IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.Nos.36706-36709/2017 (CS-RES) BETWEEN 1. SMT.SUSHEELAMMA W/O GOVINDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 2. SMT. KAVITHA W/O BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 3. SMT.KEMPAMMA W/O SINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 4. SMT JAYALAXMI W/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS ALL ARE DIRECTORS, R/O CHOTTANAHALLIL, KODIYALA POST, ARAKERI HOLI, SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT PIN 571415. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri KRISHNAPPA N.R., ADV.) AND 1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PANDAVAPURA SUB- DIVISION, PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA DISTRICT PIN 571435.
2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA PIN 571401 3. THE CHOTTANAHALLI MILK PRODUCERS WOMENS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, CHOTTANAHALLI, KODIYALA POST, ARAKERI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRCT PIN 571415 BY ITS SECRETARY 4. SMT.K.SUNITHA W/O SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 5. SMT CHIKKATHAYAMMA W/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 6. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O PUTTASWAMY GOWDA , AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 7. SMT.SHAKUNTHALA W/O SHIVANNA , AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 8. SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O SOMEGOWDA , AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 9. SMT.SHANTHAMMA W/O HONNAGIRIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 10. SMT.CHIKKATHAYAMMA W/O CHIKKAPUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESPS.4 TO 10 ARE DIRECTORS, THE CHOOTANAHALLI MILLK PRODUCERS WOMENS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., CHOTTANAHALLI, KODIYALA POST, ARAKERI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRCT PIN 571415. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri M.A.SUBRAMANI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; Sri ANANDA K., ADV. FOR C/R5-7) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF R-2 DTD.1.8.2017 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.DRY/DAP/03/2017-18, GRANTING STAY BY R-2, STAYING DISQUALIFICATION ORDER OF THE R-1 DTD.13.7.2017 PASSED VIDE ANNEX-J AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Petitioners are calling in question interim order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mandya District, granting interim stay of the order of disqualification of respondents 4 to 10 herein which was under challenge before him.
2. Petitioners claim that they are the Directors of the Society who had been illegally expelled from their membership by the rival group comprising of respondents 4 to 10. They have challenged the action of their expulsion by raising a dispute before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pandavapura Sub-Division, Pandavapura. According to them, they have obtained an interim order of stay in the said dispute.
3. Petitioners herein applied before the Deputy Registrar in the appeal pending before him seeking their impleadment. They also resisted grant of any interim order in favour of respondents 4 to 10 in the appeal filed by them. The Deputy Registrar has rejected the impleading application filed by the petitioners and has granted interim stay of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar disqualifying respondents 4 to 10 herein. The Deputy Registrar has come to the conclusion that as there was a statutory appeal provided against the order disqualifying respondents 4 to 10, the appeal was required to be entertained and an interim order deserved to be granted pending disposal of the appeal. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Deputy Registrar has committed any illegality in exercising his discretion while granting interim order of stay of disqualification of respondents 4 to 10.
4. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondents, if interim order was not granted, then respondents 4 to 10 herein would be subjected to serious prejudice and would be deprived of their democratic rights, particularly because the consequences would be irretrievable in the event petitioners succeed before the Deputy Registrar. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Deputy Registrar granting interim order pending disposal of the appeal before him. However, insofar as rejection of application filed for impleading, I do not find any discussion in the order and reasons are not assigned for rejecting the request made by the petitioners for their impleadment. The Deputy Registrar has proceeded on the basis that present petitioners were no longer members of the Society. It is brought to the notice of the Court by counsel for petitioners that order expelling the petitioners from the Society has been challenged and an interim order of stay has been granted. Indeed, interim order has been granted by the Assistant Registrar, Pandavapura on 07.08.2017 as is evident from Annexure-L. This has happened subsequent to the impugned order. Therefore, petitioners have to be given an opportunity. The Deputy Registrar has to be directed to reconsider the application filed by the petitioners seeking their impleadment in the light of subsequent development and the Deputy Registrar has to pass a reasoned order on the application filed by the petitioners for their impleadment.
5. Hence, impugned order is set aside only to the extent it rejects the application filed by the petitioners for impleading. As regards challenge made to interim order of stay granted by the Deputy Registrar, writ petition is dismissed. The Deputy Registrar is directed to reconsider the application filed by the petitioners for impleadment in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both parties. Respondents 4 to 10 will be entitled to file objections to the application. The Deputy Registrar is directed to dispose of the main matter itself expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PKS