Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 830 (KAR)

RAO SAHEB v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2000-12-13

CHIDANANDA ULLAL

body2000
CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners being the members of the respondent No. 3-Bank had challenged the calendar of events dated 18. 9. 2000 issued by the respondent No. 2-Returning Officer, copy as at Annexure-D to writ Petition and further the resolution dated 8. 9. 2000 passed by the committee of Management of the respondent No. 3-Bank, copy as at annexure-C to Writ Petition; in so far as it relates to the resolution at subject no. 5 and 7 (4) (1) and in such other directions as this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and also for quashing of Notifications dated 16. 8. 2000 and 24. 10. 2000. copies at Annexures-H and J to Writ Petition respectively. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as hereunder : ( 3 ) THAT, the respondent No. 2-RO had issued the calendar of events dated 18. 9. 2000, copy as at Annexure-D to Writ Petition, i issuance whereof, the Returning Officer had fixed the General Body and the election to elect the committee of Management of the respondent No. 3-Bank on 13. 10. 2000 by setting out a special instruction at page No. 3 thereof to the effect that, the election were to be held in pursuant to the amended Bye-law No. 17-A per resolution at No. 4 (2) dated 8. 9. 2000 and further notifying that in all nine persons had to be elected to the Committee of Management of the respondent no. 3. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the resolution with regard to the alteration of the constituencies geographically in the matter of election of eight members from the borrowers constituency as amended by the Committee of management of the respondent No. 3- Bank by resolution dated 8. 9. 3. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the resolution with regard to the alteration of the constituencies geographically in the matter of election of eight members from the borrowers constituency as amended by the Committee of management of the respondent No. 3- Bank by resolution dated 8. 9. 2000, copy as at Annexure-C to Writ Petition, was totally illegal inasmuch as according to them the same was without authority in law, and therefore, they contended that the very election process commenced with the issuance of the calendar of events at Annexure-C to Writ Petition, was bad and further that the election to elect the Committee of Management of the respondent No. 3 bank was totally untenable and that therefore both the calendar of events, copy as at Annexure-D to Writ Petition and the above resolution passed for alteration and reconstitution of the constituency geographically, copy as at annexure-C to Writ Petition are liable to be quashed. ( 5 ) SUBSEQUENTLY by amending the prayer, they also prayed for quashing of Notification date 16. 8. 2000. copy as at Annexure-H to Writ Petition, and further the Notification dated 24. 10. 2000, copy as at Annexure-J to Writ petition. When Annexure-H is a communication to the Secretary of the Bank calling upon it to arrange for the election to the Committee of Management of the Bank, Annexure-J is result of the election held on 24. 10. 2000. ( 6 ) THE learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, Sri subramanya Jois. appearing for M/s. Vagdevi Associates on the other side supported both the calendar of events issued by the RO and further the alteration and reconstitution of the constituencies in passing the resolution in question by the Committee of Management of the respondent No. 3-Bank. It was also argued with vehemence that, admittedly, in pursuance of the resolution in question, copy as at Annexure-C to Writ Petition and further in pursuance of the calendar of events issued by the respondent No. 2. copy as at Annexure-D to Writ Petition, the election had duty been held by the respondent No. 3 on 24. 10. 2000. In this context, he had also drawn my attention to Annexure-R-4 to the objection statement filed by the respondent no. 3 where in it had been shown that in the election held by the respondent no. copy as at Annexure-D to Writ Petition, the election had duty been held by the respondent No. 3 on 24. 10. 2000. In this context, he had also drawn my attention to Annexure-R-4 to the objection statement filed by the respondent no. 3 where in it had been shown that in the election held by the respondent no. 2, the respondents No. 4 to 11 came to be elected. Hence, according to him, it was not at all available for the petitioners to challenge either the resolution in question or the calendar of events it was also argued by Sri subramanya Jois that in the facts and circumstances of the case what was available to the petitioners herein as only to recourse to Section 70 of the karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, henceforth in brief referred to as the Act to challenge the election and nothing beyond. It was also pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that the conduct of the petitioners herein has to be taken note of by this Court, for, to challenge the calendar of events and further the resolution in question, they recoursed to the instant Writ Petition as late as on 24. 10. 2000 when the calendar of events came to be issued as early as on 18. 9. 2000 fixing the date of election to the Committee of Management of the respondent No. 3 on 29. 10. 2000. According to him, the petitioners herein had filed the instant Writ Petition only to place hurdles in the matter of holding the election to the Committee of Management of the respondent No. 3 and nothing beyond. ( 7 ) THE learned Senior Counsel had also brought to the notice of this court in pursuance of the calendar of events, only eight members had filed the nomination papers as against the nine posts to the Committee of management of the respondent No. 3-Society and as such, on the very day i. e. 24. 10. 2000, the result of the election were also announced by the respondent- no. 10. 2000, the result of the election were also announced by the respondent- no. 2-RO as the number of candidates were only eight as against the nine posts to the Committee of Management of the respondent No, 3 and as such the respondents No. 4 to 11 came to be declared as successful candidates while one seat for the Committee of Management of the respondent No. 3 was postponed for want of nomination papers as against that seat. He had also brought to the notice of this Court that by the time, the matte was taken up by this Court on the day of hearing of the matter, the election to the eight posts and already been declared. Therefore, he submitted that the instant writ petition does not merit consideration in the hands of this Court. ( 8 ) THE learned Additional Government Advocate on the other side supported the argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel. That is obvious for, he had defended the action on the part of the respondent No. 2-RO. so did the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 and. 8. Sri Veerabhadrappa. ( 9 ) IN his argument. Sri Veerabhadrappa had also added that in filing the detailed objection statement, the respondents No. 4 and 8 i. e. his parties. had also taken up the contention that when the petitioners No. 1 to 3 were the non-borrowers, the petitioner No. 4 did not belong to Sindhagi Constituency inasmuch as the said constituency was reserved for Women borrowers members and further more the petitioner No. 5 was a defaulter; While arguing his side of the case, he reiterated the said grounds urged by him. Therefore, he submitted that the instant Writ Petition does not merit any consideration, that too at the belated stage when the results of the election had already been declared. ( 10 ) THE learned Senior Counsel had also cited the following decisions in support of his argument. 1. AIR 1975 SC 2140 . 2. ILR 1992 (2) Kar 979. 3. AIR 1977 SC 1703 . 4. AIR 1999 SC 1566 . ( 11 ) IN reply the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri Patil had also placed reliance on the reported decision of a Full Bench of this Court reported in Narayana Swamy v. Arcs, ILR 1992 Far 979. 2. ILR 1992 (2) Kar 979. 3. AIR 1977 SC 1703 . 4. AIR 1999 SC 1566 . ( 11 ) IN reply the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri Patil had also placed reliance on the reported decision of a Full Bench of this Court reported in Narayana Swamy v. Arcs, ILR 1992 Far 979. ( 12 ) IN the light of the above submission made, the points that arise for my consideration are : (1) Whether the calendar of events dated 18. 9. 2000 issued by the respondent No. 2-Returning Officer, copy as at Annexure-D to writ petition, is liable to be quashed or not? (2) Whether the Notification dated 16. 8. 2000 in No. AR-5 : RSR : cr-53 : Chunavane : 2000-01 issued by the respondent No. 2- arcs, copy as at Annexure-R3 to the objection statement filed by the respondent No. 3 and further the Notification dated 24. 10. 2000 issued by the respondent No. 2-Returning Officer whereby he had published the result of the election held on 24. 10. 2000, copy as at Annexure-R4 to the objection statement filed by the respondent No. 3 (they are Annexures-H and J to writ petition are liable to be quashed or not? ( 13 ) RIGHT here I have to observe that the above Notification dated 16. 8. 2000 and 24. 10. 2000 came to be challenged by amending to the original writ Petition upon filing the objection statement by the respondent No. 3 I should also observe here that when I heard the instant Writ Petition at the stage of preliminary hearing, I was totally carried by the circumstances that, by a resolution dated 6. 9. 2000, the Committee of Management of the respondent No 3-Bank had reconstituted the very constituencies, copy as at annexure-C to writ petition, and that the respondent No. 3 did immediately prior to holding of the election. The said circumstances I viewed as totally strange, for. in the normal course the amendment of the Bye-law in the matter of constitution of the constituencies are being done not by the Committee of management of a Society but by the General Body of the Society and effect there to had to be given only after registering that amendment by the registering authority. in the normal course the amendment of the Bye-law in the matter of constitution of the constituencies are being done not by the Committee of management of a Society but by the General Body of the Society and effect there to had to be given only after registering that amendment by the registering authority. But it was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 8, Sri Veerabhadrappa that such power was very much available for the Committee of Management of the respondent No. 3-Bank as per the original Bye-law No. 17-A and that subsequently the same came to be amended to clarify the very position further. I feel it appropriate to quote bye-law No. 17-A of the original Bye-law as it stood then and further as it stood immediately prior to passing of the resolution on 8. 9. 2000, copy as at annexure-C to Writ Petition. ( 14 ) FROM the above provision of the Bye-law No. 17-A, it is clear that the authority to reconstitute the constituencies was very well vested in the committee of Management of the respondent No. 3-Bank As a matter of fact, as I now see. the Committee of Management of the respondent No. 3-Bank had exercised its authority to reconstitute the constituencies as per its resolution dated 8. 9. 2000, copy as at Annexure-C to Writ Petition. That being the position, I do not think that it is available for the petitioners to point out that the Committee of Management of the respondent No. 3-Bank had reconstituted the constituencies of the respondent No. 3-Bank illegally prior to holding of the general body and the election. ( 15 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jaykumar S. Patil. had vehemently argued that the High Court has got power to interfere election disputes on special circumstances. In support of that argument of his, he had also cited before me the reported decision of that Full Bench of this Court in nanjundaswamy v. Assistant Registrar or Co-operative Societies, ILR 1992 Kar 979. In the said decision, the Full Bench of this Court had held as hereunder. " (I) The remedy of an Election Petition is the remedy that is normally available in election disputes. The principle of law is that once the election process is begun it should not be interfered with. In the said decision, the Full Bench of this Court had held as hereunder. " (I) The remedy of an Election Petition is the remedy that is normally available in election disputes. The principle of law is that once the election process is begun it should not be interfered with. The alternative remedy of an Election Petition is clearly available to the Writ Petitioner under section 70 of the Act. (ii) There is really no divergence of opinion between the Judgments in Maruthi's case. ILR 1990 Kar 1378 and in Gurumallappa's case, ILR 1991 Kar 577. Moruthi's case lays down the law as set out herein gurumallappa's case is an illustration of the principle that the High Court has the power to interfere in election disputes and shall exercise that power only in the most extraordinary circumstances. The observation of the Division Bench that the provision for filing an Election Petition was not an efficacious remedy, and a Writ in the nature of Mandamus to hold a fresh election could be issued must be read in the light of those extraordinary circumstances. All that was meant to be conveyed was that in those extraordinary circumstances the provision for filing an Election petition would not do Justice. " ( 16 ) THE extraordinary circumstances, according to Sri Patil, was the alteration of the constituencies by the Committee of Management of the respondent No. 3 earlier to holding of the election as discussed as above. The other extraordinary circumstances, according to him, was that the term of office of the Committee of Management of the respondent No. 3-Bank came to be and end on 31. 3. The other extraordinary circumstances, according to him, was that the term of office of the Committee of Management of the respondent No. 3-Bank came to be and end on 31. 3. 1998 and that by special Notification by the State, the term of office of the Committee of Management of the respondent No. 3 came to be extended in two installments and that earlier to that the respondent No. 3-Bank came to be liquidated and that liquidation order came to be challenged in and appeal by the, then Committee of Management of the respondent No. 3-Bank before the non-party Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies and that upon dismissal of that appeal by the said Co- operative authority, the same came to be challenged before this Court in WP No. 241189/99 and that the said Writ Petition came to be withdrawn when the said Co-operative authority were thanking of rescinding the liquidation order and that accordingly the said liquidation order came to be rescinded by the order dated 1. 8. 2000 by the non-party Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies Belgaum, copy as at Annexure-B to Writ Petition. on which event, the original Committee of Management of the respondent No. 3-Bank was yet again inducted into power of the Committee of Management of the respondent No. 3-Bank. While taking me through the said sequences of events, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, had also argued that, when the term of office of the original committee of Management of the respondent No. 3-Bank came to be a close on 30. 5. 1999, there, was no valid reason for the non-party Joint Registrar co-operative Societies to reinduct, the very Committee of Management of the respondent No. 3-Bank yet again to facilitate them to hold the election in pursuance of which the resolution dated 8. 9. 2000, copy as at Annexure-C to writ Petition, came to be passed facilitating the Committee of Management to hold the general body and election. ( 17 ) THEREFORE, Sir Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that it is a fit case where this Court intervenes to quash the calendar of events and the further consequential Notifications at Annexures-H and J to Writ Petition under the extraordinary circumstances pointed out by him. According to him, the decision of the Full Bench cited by him before this court is totally covered the instant case in hand. According to him, the decision of the Full Bench cited by him before this court is totally covered the instant case in hand. ( 18 ) THIS argument of Sri Patil at one stage impressed me. This in fact made me to entertain the Writ Petition when the same was listed for preliminary hearing. But in the ultimate analysis, the same had short-lived, for it was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 8, Sri Veerabhadrappa, that as per Section 126 of the Act, no Act of a co-operative society or any committee or any officer shall be deemed to be invalid by reason only of the existence of any defect in the constitution of the society or the committee or in the appointment or an election of an officer. In this context. 1 quote Section 126 of the Act. The same reads as hereunder :"126. Acts of Co-operative societies not to be Invalidated by certain defects. No Act of a Co-operative Society or any committee or of any officer shall be deemed to be invalid by reason only of the existence of any defect in the constitution of the society or the committee or in the appointment or election of an officer or on the ground that such officer was disqualified for his appointment" ( 19 ) ACCORDING to me, in the case in hand certain follies that had occurred both in the hands of to Authorities and further in the hands of the Committee of Management of the respondent No. 3 from time to time. To list out the follies in the hands of the Authorities as well as the Committee of Management of the respondent No. 3 are as follows : (i) That when the respondent No. 3-Bank ordered to be liquidated by its order dated 15. 6. 1997 and when the said liquidation order came to be challenged by an appeal at the first instance by the then Committee of Management of the respondent No. 3-Bank before the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, no matter that the said appeal came to be dismissed the Registrar for the respondent No. 3-Bank le. the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative societies, Bijapur. the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative societies, Bijapur. did not pass any order as contemplated under Section 28-A (5) of the Co- operative Societies Act to resume the charge as Administrator, and thus did not assume the charge as Administrator of the respondent No. 3-Bank. (ii) Though the term of office of the Committee of Management of the respondent No. 3-Bank had come to a close on 31. 3. 1998, the respondent No. 1. State by issuance of an executive order by notification, extended the term of office of the Committee of management of the respondent No. 3-Bank till 30. 5. 1999. This appears to be erroneous, for, in similar situation, this Court by quashing such Notification had directed the State of hold election by fixing a time frame. (iii) That the Registrar of the respondent No. 3-Bank i. e. the Deputy registrar of Co-operative Societies himself had communicated the Committee of Management of the respondent No. 3- Bank to assume charge of the Committee of Management of the respondent no. 3-Bank and further directed the Committee of Management to hold fresh election as per Annexure-B to Writ Petition (the same is Annexure-R3 to the objection statement filed by the respondent No. 3-Bank), no matter that the term of office of the committee of Management of the respondent No. 3- Bank came to a close much earlier. (iv) The Registrar of the respondent No. 3-Bank i. e. the Deputy registrar of Co-operative Societies had further invited the committee of Management to hold the general body and the election for the respondent No. 3-Bank by his letter dated 16. 8. 2000. ( 20 ) THEREFORE, in the midst of the above anomalies, I do not think that it is available for the petitioners herein to challenge the election and holding of the general body meeting. At the cost of repetition, I feel that the anomalies or any defects either in the hands of the respondent No. 3-Bank or the authorities and further in the hands of the State in extending the very term of office have to be taken care of now by the extraordinary provision is Section 126 of the Act extracted in Para (19) supra. ( 21 ) THERE is yet. another aspect of the case. ( 21 ) THERE is yet. another aspect of the case. That is with reference to the conduct of the petitioner No. 1 in filing the instant Writ Petition by joining the other former Committee Members of the respondent No. 3-Bank. This, infact, was argued by the learned Senior Counsel, Sri Subrahmanya Jois. As it had been pointed out by him, the petitioner No. 1 had filed earlier a Writ Petition in WP No. 4007/2000 to challenge the Notification dated 10. 1. 2000 whereby election was proposed to be held. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner No. 1 had no moral right to challenge the very election to the respondent No. 3-Bank in the second round. ( 22 ) IN the said view of the matter and further more in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this Writ petition. The Writ Petition therefore fails and accordingly stands dismissed without there being any order as to costs. It is obvious that when the above is the result in the instant Writ Petition, the Administrator, who came to be appointed in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court has to make over the charge to the Committee of management of the respondent No. 3-Bank. Let that be done by the Assistant registrar of Co- operative Societies, Sindagi, Bijapur, as expeditiously as possible and at the earliest opportunity, so that the elected body of the society takes charges of the Management. --- *** --- .