IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.50261 OF 2014 (CS-RES) BETWEEN MYSORE ZILLA MAHILEYARA MENU UTHPADAKARA & MARATAGARARA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA, NO.646/1, 15TH CROSS, "B" BLOCK, III STAGE, VIJAYANAGARA MYSORE, REP BY ITS SECRETARY.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI R S RAVI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF CO-OPERATION, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES, DEPT. OF FISHERIES, VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER, III FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.
REP: DIRECTOR.
3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, HUNSUR SUB-DIVISION, HUNSUR, MYSORE DISTRICT-570 001.
4. ADI SHAKTI MAHILA MEENU UTHPADANA & MARATAGARARA SAHAKARA SANGHA (REGD). RAVANDUR, PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-570 001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
5. THE SENIOR ASST. DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES VETERINARY HOSPITAL PREMISES, MANANDAVADY ROAD, INFRONT OF MADHVA HOSTEL, K.R. VANAM, MYSORE-570 008.
6. THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES PERIYAPATNA, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-570 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.C. BALARAJ, AGA FOR R1 TO R3, R5 & R6, SRI SUMANTH KUMAR S. PATIL, ADVOCAE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 3.7.2014 PASSED BY THE R-3 DATED 3.7.2014 VIDE ANN-S, QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.7.2014 PASSED BY THE R-5 VIDE ANN-V, DIRECT THE R-5 AND 6 TO ALLOT REVANDOOR TANK ON LEASE BASIS TO THE PETITIONER PURSUANT TO THE PUBLICATION DATED 17.5.2014 ISSUED BY THE R-6 VIDE ANN-T.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Order Petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short ‘Act’) and being aggrieved by order dated 03.07.2014, Annexure-S, registering the respondent No.4 – Society and also seeking for consequential reliefs, petitioner is before this Court.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and case papers are perused.
3. Petitioner-Society came to be registered under the Act on 08.12.1995. The aim and object of the said Society was to grant benefit to fisherwomen residing in Mysuru District and also participate in the bids offered by government for lease of fishing rights in the water bodies/tanks situated in Mysuru District.
4. Respondent No.4 – Society restricting its operation to Ravandoor Village sought for being registered, which came to be objected to by the petitioner contending inter alia that while considering the prayer for registration of Co-operative Societies, the authorities will have to examine and look into the fact as to whether area of operation of the proposed Society would overlap with the existing petitioner’s Society so as to avoid any conflict of interest or the interest of members of the existing Society not being jeopardized. Contending that said exercise was not undertaken by the respondent-authorities, petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.11222/2012 and Co-ordinate Bench by order dated 03.06.2014, Annexure-P had allowed the writ petition by quashing the orders impugned therein and directing the authorities to extend an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and take a decision strictly in accordance with law in light of the observations made by it during the course of its order.
5. Based on said direction issued by the Co- ordinate Bench, respondent No.2 issued fresh notice to the parties, received the objections and also heard the parties who appeared for the personal hearing and by impugned order dated 03.07.2014, Annexure-S, arrived at a conclusion that petitioner had failed to produce any cogent material to substantial its claim. It is also opined that report of the Fisheries Department is also in favour of respondent No.4 and there being no material placed by the petitioner to establish that residents of Ravandoor Village having already been enlisted as members of the petitioner-Society and the fact that there was an enquiry under Section 64 pending against the petitioner-Society and there were several other disputes relating to functioning of the petitioner-Society, has accorded permission to respondent No.4 for being registered and affirmed the earlier grant of registration dated 22.03.2013 by order dated 03.07.2014, Annexure-S. Hence, this writ petition.
6. Sri. R. S. Ravi, learned counsel appearing for petitioner would vehemently contend that purpose and intent of establishing a Co-operative Society is to cater to the needs of the local populace and petitioner-Society having been registered in Mysuru District with its area of operation restricted to said district, permission granted to the respondent No.4-Society to operate in the same district, though restricted to Ravandoor Village, would definitely overlap with the business activities of the petitioner and thereby the interest of members of petitioner’s Society would suffer.
7. The argument though looks at first blush attractive, it is not so for reasons more than one. Firstly, as rightly observed by respondent No.2 under the impugned order, petitioner had failed to establish that either the fishermen or the residents of Ravandoor Village having been enrolled as members of the petitioner-Society. Secondly, a Society which is sought to be established either at Taluka level or Village level, if it were to cater to the needs of local villagers, then the district society cannot be heard to contend that the interest of the district society is jeopardized or is at stake. As such, the said contention deserves to be rejected and accordingly it stands rejected.
8. In fact, counsel appearing for respondent No.4 is correct and justified in contending that establishing a Co-operative Society which was a statutory right had blossomed into constitutional right by virtue of 97th amendment to the Constitution and establishing a Co- operative Society under Article 19(1)(c) being a constitutional right, same has been extended to respondent No.4 – Society by respondent No.2 after considering all the objections raised by the petitioner and it has rightly allowed registration of the respondent No.4 being continued.
9. This court does not find any infirmity either on facts or in law to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the impugned order whereunder the registration of the respondent No.4 – Society granted on 22.03.2013 has been allowed to be continued.
10. Yet another factor which cannot go unnoticed is that the very same petitioner had applied for grant of fishing rights in respect of different tanks and by its communication dated 30.07.2014 addressed to the Senior Director, Fisheries Department has intimated thereunder that it would restrict its claim to Nagu reservoir and thereby giving up its right to claim for fishing rights in Saligrama, Hosagrahara, Hebballi and Ravandoor lakes/tanks. In fact, the licenses granted to the respondent No.4 by the respondent No.5 for carrying out the fishing by order dated 30.07.2014, Annexure-V, is relating to Ravandoor tank of Ravandoor Village which is the area of operation of the respondent No.4 – Society. As such, the establishment of respondent No.4 – Society would definitely cater to the needs and requirement of the fisherwomen who are residents of Ravandoor Village and as such petitioner cannot be heard to contend that it would affect the interest of the members of petitioner-Society. But on the other hand, it would sub-serve the needs and requirement of the fisherwomen folk of Ravandoor Village.
11. For myriad reasons aforestated, I do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. Hence, it stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE RD