Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 953 (KAR)

Suresh Nagappa Patil v. State of Karnataka

2016-12-13

G.NARENDAR

body2016
ORDER : G. Narendar, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings at Annexure-A and at Annexure-C. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the second respondent exercised his power under Section 14 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and has passed an order dated 6-9-2014 for the division of fourth respondent-Society. That the petitioners are the members of the fourth respondent-Society and that fourth respondent is the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society, registered under Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The total membership consists of 1150 and the area of operation of the fourth respondent-Society is restricted to eight small villages of Dharwad Taluk. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the resolution ought to have been passed by a ?rd majority and there were not sufficient members present and voting on the said date. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the writ petitions are not maintainable, in view of the alternative remedy of revision, which is available to the petitioners. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that by reserving such liberty, the petitions may be disposed off. 7. The submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate and the learned Counsel for the petitioners are placed on record and the writ petitions are disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority under the provisions of Section 108 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. 8. It is pointed out by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the revision has to be preferred within six months. In the event, if the petitioners prefer the revision petition within four weeks from today, the Revisional Authority shall not reject the same on the ground of being belated. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, I.A. No. 2 of 2015 for vacating stay does not survive for consideration.