Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 418 (KAR)

M. G. Siddaveerappa v. Deputy Registrar

2008-08-08

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2008
Judgment :- (This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the Endorsement dated 312.2007 vide Annexure-D to the writ petition and etc.) Writ petition by a person, who was an aspirant seeking to be elected as an office bearer to the managing committee of sixth respondent-co-operative bank. 2. It appears, on 28-9-2007, the returning officer had declared the third respondent to this writ petition as elected unopposed on the premises that the petitioner had withdrawn his nomination. The petitioner contested this position claiming that he had not withdrawn from the contest and even sought for furnishing of a copy of the letter of withdrawal etc., but as the returning officer having issued an endorsement at Annexure-C indicating that it is not available in the record etc., the petitioner wanted to raise a dispute and filed an election petition before the registrar on 29-10-2007. 3. The dispute raised by the petitioner on 29-10-2007 having been referred to the deputy registrar by the joint registrar for adjudication and the same having been numbered as GRB/Dispute 42/07-08, the deputy registrar, instead of looking into the matter, had issued a further endorsement on 31-12-2007 indicating that the dispute was barred by limitation in terms of section 70-A(1) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 [for short, the Act] and refused to entertain the matter. It is aggrieved by this endorsement issued by the deputy registrar, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri S.V Prakash, learned counsel, would urge that while the facts are not in dispute, the endorsement issued by the deputy registrar is not tenable in law for the reason that while the proviso to Section 70-A(1) of the Act, which reads as under: Provided that dispute relating to the election of a member, president, vice-president, managing director, honourary secretary or other officer of the committee shall be referred to the Registrar within thirty days from the date of declaration of the result of the election. Does indicate that it should have been presented within 30 days from the date of declaration of results; that the 30th day falling on a Sunday, in terms of Section 10 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, it can be presented on the next working day and accordingly the dispute had been presented before the joint registrar on 29-10-2007 and if so presented is well within the period of limitation prescribed under the proviso to Section 70-A(1) of the Act and therefore the endorsement issued refusing to entertain the dispute is not tenable in law and should be quashed and necessary directions issued to the respondents. 5. Notices having been issued to the respondents, the first respondent is represented by Ms. Asha M Kumbaragerimath, learned government pleader. 6. Submissionof the learned government pleader is that the Act is a special enactment; that it specifically stipulates the presentation of an election dispute within a period of 30 days from the date of declaration of results in terms of the proviso to Section 7-A(1) of the Act; that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the day of declaration is also to be calculated; that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of either Section 9 or Section 10 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act and if so computed, the 30th day fell on 27-10-2007, which is a Saturday and as admittedly the election dispute had not been presented on the 27th day of October 2007, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of either section, as the 30th day had expired on Saturday etc. 7. Assuming that the Act is a special enactment regulating the interaction amongst the members of a cooperative society, there is no impediment nor bar for applying the provisions of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, particularly in matters where the Act itself is not indicating as to what should be done in a particularly situation. The Act does not indicate as to when a dispute can be presented if the last day for the presentation in terms of the period of limitation provided under the Act happens to be a holiday. In a situation of this nature, there is no impediment for applying the provisions of Section 9 or 10 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act. In a situation of this nature, there is no impediment for applying the provisions of Section 9 or 10 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act. In fact it is not as though the period of limitation fixed under the Act, constitutes an absolute bar for entertaining a dispute of this nature beyond the period of limitation, as sub-section(2) of Section 70-A also, provides for condonation of delay and to entertain a dispute raised even after 30 days. 8. Be that as it may, in the present case, even under the Act what it contemplated is presentation of the dispute within 30 days from the date of declaration of results. The declaration being undisputedly on 28-9-2007, it has to be reckoned after 28-9-2007 from 00.00 hours of 29-9-2007. If so the 30th day falls on 28-10-2007, which without dispute, happened to be a Sunday and the presentation of the dispute on the next working day-Monday, 29-10-2007-cannot be said to be barred by limitation even in terms of the proviso to Section 70- A(1) of the Act. 9. It is for this reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the endorsement dated 31-12-2007 [Annexure-D] is quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. The first respondent deputy registrar is directed by issue of writ of mandamus, to examine the dispute raised by the petitioner on its merits. 10. Rule issued and made absolute. 11. Having regard to the nature of the dispute, it is expected that the first respondent deputy registrar disposes the dispute/election petition as expeditiously as possible and at any rate not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.