ORDER : 1. The petitioner is the President of the 4th respondent Cooperative Society. Respondents No.6 to 14, who are the Directors of the Society, have moved a no-confidence motion against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, respondents No.6 to 14 had moved a no-confidence motion against the petitioner on an earlier occasion also and a meeting was called on 09.03.2023. However, this Court in W.P. No.101470/2023, set aside the same on the ground that the same was not held in accordance with law. However, liberty was reserved to respondents No.6 to 14 to move the no-confidence motion again. Subsequent to the order, at the behest of respondents No.6 to 14, no-confidence motion has been moved against the petitioner. 3. It is contended by the petitioner that the present no-confidence motion is also in violation of the law. The no confidence motion is challenged on two grounds; i. That the jurisdictional Registrar has taken more than seven days to authorize an Officer for the purpose of presiding over the meeting of the Board called to consider the no confidence motion. ii. That the authorized Officer has supplied the petitioner only a notice of the meeting of no confidence and the written notice signed by not less than 1/3rd of the members along with a copy of the proposed motion given by them to the Chief Executive of the Society, has not been provided to the petitioner. 4. The respondents submit that the above two grounds does not vitiate the no confidence motion tabled against the petitioner. 5. Rule 14 – AKK of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1960’ for short) reads as under: “14-AKK. No Confidence Motion.-(1) A written notice hereinafter called a no-confidence notice, with intention to take up or move no-confidence motion, signed by not less than one-third of elected members of the board along with a copy of the proposed motion shall be delivered in person to the Chief Executive of the society. A copy of the said notice shall be sent to the jurisdictional Registrar. (2) The Chief Executive of the society shall send a communication to the jurisdictional Registrar within seven days of the receipt of notice of no-confidence motion. A copy of the said notice shall be sent to the jurisdictional Registrar. (2) The Chief Executive of the society shall send a communication to the jurisdictional Registrar within seven days of the receipt of notice of no-confidence motion. (3) The jurisdictional Registrar shall within seven days, authorise an officer not below the rank of a Senior Inspector of co-operative societies hereinafter called as authorised officer for this purpose to preside over the meeting of the board called to consider no-confidence motion and conduct all further proceedings in this behalf. (4) The authorised officer shall give a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting to all elected members of the board. (5) The notice shall clearly state the place, date, time and agenda of the meeting. (6) The service of notice may be effected to the elected members of the board in any of the following manner, namely.- (a) by giving or tendering it to such person; or (b) by sending it to their address through registered post. (7) The quorum for such meeting shall be the number next to fifty per cent of the elected members of the board. All the members attending the meeting shall sign in the book kept for the purpose before commencement of the meeting. The authorised officer shall preside over the meeting. If within one hour after the time fixed for the meeting, the quorum is not formed, the meeting shall stand cancelled and the notice issued as per sub-rule (4) shall stand cancelled. (8) Save as otherwise provided in the Act or these rules, a meeting of the board convened for the purpose of considering a no-confidence motion under sub-rules (4) and (5) shall not for any reason be adjourned. (9) As soon as the meeting commences, the authorised officer shall read out to the members of the board, the motion for consideration for which the meeting has been convened and shall put it to vote without any debate. (10) The votes shall be taken by secret ballot and the elected members of the board shall record their votes in the ballot papers supplied to them. (10) The votes shall be taken by secret ballot and the elected members of the board shall record their votes in the ballot papers supplied to them. (11) If the motion is carried, with the support of not less than 2/3rd of the elected members present in the meeting the authorised officer shall declare the result and draw up the proceedings accordingly and sign and handover a copy of the proceedings to the Chief Executive of the society and a copy to be displayed on the notice board of the society and communicate the same to the jurisdictional Registrar. (12) Immediately after the motion is carried as per sub-rule (11) above, the office-bearer or bearers as the case may be, shall not discharge any functions and shall be deemed to have vacated his or her or their office forthwith. (13) The Chief Executive of the society shall take action for the election of the office-bearers as per Sections 29-E and 29-F. The person/persons so elected shall hold office, for the remaining period of the term of his or her or their predecessor/predecessors as the case may be.” 6. Firstly, with regard to the requirement under Rule 14-AKK(3) of the Rules,1960, once the Registrar receives a communication from the Chief Executive of the Society, he shall, within seven days, authorize an Officer not below the rank of Senior Inspector of Cooperative Societies , to preside over the meeting of the Board called to consider the no confidence motion and conduct the proceedings. Not doing so within seven days does not violate the right of the person against whom the no confidence motion is moved. The persons who have moved the no confidence motion, get a cause of action against the Registrar. Thus, the petitioner cannot take shelter under the said provision. In the instant case, there is a delay of couple of days on part of the Registrar to act. It does not give any cause of action to the petitioner. Hence, the said argument is not acceptable. 7. With regard to supply of notice of meeting to the petitioner to consider the motion of no confidence not being enclosed with the no confidence notice and copy of the proposed motion duly signed by 1/3rd of the members, the petitioner contend that principles of natural justice have been violated. Hence, the said argument is not acceptable. 7. With regard to supply of notice of meeting to the petitioner to consider the motion of no confidence not being enclosed with the no confidence notice and copy of the proposed motion duly signed by 1/3rd of the members, the petitioner contend that principles of natural justice have been violated. It is submitted that the petitioner should know as to whether 1/3rd of the members have indeed signed the no confidence motion against him and if yes, who are all those members, so that he can approach them within the 15 days time and convince them to withdraw the no confidence motion against him. Mere sending him a notice stating that no confidence motion is moved against him and the meeting is scheduled on a particular date, violates the principles of natural justice. 8. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Basudeo Tiwary Vs. Sido Kanhu University and Others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 194 . paragraphs 10 and 12 of the said judgment reads as under: “10. In order to impose procedural safeguards, this Court has read the requirement of natural justice in many situations when the statute is silent on this point. The approach of this Court in this regard is that omission to impose the hearing requirement in the statute under which the impugned action is being taken does not exclude hearing – it may be implied from the nature of the power – particularly when the right of a party is affected adversely. The justification for reading such a requirement is that the Court merely supplies omission of the legislature. (vide Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 ) and except in case of direct legislative negation or implied exclusion. (vide S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan, reported in AIR 1981 SC 136 ). 12. The said provision provides that an appointment could be terminated at any time without notice if the same had been made contrary to the provisions of the Act, statutes, rules or regulations or in any irregular or unauthorised manner. The condition precedent for exercise of this power is that an appointment had been made contrary to the Act, Rules, Statutes and Regulations or otherwise. The condition precedent for exercise of this power is that an appointment had been made contrary to the Act, Rules, Statutes and Regulations or otherwise. In order to arrive at a conclusion that an appointment is contrary to the provisions of the Act, statutes, rules or regulations etc., a finding has to be recorded and unless such a finding is recorded, the termination cannot be made but to arrive at such a conclusion necessarily an enquiry will have to be made as to whether such appointment was contrary to the provisions of the Act etc. If in a given case such exercise is absent, the condition precendent stands unfulfilled. To arrive at such a finding necessarily enquiry will have to be held and in holding such an enquiry, the person whose appointment is under enquiry will have to be issued a notice. If notice is not given to him then it is like playing Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark, that is, if the employee concerned whose rights are affected, is not given notice of such a proceeding and a conclusion is drawn in his absence, such a conclusion would not be just, fair or reasonable as noticed by this Court in D.T.C. Mazdoor Sabha's case. In such an event, we have to hold that in the provision there is an implied requirement of hearing for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion that an appointment had been made contrary to the Act, statute, rule or regulation etc. and it is only on such a conclusion being drawn, the services of the person could be terminated without further notice. That is how Section 35(3) in this case will have to be read. 9. Based on the principle laid down in the said judgment, it is contended that, the right of the petitioner to know whether the Registrar was correct in satisfying himself that 1/3rd of the Board Members have moved the no confidence motion and to know who are all the persons who have moved the no confidence motion against the petitioner, has been violated and for that reason, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 10. 10. Per contra, the respondents submit, that the provisions of Rule 14-AKK of Rules, 1960 does not contemplate supply of the notice of no confidence and the copy of the motion to be given to the person against whom the no confidence motion is moved and it contemplates only supply of the notice of meeting, which has been done in this case. It is submitted that the provisions of Rules, 1960 is pari materia with the provisions of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and while interpreting the provisions, this Court in the case of Ramappa Vs. Assistant Commissioner Lingsur and Another reported in ILR 2006 KAR 3364, in paragraph 3 has held as under: “3. Relevant portion of Rule 3 of the said Rules reads thus: “Rule 3-Motion of No-confidence.-(1) A written notice of intention to make the motion under the proviso to Section 49 shall be in Form I signed by not less than one-third of the total number of members together with a copy of the proposed motion shall be delivered in person by any two of the members signing of notice to the Assistant Commissioner. (2) The Assistant Commissioner shall thereafter convene a meeting for the consideration of the said motion at the office of the Gram Panchayat on the date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under Sub-rule (1) was delivered to him. He shall give to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in Form II: Provided that where the holding of such meeting is stayed by an order of a Court, the Assistant Commissioner shall adjourn the said meeting and shall hold the adjourned meeting on a date not later than thirty days from the date on which he receives the intimation about the vacation of stay, after giving to the members, after giving to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such adjourned meeting. (3) A notice is Form II shall be given to every member including the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha- (a) by delivering or tendering the said notice to such member; or” xxxx As could be seen from Rule 3(1) of the said Rules, No-confidence Motion shall be in Form I signed by not less than one-third members. (3) A notice is Form II shall be given to every member including the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha- (a) by delivering or tendering the said notice to such member; or” xxxx As could be seen from Rule 3(1) of the said Rules, No-confidence Motion shall be in Form I signed by not less than one-third members. The said motion along with a written notice of intention to make motion shall be delivered in person by any two of the members signing the motion to the Assistant Commissioner. Thus while giving requisition of No-confidence Motion those documents shall be furnished to the Assistant Commissioner. That does not mean that those documents also should be sent by the Assistant Commissioner to the person against whom the No-confidence Motion is moved, while sending the notice under Rule 3(2) of the Rules. Rule 3(2) of the Rules makes it amply clear that after receiving the no-confidence requisition, the Assistant Commissioner shall issue a notice of not less than 15 clear days of such meeting in Form II. Except sending the notice in Form II, the Assistant Commissioner is not obliged to send any other document to the person against whom the No-confidence Motion is moved. The notice Annexure-D issued under Rule 3(2) of the Rules is in accordance with the Form prescribed under the Rules. In the afore cited judgment also, this Court has not specifically held that notice issued in Form II shall accompany all the documents furnished along with no-confidence requisition. Even otherwise, there is no ambiguity in the language employed in Rule 3(1) and (2) of the Rules. and it is prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed. 11. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner pertains to service jurisprudence. When an allegation is made against any person, he has to be made known of the allegations, so that he can defend himself. 12. The instant case pertains to moving a no confidence motion by the members of the Board of a Cooperative Society against its President. Provisions of Rule-14AKK of the Rules, 1960 itself contains the principles of natural justice in the procedure mentioned therein and there is no requirement to read in any other activity that is required to be done by the Registrar. Board members of a Cooperative Society are limited in number. Provisions of Rule-14AKK of the Rules, 1960 itself contains the principles of natural justice in the procedure mentioned therein and there is no requirement to read in any other activity that is required to be done by the Registrar. Board members of a Cooperative Society are limited in number. If a minimum of 1/3rd of the said members move a no confidence motion, they need not assign any reason for the same. If the Registrar is satisfied that the said no confidence motion is moved by the requisite number of members, he has to give 15 days clear notice to all the members including the person against whom the motion is moved. That gives sufficient time for a person like the petitioner to approach the Board members and know who are against him and he can convince them to the contrary, if he so desires. The fact that the petitioner has made only those who have moved the motion against him as respondents in the instant case and not other Directors, show the petitioner is aware as to who are against him. For that reason, in my opinion, none of the rights of the petitioner is violated. 13. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.