Karnataka High Court
Gopalakrishna Govinda Hegde vs The President on 3 March, 2021
Author: Sachin Shankar Magadum
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
W.P.NO.107152/2017 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN :
1. GOPALAKRISHNA GOVINDA HEGDE
AGE: 75 YEARS,
R/O: KODGADDE,
TAL: SIDDAPUR,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
2. NARASIMHAMURTHY
S/O VISHVESHWAR HEGDE,
AGE: 58 YEARS,
R/O: ASHISAR,
POST: BAIRUMBHE,
TAL: SIRSI-581402,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
3. VIGHNESHWAR
S/O NARAYANA BHAT
AGE: 56 YEARS,
R/O: NIRKONEMANE,
TAL: SIRSI-581402,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
4. VTHAL S/O KRISHNA BHAT
AGE: 65 YEARS,
R/O: HUTGAR,
TAL: SIRSI-581402,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
5. SHRIDHAR S/O SHANKAR BHAT
2
AGE: 64 YEARS,
R/O: DEVERAKOPPA,
TAL: SIRSI-581402,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
6. SHRIDHAR S/O TAMMANNA BHAT
AGE: 56 YEARS,
R/O: NIRKONOEMANE,
TAL: SIRSI-581402,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
7. GANAPATI S/O SHRIPATI HEGDE
AGE: 70 YEARS,
R/O: 579, JANANI,
SHANTI NAGAR,
TAL: SIRSI-581402,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B HIREMATH, ADV. )
AND :
1. THE PRESIDENT
THE TOTAGAR'S CO-OPERATIVE SALES
SOCIETY LTD., (SHANTARAM V HEGDE)
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SHIGEHALLI, SIRSI,
U.KLDISTRICT-581402,
SIRSI-581402,
SIRSI-581402,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
2. CHIEF MANAGER
(CHIEF EXECUTIVE)
THE TOTAGAR'S CO-OPERATIVE SALES,
SOCIETY LTD.,
(REVEESH ACHYUT HEGDE,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCC: SERVICE,
R/O MARKET YARD, SIRSI,
U.K.DISTRICT-581402.
3
3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF
COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
KARWAR-581301,
UTTARA KANNADA.
4. THE TOTAGAR'S CO-OPERATIVE SALES
SOCIETY LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SIRSI-581402,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
5. SHRIPAD
S/O NARAYAN HEGDE,
AGE : 64 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BAKAEMANE, TQ: SIRSI,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581 402.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.P.HEGDE JANMANE, ADV. FOR R.1, R2 & R4)
(BY SRI V.S.KALASOORMATH, HCGP FOR R.3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE
COURT TO ISSUE A WRI TO CERTIORARI QUASHING OF THE
JUDGMENT PASSED IN REVISION PETITION NO.49/2011
CONNECTED WITH APPEAL NO.736/2012 DATED 27.02.2017 AT
ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
: ORDER :
The captioned writ petition is filed challeng ing the
ord er dated 27.02.2017 passed by the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal in Revision Petition No.49/2011
connected with Appeal No.736/2012 as per Annexure-J
to the writ p etition.
2. The facts leading to the top noted writ
petition are as under:
The petitioners are claiming that they are B Class
members of the 4 t h respond ent-society and it is also
stated that the petitioners are ag riculturist. The 4 t h
respondent-cooperative society is governed by
Karnataka Co-Op erative Societies Act, 1959 ("the Act"
for short). It is also stated that the intent and object of
establishment of the society is for upliftment of its
members who are areca g rowers. The ob ject of
establishment of the 4th respondent society is to
provide services in the matter of sale of agriculture
produce includ ing the areca nut. It app ears there was a
dispute within the members of 4 t h respondent society
and a d ispute arose on account of creation of a
sep arate trust, which raised several doubts in the minds
of memb ers includ ing the petitioners in regard to
utilization of funds by the office bearers of the 4 t h
respondent-society.
3. The p etitioners have further stated that, in
this reg ard they have approached the 4 t h resp ondent
seeking red ressal of their grievance and also submitted
a rep resentation to hold enquiry und er Section 64 of
the Act. The p etitioners have further stated that, after
considering the representation, the comp etent authority
ord ered to hold an enquiry und er Section 64 of the Act.
4. In this b ackground the p etitioners have
stated in the writ petition that the 3 r d respond ent on
24.12.2010 issued a show cause notice calling for
special general body meeting of the 4 t h respondent-
society to be held on 05.03.2011. In the said notice it
was notified that 55 members of the society have
sought for removal of 8 members. Being aggrieved by
the issuance of the notice calling for the sp ecial g eneral
meeting, the present petitioners approached the 3 r d
respondent by raising a dispute under Section 70 of the
Act in dispute No.DRN/F/DDS/ABN 378/2011-12. The
3 r d respondent granted interim ord er thereb y staying
the impugned notice which was to be held on
22.04.2011.
5. When the matter stood thus, it appears that
the contesting respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed an revision
before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revision
No.49/2011 challeng ing the interim ord er granted by
the 3 r d respond ent.
6. The 3 r d respondent taking note of the revision
filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal has virtually proceeded to dismiss
the d ispute on the p remises that the validity of the
impugned notice is the subject matter before the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
7. The p resent petitioners b eing aggrieved by
the ord er passed by the 3 r d respondent, preferred an
app eal before the Karnataka Appellate Trib unal in
Appeal No.736/2012.
8. The Appellate Tribunal having clubbed the
revision along with appeal and after hearing the rival
contentions of the p arties has proceed ed to allow the
revision and dismiss the app eal filed by the petitioners.
The p resent writ petition is filed questioning the ord er
of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revision
No.49/2011 and Appeal No.736/2012.
9. On perusal of the ord er passed by the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal what emerg es is that the
Karnataka App ellate Trib unal has virtually ventured into
examining the rival claims of the parties in ab sence of
ad jud ication of the dispute by the 3 r d respond ent.
10. On this short point I am of the view that the
ord er p assed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in
Appeal No.736/2012 is p alp ab ly erroneous and beyond
the scop e of enq uiry contemplated under Section 105 of
the Act. The appellate Tribunal ought to have taken
note of the fact that, the 3 r d respondent has p roceed ed
to dismiss the dispute itself on the p remises that the
interim ord er granted by him is questioning in revision
by the contesting respond ent Nos.1 and 2.
11. The material on record clearly indicates that
the d ispute is not at all decided in accord ance with law
and the same is dismissed by referring to the pendency
of revision b efore the Karnataka App ellate Tribunal
questioning the interim order granted by the 3rd
respondent in a dispute raised under Section 70 of the
Act.
12. The 3 r d respondent und er section 70 dispute
had stayed the impugned special general body meeting
which was scheduled to be conducted on 22.04.2011
pending ad judication of d ispute. This ord er was
challenged by the respond ents in Revision Petition
No.49/2011 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
Admitted ly, the ord er und er challenge was interlocutory
ord er and thereby the revision authority was required to
only to examine the correctness of interim order
granted by the 3 r d respondent. The dispute was in fact
required to be adjudicated by the 3 r d respond ent. The
3 r d respondent by taking note of filing of revision by the
1 s t respond ent has virtually proceeded to dismiss the
dispute by hold ing that the matter is ceased before the
Rivisional Authority. This finding is p alp ably erroneous
and there is gross error in p roced ure adopted by
Revisional Authority. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
was also required to examine as to whether the dispute
was ad judicated on merits by affording opportunity to
both the p arties. The 3 r d respond ent has dismissed the
dispute summarily by holding that the matter is ceased
before the Karnataka App ellate Tribunal in revision
petition No.49/2011. In the absence of ad judication of
dispute, what Appellate Court was req uired to d o was
set asid e the order of the 3 r d resp ondent dismissing the
dispute.
13. In that view of the matter even the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal committed an error in examining the
merits when there was no enquiry in the d ispute raised
by the petitioner before the 3 r d respondent. The order
passed in Appeal No.736/2012 is also p alpably
erroneous and the same suffers from serious perversity.
14. In this b ackground, I am of the view that the
Karnataka Appellate Trib unal erred in examining the
merits of the case which is impermissible und er law.
15. On this short point, the order p assed by the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.736/2012 as
well as the order passed in Revision No.49/2011 are not
at all sustainab le and the same are liab le to b e set
aside. Accordingly I p ass the following order.
: ORDER :
a) Accordingly, the writ p etition is allowed.
b) The impugned ord er dated 27.02.2017
passed in Revision Petition No.49/2011
connected with Appeal No.736/2012 by
the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, as p er
Annexure-J is set asid e. The matter is
remitted back to the 3 r d respond ent.
c) Since the d ispute is of the year 2011, I
deem it fit to direct the p arties to appear
before the 3 r d respondent on 22.03.2021.
d) All contentions of the p arties are kep t
open.
e) It is also op en for respondent Nos.1 and
2 to file their additional objections in
reg ard to subsequent d evelopments. In
the event, the add itional objection is
filed, it is also open for the petitioners to
file their rejoinder and thereafter the 3 r d
respondent shall proceed to d ecide the
dispute in accord ance with law.
Sd/-
JU DGE
EM /-
