IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA W.P.Nos.35867-35879/2016(CS-RES) BETWEEN:
01.SRI.S.SADASHIVAPPA S/O.SANNAMARA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 02.SRI.SOMANNA S/O.DYAVE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 03.SRI.K.BHOOPALA S/O.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 04.SRI.C.H.SHANKAR S/O.HUCHANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 05.SRI.D.SRINIVAS S/O.B.DHINADAYAL AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 06.SRI.A.M.KUSHALAPPA S/O.A.C.MANDANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 07.SRI.S.N.SHIVAMURTHY S/O.NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 08.SMT.V.USHA W/O.V.RAMANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 09.SRI.SURESH GOWDA S/O.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 10.SRI.K.S.VIJAYAKUMAR S/O.SINGAIAH P AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 11.SRI.N.DEVARAJA S/O.PATEL NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 12.SMT.K.C.SARALA W/O.CHANDRASHEKHAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 13.SRI.T.D.KRISHNAPPA S/O.DODDASHANAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, ALL ARE DIRECTORS THE AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIE SOCIETY LIMITED, NO.15, CKC GARDEN 1ST CROSS, K.H.ROAD (DOUBLE ROAD) BENGALURU-560 027.
… PETITIONERS (BY SRI:CHANDRAKANTH R PATEL, ADV) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION AMBEDKAR VEEDHI VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2.THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BENGALURU REGION CHAMARAJPET, PAMPA MAHAKAVI ROAD, BANGALORE-560C018.
3.THE AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.15, CKC GARDEN, 1ST CROSS K.H.ROAD (DOUBLE ROAD) BENGALURU-560 027 BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.G.SHIVANNA, AAG A/W SRI.LAXMINARAYAN, AGA FOR R1 AND R2, SRI.M.S.RUDRAIAH, ADV. FOR R3 AND SMT.B.V.VIDYULATHA, ADV. FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT IN I.A.NO.1/2016.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ALL DATED 15-03-2016 AT ANNEXURES- A TO N ISSUED BY THE R-2 JRCS AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER In these proceedings, an application in I.A.No.1/2016 is filed seeking to implead the proposed applicants as petitioners. The same is not yet taken. In the meanwhile, to substantiate the reasons to come on record, learned counsel for the impleading applicants has filed certain documents which are taken on record to consider I.A.No.1/2016. However, during the course of hearing I.A.No.1/2016, in the light of the documents produced, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petitions do not survive for consideration for the following reasons:
2. Admittedly, the Ex-Directors, President and Secretary of the third respondent-Society are impugning the notices issued to them under Section 109 of the Co- operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking explanation as to why criminal prosecution should not be launched against them as contemplated under Section 111 of the said Act. It is in this background, the present writ petitions are filed challenging the said notices which are at Annexures-A to N in respect of all the petitioners. Now, the documents filed by the impleading applicants would indicate that explanation is furnished by all the petitioners herein pursuant to the notices issued to them vide Annexures-A to N and the said explanation is furnished with the assistance of an Advocate and they have placed objections before the Competent Authority, who, after going through the same has passed the order dated 31-07-2017 confining itself in launching prosecution only against the President of the third respondent-Society who is the 9th petitioner herein.
3. The said order clearly indicates that the notice issued to all the petitioners herein under Section 109 of the Act is not given effect to, but it is given effect to only in respect of Ex-President of the 3rd respondent-Society. So far as notices which are issued to petitioners 1 to 8 and 10 to 13 are concerned, explanation furnished by them is accepted and no prosecution is launched against them. In that view of the matter, notices which are issued to them under Section 109 of the Act has spent its life. Therefore, the writ petitions filed on their behalf do not survive for consideration.
4. So far as, the writ petition filed by the 9th petitioner is concerned, since the explanation given by him is not accepted along with the explanation of the Secretary of the 3rd respondent-Society and the order being passed ordering prosecution against him. It is stated that pursuant to which the prosecution is already launched by filing PCR No.12179/2017 before the Competent Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru. It is further stated that cognizance is also taken against him in the said proceedings. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition filed by the 9th petitioner also does not survive for consideration.
5. With the said observations, the writ petitions filed by petitioners No.1 to 13 are dismissed as they do not survive for consideration, in the light of aforesaid discussion.
6. In view of dismissal of the writ petitions in the aforesaid terms, the application seeking impleadment does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2016 is also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE mpk/-*