IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO. 58021 OF 2017 (CS-RES) BETWEEN Sri. C.S.S. Kashyap, S/o Late C. Seshachalaiah, Aged about 55 years, R/at No.86, North Off Ist Stage, Gayathripuram, Mysuru – 570 019.
... Petitioner (By Sri.R. Rangaswamy, Advocate) AND 1. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mysuru Region, Public Office Building, Mysuru – 570 001.
2. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Public Office Building, Mysuru – 570 001.
3. Sri. H.K.Satish, Returning Officer, Regional College of Education Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., R.I.E., Mysuru – 570 006.
4. Sri. R. Shashikumar, Major in age, R/at No.Type-II/4, R.I.E. Campus, Manasagangotri, Mysuru – 570 006.
... Respondents (By Sri. J.M. Umesh Murthy, HCGP For R-1 to R-3;
Sri. R. Nataraj, Adv. for C/R-4) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the R-1 as per Annexure-A refusing to grant an order of stay of the order dated 24.11.2017 vide Annexure-B passed by the R-2 etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 15.12.2017, passed by the respondent No.1 in Appeal No.JRM/DAP/07/2017-18 at Annexure-A refusing to grant an exparte interim order without hearing the other side.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was duly elected as Director of the Executive Committee of the Regional College of Education Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Mysuru. The respondent No.4 filed a complaint under Section 29C of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. After hearing both the parties, respondent No.2 passed the order dated 24.11.2017 disqualifying the petitioner. In pursuance of the said order, a notification came to be issued by respondent No.3/Returning Officer to hold the election for the posts of President and Vice President.
3. Aggrieved by the disqualifying order, the petitioner filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority/Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies in Appeal No.JRM/DAP/07/2017-18. The respondent No.1 by interim order dated 15.12.2017, has refused to grant exparte interim order without giving opportunity to the other side. Therefore, the matter was posted on 06.01.2018 to file objections. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri. Ranganath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 rejecting to grant exparte interim order is contrary to law. The respondent No.3 initiated the election proceedings at 3’O Clock today i.e., 19.12.2017. Therefore, he sought to quash the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 by allowing the present writ petition.
6. Per contra Sri. Nataraj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4/complainant sought to justify the impugned order and submits that the first Appellate Authority has not considered I.A. and has not rejected the interim order but has only stated that without giving an opportunity to the other side, I.A. cannot be considered.
7. Sri. J.M. Umesh Murthy, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that when the matter is posted on 06.01.2018, on that day, respondent No.4 will file objections to the I.A. The said submission is placed on record. He further submits that on 06.01.2018, after considering the objections to be filed by respondent No.4/complainant, interim prayer will be considered and orders will be passed on merits, in accordance with law.
8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is suffice to direct respondent No.1/first Appellate Authority to consider I.A. and objections to be filed by respondent No.4 after giving opportunity to both the parties and shall proceed to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law.
9. The order passed by respondent No.1 clearly depicts that, he has only refused to grant interim order without giving an opportunity to the other side. It is always open for the petitioner to pursue I.A. after objections by respondent No.4. After considering the I.A. and objections, the respondent No.1/Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies shall pass an orders in accordance with law.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM