09.2019.
3. Petitioner, The Maradevanahalli Milk Producers Co-Op. Society Ltd., (primary society) is a Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and in the elections held to the Board of directors on 06.01.2019, out of 13 posts only 9 members were elected and posts reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and OBC have remained unfilled due to lack of participation. In other words, said members have not been filled up. In this factual position, petitioner’s society in its meeting held on 01.08.2019 attended by 5 members of the Board resolved to nominate its representative as delegate to participate, vote and contest in the election of the fourth respondent-The Mandya District Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd., said nomination has not been accepted by the fourth respondent and rightly so, for the simple reasons that resolution signed by the petitioner’s society is not of requisite strength or in other words there was lack of quorum in the said meeting held on 01.08.2019.
4. As could be seen from proceedings of the meeting held on 01.08.2019- Annexure-B only five directors of petitioner’s society had participated as against the total elected strength of nine persons. In fact, Rule 14AK (4) prescribes the strength of the quorum as fifty per cent of the board as specified in the bye-laws to form the quorum for a meeting of the Board.
5. In the instant case, there is no dispute to the fact that under the bye-laws of petitioner’s society total strength of the board of directors is 13, as against this four posts was not filled up and only 9 members had been elected. Still quorum as prescribed under the Rule as well as bye-laws could have been met by participation of at least 7 elected members in the said meeting held on 01.08.2019 for which there was no impediment, since 9 persons had been elected. On account of this deficiency namely, 7 directors having not been participated, nomination submitted by the petitioner’s society to the fourth respondent has not been accepted and there being no statutory obligation on the part of the fourth respondent to consider the defective nomination and question of issuing a writ of mandamus does not arise. Hence, petition stands dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE RU