IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.35351 OF 2019 (GM - POLICE) BETWEEN:
NTI GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA, NO.84, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH CROSS, SUNSHINE KUMAR PARK, WEST SERPENTINE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI. PRATHAPCHAND RATHOD, S/O LATE PEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
(BY SRI.V.B.SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
… PETITIONER 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, NO.1, TECHNICAL EDUCATION BHAVAN, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. SRI.T. R. SRINIVAS, THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, BANGALORE CITY, F BLOCK, 2ND FLOOR, KHB CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.
5. SRI. M. NAGARAJ, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, R/A NO.110, MARUTHINAGAR, KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, SAHAKARANAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 092.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RABIYA KHAMIM L ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUDHA B., ADVOCATE FOR C/R5;
SRI.VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1&R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED:30.7.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE - C AND NOTICE DATED:31.7.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE - B ISSUED BY THE R-4 AND MODEL BYE-LAWS OF THE NTI GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA AT ANNEXURE - A AS THE SAME ARE ILLEGAL, UNJUST AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Sri.V.B.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Rabiya Khamim L, advocate for Smt.Sudha B, advocate for Caveat Respondent No.5 and Sri.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks the following reliefs.
(a) Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the Notice bearing No.SP:DCRE:2019 dated 30.07.2019 as per Annexure-C and Notice bearing No.Arji:113:SP:BC:NA.HA.JA.NI:19 dated 31.07.2019 as per Annexure-B issued by the fourth respondent and Model Bye-laws of the NTI Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha at Annexure-A as the same are illegal, unjust and in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act;
(b) Grant such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Police Sub-Inspector, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement has no authority in law to enquire into the functioning and management of the affairs of the Society, which is a Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that pursuant to the complaint made by one Sri.Nagaraj, the enquiry is sought to be initiated prima facie to find out whether or not commission of cognizable offences are made out in the complaint.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that irregularities, if any, are committed by the previous President but not the present office bearers.
6. Be that as it may, it appears that the preliminary enquiry is sought to be held by the Police Sub-Inspector in order to ascertain whether or not commission of cognizable offence is made out in the complaint, in respect of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of in the case of ‘Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.’, (2014) 2 SCC 1.
7. Undoubtedly, the police Sub-Inspector has no authority in law to enquire into the affairs of the Society. It has to be done by the authorities under the Co-operative Societies Act. Therefore, it is clarified that the present scope of the enquiry which is initiated by the Police Sub-Inspector shall be confined only to prima facie finding out whether or not complaint disclose commission of offence or not as made in Paragraph 120.6 of the decision referred to in the case of Lalitha Kumari’s case supra.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE GH