( 1 ) THE petitioner, assailing the legality and the validity of the order dated 2. 11. 2001 passed in Appeal No. D4/18/2001-02 by the 1st respondent vide Annexure -A and the order dated 7. 9. 2001 in No. JRM/b1/30/2000-01 passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure -B, has filed this writ petition. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was working as the President of the Mandya District Milk Producers Co-operative Union till his term come to an end. Thereafter, he is elected as a director of the 3rd respondent. When things stood thus, the 2nd respondent herein issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why he shall not be disqualified from being elected or continued as member of the committee as he incurs disqualification under Section 29 (c) (8) (b) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. It is alleged that the implementation of revised pay scale to the employees of the Union is in violation of rule 17 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960. In pursuance of the show cause notice, the petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent and contended that the alleged irregularity is not at all committed due to any omission on his part to perform his duties as the President of the Union. Further, he specifically pointed out that the alleged violation does not fall for consideration of disqualify him under Section 29 (c) of the Act. It was also brought to the notice of 2nd respondent that the order of the High Court passed in W. P. No. 10773/1988 dated 6. 9. 1988 has been implemented by passing appropriate resolution which cannot be a violation of the provisions of the Act or Rules and at any event, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same. The resolution was passed unanimously to implement the directions issued by this Court as stated supra and therefore the question of violation of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, does not hold water. The further case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent, without holding proper enquiry and without properly appreciating the facts, has passed the erroneous order and therefore, he is constrained to file this writ petition. ( 3 ) THE principal ground canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner being the President of the Union cannot be held responsible for sanctioning revised pay scale to the employees. ( 3 ) THE principal ground canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner being the President of the Union cannot be held responsible for sanctioning revised pay scale to the employees. The said decision had been taken by passing appropriate resolution in conformity with the order passed by the High Court and once the order has been passed by this Court, the question of taking permission under Rule 17 of the Rules is not a mandatory requirement. He pointed out that as a matter of fact, 2nd respondent himself has passed the order implementing the direction issued by this Court in pursuance of the resolution passed vide Annexure-D dated 25. 6. 1999 and knowing this fact fully well, the 1st respondent has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, he submitted that the entire proceedings initiated by the respondents are contrary to the relevant provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. ( 4 ) PER contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents, interalia, contended and justified the impugned order. He submitted that the said resolution passed by the Union in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court is subject to the approval by the Government under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules and therefore the respondents have not committed any error or irregularity in passing the impugned orders. He contended that the petitioner has not made out any good ground to interfere with the impugned orders and therefore the writ petition is liable to be rejected. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. I have perused the impugned orders carefully and reassessed the entire matter with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the Bangalore Dairy Workers Unity Forum represented by its General Secretary has filed W. P. No. 10773/1988 against the State and the 3rd respondent herein. The said writ petition came up for consideration on 6. 9. 1988. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the Bangalore Dairy Workers Unity Forum represented by its General Secretary has filed W. P. No. 10773/1988 against the State and the 3rd respondent herein. The said writ petition came up for consideration on 6. 9. 1988. After hearing both the parties including the learned Government Pleader representing respondent No. 1 and after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on the file, this Court has disposed of the writ petition in terms of the memorandum of settlement under section 22 (h) of Indust5rial Disputes Act read with Rule 59 (4) of Industrial Dispute (Karnataka) Rules 1957, between the Managment of Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Limited and District Co-operative Milk Producer's Societies Union Ltd. , on the one side and the workmen and officers of Dairies on the other at Vidhana Soudha, under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Minister for Animal Husbandry and Sericulture and in the presence of Secretary, ALLFF on 31. 8. 1988. In obedience to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner placed the matter before the 3rd respondent and the Management Committee members passed the resolution unanimously to implement the same. At this stage, the 2nd respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner as to why he shall not be disqualified u/s 29 (c) (8) (b) of the Act, alleging violation of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner being the President of the Union cannot be held responsible alone for sanctioning revised pay scale to the employees because the said decision was taken by all the members of the 3rd respondent and the said decision was implemented in conformity with the order passed by this Court. It is significant to note that in terms of the memorandum of settlement, this Court has disposed of the writ petition and in pursuance of the same, the matter was placed before the Union and the Union, as a whole has passed the resolution in conformity with the order passed by this Court. It is significant to note that in terms of the memorandum of settlement, this Court has disposed of the writ petition and in pursuance of the same, the matter was placed before the Union and the Union, as a whole has passed the resolution in conformity with the order passed by this Court. In my considered view, the question of obtaining permission from the Government under Rule 17 of the Rules is not at all required because the said memorandum of settlement has been arrived between the parties presided over by the Hon'ble Minister for Animal Husbandry and Sericulture and in the presence of Secretary, ALLFF on 31. 8. 1988. They cannot go behind this. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said resolution passed by the 3rd respondent was presided over the petitioner and the order has been passed by 2nd respondent himself vide Annexure -D. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the respondents disqualifying the petitioner alone is one without jurisdiction and contrary to the material on record. Therefore, at any stretch, the impugned orders are not at all sustainable and they are liable to be set aside. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 2. 11. 2001 passed in Appeal No. D4/18/2001-02 by the 1st respondent vide Annexure -A and the order dated 7. 9. 2001 in No. JRM/b1/30/2000-01 passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-B are hereby set aside. ( 8 ) THE learned Government pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks from today. --- *** --- .