Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 771 (KAR)

K. v. NAGARAJ VS KARNATAKA MILK PRODUCERS

2002-12-13

body2002
( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by the Directors of the Karnataka Milk Producers Federation Ltd. , seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the notice Annexure D dated 1. 10. 2002 and also seeking for a writ of prohibiting respondent No. 3 from functioning as President of Respondent No. 1. The petitioner states in the petition that the first respondent is a Federal Society of Milk Unions. The third respondent cannot be considered to be an elected Director in view of an order is confirmed in writ Appeal No. 3454/2000. A S. L. P is pending without stay. Respondent no. 3, according to the petitioners is not an elected Director and he cannot be the president or chairman of the 1st respondent. One Sri. H. D. Revanna was the elected Director of the 1st respondent. Election was to be held on 19. 9. 2001. Sri. Revanna and the 3rd respondent contested the election for the post of President. Rival Groups created a situation where voting was not possible and even ballot papers were also torn. The ex-o0fficer directors have drawn Annexure A. The President Authority did not declare the result of the election. Those proceedings were challenged in two Writ Petitions in W. P. Nos. 30682/2001 and 37122/2001. In the said petition, the 3rd respondent made an application seeking for a direction to assume charge of president. Application was rejected. S. L. P. also is rejected. Matter was finally heard by a division bench on reference made by a Single Judge. Writ Petitions came to be rejected in terms of Annexure C. Now, Annexure D is issued. In Annexure D , a reference is made with regard to the president ship of the 3rd respondent. Annexure D is questioned by the petitioners on several grounds. ( 2 ) NOTICE was issued pursuant to which a detailed statement of Objection is filed to IA. They say that the petition is to be dismissed in the light of the earlier decision. Matter is listed before me for final hearing. Heard the counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) SRI. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Counsel invites my attention to the facts leading to his prayers. They say that the petition is to be dismissed in the light of the earlier decision. Matter is listed before me for final hearing. Heard the counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) SRI. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Counsel invites my attention to the facts leading to his prayers. He invites my attention to the order of this court in which it is stated that it is unnecessary to examine whether the requirement of Rule 14 A in so far as the same envisage the declaration of the result by the presiding authority substantially, if not fully complied with. In the light of these findings, according to the learned counsel, the earlier proceedings cannot said to come in his way and the learned counsel elaborates by contending that Rule 14 (a) (14) requires a declaration and so long as declaration is not forthcoming respondent No. 3 cannot declare himself as president to call for a meeting in terms of annexure D. Learned counsel strongly relies on a Judgment of Supreme Court in AIR 1982 SC 831 (Sri. Ram Pyare Chaudhary and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) and also the Judgment of the Supreme Court in 1985 (4) SCC 194 (Krishna Ballabh Prasad Singh vs. Sub-Divisional Officer Hilsa-cum-returning officer and others ). ( 4 ) PER contra, Sri. Dsa, learned Counsel says that the earlier decision covers this very matter. The petitioners in this case were the parties to the earlier proceedings. ( 5 ) IN the light of the rival submissions, I have carefully perused the material on record. It is seen from the material on record that the present petitioners were respondents in the earlier Writ Petition. In the earlier Writ Petition, a prayer was made with regard to the declaration that there was no election held on 19. 9. 2001 for the office of President/chairman of the 1st respondent and the 3rd respondent is not declared and elected as President of Respondent No. 1 in the meeting dated 19. 9. 2001. A direction was also sought for to convene the meeting of the Committee for electing the President of Respondent No. 1. Elaborate arguments have been advanced and after noticing all contentions, the Division bench has ruled that the dispute involves investigation of facts and in that view of the matter, they have rejected the Writ Petition. 9. 2001. A direction was also sought for to convene the meeting of the Committee for electing the President of Respondent No. 1. Elaborate arguments have been advanced and after noticing all contentions, the Division bench has ruled that the dispute involves investigation of facts and in that view of the matter, they have rejected the Writ Petition. In this case, what is contended before me is that in the absence of declaration in terms of Rule 14 (A) (14), Annexure D has to go. Rule 14 (A) (14) reads as under: after voting by all the elected members present and wishing to vote, is over the Presiding Authority shall count the votes and declare that the candidate to whom the highest number of valid votes have been given to have been duly elected. ( 6 ) A careful reading of the rule would show that after voting by all the elected members present the presiding Authority is to count the votes and thereafter declare with regard to the election. That very question of election was noticed in the earlier proceedings and thereafter this Court categorically ruled that those facts involve investigation of facts. This court also noticed the compliance or substantial compliance of rule 14 (A) (14) in the said judgment. After noticing this court ruled that Writ Court cannot go into the dispute questions of facts. A mere observation at page 68 does not by itself come to the aid of the petitioners. In fact, a careful reading of the observation of this Court at page 68 would show that what is left open is substantial compliance or full compliance of Rule 14a. The court was of the view that any observation made on that aspect would prejudice the petitioners who have liberty of filing of an arbitration petition u/s. 70 of the act, since consideration of Rule 14 (A) (14) would involve investigation of facts in this case also. In the light of the material averments, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion particularly in the light of an earlier order by a Division Bench in somewhat identical/similar circumstances with regard to the very question. Petitioners were parties to those proceedings. In the light of the material averments, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion particularly in the light of an earlier order by a Division Bench in somewhat identical/similar circumstances with regard to the very question. Petitioners were parties to those proceedings. In these circumstances, I am firmly of the view that whether the 3rd respondent is President or not and whether Rule 14 (A) (14) is violated or not, all involves questions of fact which cannot be decided in this petition. This Court categorically ruled that a remedy is always available in the earlier proceedings. One cannot have quarrel with regard to the declaration involves disputed questions of fact with regard to the very declaration, this Court cannot set aside those matters in a writ petition. In these circumstances, I deem it proper not to exercise my discretion in the case on hand since the consideration of disputed questions of fact as held by this Court in the earlier petitions. In these circumstances, this petition stands rejected. Parties are to bear their respective costs. --- *** --- .