Adiveppa Belagali S/O. ... vs Deputy Registrar Of Co-Operative ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 373 Kant

                             :1:


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                            BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

      WRIT PETITION NO.104438/2021 (CS-RES)

BETWEEN

ADIVEPPA BELAGALI
S/O. SHIVALINGAPPA BELAGALI,
AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. WARD NO.7, HOUSE NO. 24,
NAVARASPUR COLONY, NEAR RESHMI OFFICE,
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
                                                   ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R M JAVED, ADV.)

AND

1.     DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
       DEPT. OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
       ZILLA ADALITHA BHAWAN,
       ROOM NO. 138, 139,
       BAGALKOT-587 103.

2.     ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,
       DEPT. OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
       JAMKHANDI SUB DIVISION,
       JAMKHANDI, BAGALKOT DIST- 587301.

3.    SHRIMANT V CHOURI,
      AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
      C/O. PRESIDENT,
      PRADAMIKA KRISHI PATTINA SAHAKAARA SANGHA NIYAMITA,
      TODALBAGI, JAMKHANDI, BAGALKOT-587301.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
 NOTICE TO R3 IS DEFERRRED)
                               :2:



     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE   CONSTITUTION    OF   INDIA,  PRAYING    TO   ISSUE   A
WRIT/ORDER/DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI,
QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO.AR-
8/ABN/KALAM 64/CR-8/2021-22/116 DATED 16.06.2021 (ANNEXURE-
C).

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of

certiorari to quash the order dated 16.06.2021, passed by the

respondent No.2 vide Annexure-C, in terms of which, he

appointed a Co-operative Development Officer to inquire into the

affairs of the Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society

Ltd., Todalbagi (old Jamkhandi) under Section 64 of the

Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred

to as 'the Act, 1959').

2. The petitioner claims that the respondent No.3

lodged a complaint on 17.02.2021 before the respondent Nos.1

and 2 alleging that the petitioner was involved in irregularities

and misappropriation of funds of the cooperative society since

the year 2011. Based on the said complaint, the respondent No.1

addressed a notice to the petitioner on 18.02.2021 and required

him to appear on 03.03.2021. The petitioner appeared before the

respondent No.1 and submitted his explanation and thereafter it

was orally informed to the petitioner that the proceedings were

closed. However, the respondent No.2 passed an order dated

16.06.2021 and appointed a Cooperative Development Officer to

investigate into the allegations alleged against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged this

order on two grounds; (i) that the respondent No.2 is not

authorized to conduct an inquiry under Section 64 of the Act,

1959 and that under Section 64(2), the inquiry can be conducted

on the complaint of the cooperative society to which the society

concerned is affiliated or by a majority of the members of the

Board of the society or by not less than one-third of the total

number of members of the society.

4. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case,

respondent No.3 had lodged a complaint and therefore did not

qualify under Section 64(2) of the Act, 1959 to compel the

conduct of an enquiry.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the

other hand submitted that under Section 2-A(5) of the Act, 1959,

the State Government had delegated the powers of the Registrar

to be performed by the Assistant Registrar of the cooperative

societies and therefore for the purpose of Section 64 of the Act,

1959, the Assistant Registrar of cooperative societies was the

competent authority. He submitted that the Government in

terms of the notification dated 06.12.2016 had delegated the

powers of a Registrar to the respondent No.2. Consequently,

Assistant Registrar of cooperative societies functioned as

Registrar for the purpose of Section 64 of the Act, 1959 and

therefore he was competent to authorize a person to conduct

enquiry. Insofar as the contention that the inquiry under Section

64(2) was not entertainable on the complaint of respondent

No.3, learned counsel invited attention of the Court to the full

Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bangalore Grain

Merchants Association Vs.The District Registrar for

Societies and Another reported in 2001(1) KCCR 292 (FB)

and contends that the Registrar has the power to initiate inquiry

suo motu and the complaint lodged by the respondent No.3 is

treated as an information for the purpose of invoking the suo

motu jurisdiction.

6. I have considered the submission made by the

learned counsel for the parties.

7. As rightly contended by the learned Additional

Government Advocate, the State Government has issued a

notification dated 06.12.2016 under Section 2-A(5) of the Act,

1959 in terms by which the Assistant Registrar of the

Cooperative Societies in sub divisions excluding Bengaluru Urban

District are delegated with the powers exercisable under Section

64 of the Act, 1959. A reading of Section 2-A(5) of the Act, 1959

makes it clear that the State Government is entitled to delegate

the powers of the Registrar to be performed by any officer. In

that view of the matter, in the present case, the respondent No.2

is authorized to perform the functions of the Registrar under

Section 64 of the Act, 1959. Consequently, the respondent No.2

is authorized to appoint any person to inquire into the affairs of

the society. Therefore the contention urged by the petitioner that

the respondent No.2 is not authorized to conduct enquiry, is

liable to be rejected.

8. Insofar as the other contention is concerned, the

Registrar has the power to initiate inquiry on his own motion. In

the present case, the complaint lodged by the respondent No.3 is

treated as information by the respondent No.2 to initiate action

under Section 64(1) of the Act, 1959. Under the circumstance,

the second ground urged by the petitioner also is liable to be

rejected.

9. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this

writ petition and the same is rejected. However, if the petitioner

is able to convince the respondent No.2 that the inquiry

undertaken by the respondent No.2 on the basis of the complaint

lodged by the respondent No.3 is outside the purview of Sections

64(1) and (2) of the Act, 1959, he is permitted to do so before

the respondent No.2.

Sd/-

JUDGE KGK