IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.No.851/2017 (CS-EL/M) BETWEEN:
Sathyanarayana Mahesh, S/o K.V.Vishwanath Gupta, Aged about 50 years, R/at Polytechnic Road, K.R.Extension, Chintamani – 563 125, Chikkaballapura District. ..PETITIONER (By Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, Sr. Counsel for Sri Deviprasad Shetty, Adv.) AND:
1. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bengaluru Region, Pampamahakavi Road, Chamarajapet, Bengaluru – 560 018.
2. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chikkaballapura District, Chikkaballapura – 562 101.
3. Kolar-Chikkaballapura District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Kolar, Reptd. by its Chief Executive Officer.
4. The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chikkaballapura Sub-Division, Chikkaballapura – 562 101.
5. Additional Registrar for Co-operative Societies, Ali Asker Road, Bangalore – 560 001. ..RESPONDENTS (By Sri Ravi Vermakumar, Sr. Counsel) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY R-1 ON 20.12.2016 ANNEXURE-A SHALL NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE PETITIONER AND THE PLACE OF THE PETITIONER IN THE BOARD OF THE R-3 DCC BANK IS NOT DISTURBED, ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 20.12.2016 passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bengaluru Region, Bengaluru, thereby disqualifying him from continuing on the Board of respondent no.3 – Kolar-Chikkaballapura District Co- operative Central Bank Limited (for short, ‘DCC Bank’) for a period of five years. The Joint Registrar has exercised his powers under Section 29-C(8)(d) of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, ‘the Act’). Petitioner is also disqualified from being elected or appointed or from continuing on the Board of any other Co-operative Society for a period of five years.
2. It is pertinent to note that as per the order dated 16.11.2015 passed by the District Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Chikkaballapur, disqualification proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint given by one Chandrappa stating that petitioner stood disqualified from continuing as a Member of the Managing Committee of Chintamani Taluk Agricultural Produce Market Committee in Chikkaballapur District. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner had filed an appeal on 28.12.2016 before the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies along with an application seeking interim stay. Subsequently, the Assistant Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Chikkaballapur Sub-Division, appointed a Special Officer to the primary society vide his order dated 08.12.2016 on the ground that majority of the Directors of the primary society had tendered their resignation to their directorship, as a result of which there was no Board to work in the society.
3. Respondent no.4 – Assistant Registrar of Co- operative Societies had passed an order on 15.11.2016 disqualifying the entire Board of Directors of the primary society under Section 29-C (8) (a) & (d) of the Act, on the ground that primary society had become a defaulter to respondent no.3 – DCC Bank. This order was challenged before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies by the petitioner and the same has been stayed by respondent no.2 on 26.11.2016 in Appeal No.DRC/DAVA-02/2016-17.
4. It is pertinent to state here that on the basis of his election as Director of the primary society, petitioner had contested for the election to the committee of respondent no.3 from the constituency of primary agricultural co- operative society and was elected as Director of respondent no.3 – DCC Bank in the elections held on 15.11.2013.
5. Petitioner challenged the order passed by the Joint Registrar disqualifying him from continuing as Director of respondent no.3 – DCC Bank before the Additional Registrar – respondent no.5 herein. According to the petitioner, application for stay filed by him was heard on 28.12.2016. Though respondent no.5 told the petitioner that he would pass the order on 29.12.2016, no order was passed. It is urged in paragraph 14 of the writ petition that respondent no.5 has gone on adjourning the case and he has not been passing any order only to see that he was forced to suffer the disqualification inflicted and that he would not be in a position to even approach this Court. It is also contended by the petitioner that respondent no.3 on his part has been holding meetings and they have gone ahead with co-opting a member in the place of the petitioner. Several allegations are made by the petitioner in this connection against respondent no.3 and the authorities. It is in this background, petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of disqualification vide Annexure-A and seeking certain other consequential reliefs.
6. This Court has granted interim stay on 09.01.2017 of the order at Annexure-A. Subsequently, on 05.07.2017, noticing the fact that as per the postal track sheet though respondent no.3 had been served, it had not entered appearance, service was held sufficient. A direction was issued to respondent no.3 to issue meeting notice to the petitioner and to comply with the interim order passed. Respondent no.3 has now entered appearance and has filed an application seeking to vacate the interim order passed.
7. I have heard Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Ravi Vermakumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.3 and the learned Government Pleader.
8. It is apparent from the materials on record that petitioner has urged several legal and factual grounds before respondent no.5 in the appeal filed before him challenging the order of his disqualification. He has filed an application seeking stay of the order of disqualification passed by respondent no.1. It was incumbent on respondent no.5 – appellate authority before whom the statutory appeal has been filed to immediately take up the appeal and consider the application filed for grant of stay. The remedy of appeal cannot be allowed to be frustrated by delaying the request for consideration of the interim order. Any such delay may result in serious adverse consequences against the petitioner, as for instance, a fresh election to fill up the post of the petitioner could be held in the meanwhile or somebody else could be co-opted in the place of the petitioner as has been sought to be done in the instant case. Petitioner has indeed taken up several grounds in support of the challenge made. One of the grounds urged has been that the order of disqualification passed by the Assistant Registrar disqualifying the petitioner from continuing as Director in the primary society has been stayed by the Deputy Registrar, and therefore, Joint Registrar could not have proceeded to disqualify the petitioner from continuing as Director of respondent no.3 - DCC Bank.
9. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the merits of these contentions, suffice to observe that in a matter like this, the statutory appeal preferred to the departmental authorities and the application for stay have to be taken up with great urgency and interim relief sought has to be considered and orders thereon be passed without giving room to genuine apprehension by the litigants that there was deliberate delay caused to make the situation irretrievable and to deny the democratic rights of the elected representative to discharge their duties as such by participating in the proceedings. Indeed, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1666/2008 disposed of on 05.11.2008, has held that in matters like this request for grant of interim stay has to be normally granted as it is a statutory remedy of appeal and the matter be expeditiously disposed of.
10. The contention of the learned Counsel for respondent no.3 is, that the relief sought in the writ petition is to set aside Annexure-A – order and no relief is sought with regard to non-consideration of the interim application by respondent no.5. It has to be stated here that petitioner has challenged Annexure-A – order only because respondent no.5 has not considered the application for grant of interim stay. Had respondent no.5 considered the application and passed an order, petitioner would not have approached this Court challenging Annexure-A – order. At any rate, even though Annexure-A – order is challenged, the relief can be moulded.
11. Therefore, this writ petition is partly allowed. Interim order granted on 09.01.2017 by this Court is continued till the disposal of the appeal by the Deputy Registrar. The Deputy Registrar is directed to dispose of the appeal within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE KK