K. BHAKTHAVATSALA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 22-2-2001 passed in No. CMW 61 CNS 2001 (Annexure-C) on the file of respondent 1. ( 2 ) THE respondents 1 and 2 are represented by the High Court government Pleader Sri Keshav Reddy. In spite of service of notice on respondents 3 to 5, they are unrepresented. ( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case of the petitioner-Society may be stated as under. The 1st respondent, on three to four occasions, contributed share capital to the petitioner-Society in all amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/ -. Since the petitioner-Society is an assisted Co-operative Bank, the 1st respondent nominated 3 representatives on the committee of the petitioner-Society. On 31-3-1999, the petitioner-Society returned the entire share capital of Rs. 1,00,000/- by crediting the same under the head of Account No. 3005 with the Government Treasury. Thereafter, the petitioner intimated the same to the 1st respondent. Therefore, it is contended that the 1st respondent has no power to nominate any representative to the Committee of Management of the petitioner-Society under Section 29 (1) of the Karnataka Co-operative societies Act. Thereafter, a memorandum was sent to the respondent 1 to withdraw the nomination of the respondents 3 to 5 as it has no power to do so. In spite of that the 2nd respondent served a letter on the petitioner-Society on 17-5-2001 threatening that he will take action against the petitioner-Society. Therefore, the petitioner-Society resolved to file this writ petition challenging the act of respondent 1 in nominating the respondents 3 to 5 to the Committee of the Management of the petitioner-Society. ( 4 ) THE learned Government Pleader has filed statement of objections on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. It is contended that share capital of rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 35,000/- and Rs. 30,000/-, respectively was contributed by respondent 1 towards the share capital of the petitioner-Society on 31-3-1971, 31-3-1979, 3-3-1981, 29-3-1996 and 29-3-1996, respectively, and therefore the petitioner-Society was on assisted Society, and hence the respondent 1 was empowered to nominate respondents 3 to 5 under Section 29 (1) of the Act. It is also contended that return of the share capital by the petitioner-Society on its own does not take away the power of the Government to make nominations under Section 29 (1) of the Act. It is also contended that return of the share capital by the petitioner-Society on its own does not take away the power of the Government to make nominations under Section 29 (1) of the Act. Therefore, prayed for disposal of the writ petition. ( 5 ) HEARD arguments of the learned Counsels for the parties. ( 6 ) DURING the course of argument, the learned Counsel, Sri S. R. Hegde Hudlamane, cited a decision in Ganapathy Seetharam Bhat v state of Karnataka and Others, on the point that the State Government has no right in nominating the members even after it ceased to be a shareholder. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, the learned Government Pleader cited the following unreported decisions on the point that the share capital amount deposited by the assisted Society under a Treasury challan without the knowledge of the Government was illegal and unauthorised, and therefore the State Government never ceased to be a shareholder of the assisted Society. (I) Mahantappa Basalingappa Navadgi and Others v State of karnataka and Others; (ii) Mahanthappa Basalingappa and Others u State of karnataka and Others. ( 8 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case on record, it is necessary to refer to Section 2 (a-1) with regard to definition of "assisted Society" and Section 29 relating to nominees of Government on the Committee of an Assisted Co-operative Society of the Karnataka Co-operative societies Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act' ). The definition of "assisted society" means a Co-operative Society, which has received the government assistance in the form of share capital from the government. Section 29 of the Act empowers the State Government to nominate not more than 3 persons as its representatives on Committee of any Assisted Society. Admittedly, in the instant case, the State government had invested in all amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- towards share capital with the petitioner-Society. Therefore, there is no impediment to hold that as on 31-3-1999 the petitioner-Society was an assisted Society. But on 22-2-2001 by Government notification (Annexure-C) issued under Section 29 (1) of the Act nominated respondents 3 to 5 to the Committee of Management of the petitioner-Society. Thereafter, the petitioner-Society made a representation to the respondent 1 to withdraw the said notification on the ground that on 22-2-2001, the Society was not an Assisted Society. But on 22-2-2001 by Government notification (Annexure-C) issued under Section 29 (1) of the Act nominated respondents 3 to 5 to the Committee of Management of the petitioner-Society. Thereafter, the petitioner-Society made a representation to the respondent 1 to withdraw the said notification on the ground that on 22-2-2001, the Society was not an Assisted Society. The decision in Ganapathy's case, supra, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is directly on the point and applicable on all the fours to the case on hand. The Division Bench of this Court in the above said ganapathy Seetharam Bhat's case, supra, has held as under. "7. . . . . THE State Government ceased to be a shareholder because the subscription made to the share capital has been returned. It cannot be considered that the State Government continues to be a member or it can be deemed to be a member only because at some time past the State Government has subscribed to the share capital. . . . . . . . ". ( 9 ) ON the other hand, the learned Single Judge, while dealing with mahantappa Basalingappa Navadgi's case, supra, on 16-8-1991 had an occasion to consider the identical issue and held that "the Government never asked for the return of the share capital invested by it in the respondent 2-Society, but the Board of the respondent 2-Society unilaterally decided to return the contribution of the State Government towards its share capital. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the Board and the respondent 2-Society is a procedure unknown to law, because there is no provision under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, authorising the Board of any Society to return to a member or the government, the contribution made by such member or the Government to the share capital of the Society. The decision rendered by the learned single Judge was challenged in Mahanthappa Basalingappa's case, before the Division Bench of this Court. In para 3 of the Division Bench decision, it has observed as under. "3. . . . . . . . The decision rendered by the learned single Judge was challenged in Mahanthappa Basalingappa's case, before the Division Bench of this Court. In para 3 of the Division Bench decision, it has observed as under. "3. . . . . . . . IN our opinion, it was unnecessary, as far as this case is concerned to decide as to whether the Government does not lose power under Section 29 of the Act even after the Co-operative society concerned has returned the share capital, for the reason that in the present case the nomination was made on 12-3-1991 and admittedly the amount was remitted to the Treasury only on 22-3-1991. The question as to what would be the legal position if a society concerned has returned the share capital even before the government exercised the power under Section 29 of the Act, is left open to be considered in an appropriate case". (emphasis supplied) from the above, it is crystal clear that the Division Bench of this Court left open the question as to what would be the legal position, if the society concerned has returned share capital even before the government exercised the power under Section 29 of the Act. Subsequently, the Division Bench of this Court in the above said ganapathy Seetharam Bhat's case, supra, on 8-11-1993, had an occasion to deal with such a question, which was left open in the abovesaid mahantappa Basalingappa Navadgi's case, supra and held that "the state Government ceased to be a shareholder because the subscription made to the share capital has been returned and it cannot be considered that the State Government continues to be a member or it cannot be deemed to be a member only because at some time past, the State government had subscribed to the share capital". Therefore, there is no impediment to hold that the decision rendered by Division Bench of this court in Ganapathy Seetharam Bhat's case, supra, is applicable to the case on hand on all the fours. Hence, it is a fit case to quash the impugned notification dated 22-2-2001 (Annexure-C) insofar as the care of petitioner-Society (vide Sl. No. 2) on the ground that as on the date of notification, the Government ceased to be a shareholder and hence the exercise of power by the Government under Section 29 to nominate to the managing Committee of the petitioner-Co-operative Society is illegal. No. 2) on the ground that as on the date of notification, the Government ceased to be a shareholder and hence the exercise of power by the Government under Section 29 to nominate to the managing Committee of the petitioner-Co-operative Society is illegal. ( 10 ) HENCE, I pass the following order. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned notification at annexure-C bearing No. CMW 61 CNS 2001, dated 22-2-2001, insofar as the case of the petitioner-Society is concerned on the file of respondent 1 is quashed. No costs. The learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks. --- *** --- .