Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1348 (KAR)

Praveen v. State Of Karnataka

2020-07-07

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

body2020
JUDGMENT Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. - The captioned writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by respondent No.1-Appellate Authority confirming the order passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-B. 2. Brief facts leading to this top noted writ petition are as under: The petitioner is claiming to be the member of respondent Nos.3 and 4 societies. It appears that respondent No.3 filed a petition under Section 17 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act') to annul the membership of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is having dual membership which is impermissible as per Section 17(1)(d) of the Act. Respondent No.2 after hearing both the parties passed an order disqualifying the present petitioner by invoking the provisions of Section 17(1)(d) and Section 17(2) of the Act. The petitioner herein being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2 preferred an appeal before respondent No.1-Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority having re-examined the material on record has concurred with the reasoning assigned by respondent No.2 and has dismissed the appeal vide Annexure-A. Being aggrieved by these two orders, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that respondent No.3 has filed a petition on 13.03.2017. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that he has already tendered resignation to respondent No.4-society on 09.06.2017. Though these materials were placed on record before respondent No.2-authority, the said material aspect was not taken into consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further vehemently argue and contend before this Court that, admittedly, the petitioner has availed membership to respondent No.4 on 30.06.1982 and insofar as respondent No.3 is concerned, he has availed membership on 17.07.1999. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit to this Court that Section 17(2) of the Act is not applicable to the present case on hand. 4. To buttress his arguments, he would contend before this Court that he has protection under Rule 7 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies, Rules 1960 (for short 'the Rules'). The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit to this Court that Section 17(2) of the Act is not applicable to the present case on hand. 4. To buttress his arguments, he would contend before this Court that he has protection under Rule 7 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies, Rules 1960 (for short 'the Rules'). By relying on this Rule, he would submit to this Court that, if a person availed membership contrary to law and if he claims two or more primary membership of Co-operatives Societies before commencement of Act, then under proviso to Rule 7, the petitioner would not incur immediate disqualification, it is for the Registrar to call upon the petitioner to select the society in which he wishes to continue as member. By relying on this proviso to Rule 7 of the Rules, he would submit to this Court that he has voluntarily tendered resignation to respondent No.4- society. In this background, he submits that he has not suffered any disqualification and as such, the proviso to Section 17(2) of the Act is not applicable to the present case on hand. 5. He would also bring it to the notice of this Court that Rule 7 was omitted by notification dated 29.11.2007. And as such he would submit to this Court as on the date when he availed membership to the 3rd respondent-society, he had protection under Rule 7 of the Act and as such the authorities were not justified in disqualifying. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the order under challenge is strictly in consonance of Rules 17(1)(d) and 17(2) of Karnataka Co- Operative Societies Act, 1959. To negate the theory set up by the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would rely on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of The Tumkur Grain Merchants Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs. K.B.Lingaraju and others, (2005) ILR(Kar) 5673 and judgment rendered in the case of Narayana Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka, (1986) ILR(Kar) 2266 . K.B.Lingaraju and others, (2005) ILR(Kar) 5673 and judgment rendered in the case of Narayana Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka, (1986) ILR(Kar) 2266 . Relying on these two judgment he would submit to this Court that the 3rd amendment to the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act was brought in 1976 and if a member ventures into availing a second membership then he would incur disqualification unless he resigns his membership in all but one of such Co-operative Societies within a period of 60 days from the date of commencement of the Act. 7. Having perused these two judgments, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. In the light of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and also judgment rendered by learned Single Judge in Narayana Gowda's case, it is clearly evident that the disqualification would incur immediately from the commencement of 1976 Act. As on 1999 when the petitioner sought availing a membership, the 1976 Act would immediately come into play and as such, the petitioner would incur disqualification the moment he takes membership in a second Cooperative Society. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that, the order under challenge is in accordance with law. The grounds urged by the petitioner by relying on Rule 7 of Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Rules 1960, are devoid of merits and petitioner cannot avoid disqualification. As on the date of availing membership to the 3rd respondent-Society, there was a restriction under Section 17(1)(d) of the Act and which is in force. 9. In the light of above discussion, I am of the view that the order passed by the 2nd respondent is in accordance with law and would not warrant any interference . The 1st respondent has dealt and has concurred with the reasons assigned by the 2nd respondent. The order under challenge does not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition is devoid of merits, accordingly, dismissed. 10. This order would not come in the way of the petitioner in seeking a membership in any primary society in accordance with law, since he has lost his membership in both the societies.