Sri. H C Shivaram vs Karnataka Co-Operative Milk ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5826 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                        BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

        WRIT PETITION NO.14520/2020 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI H.C. SHIVARAM
S/O SRI H.S.SHIVALINGASWAMY
AGED 50 YEARS
PROPRIETOR
M/S. GANESH ENTERPRISES
NO.71/3, SHOP BUILDING
'A' BLOCK, BANDIPALYA MARKET YARD
BANDIPALYA
MYSURU-570 025.
                                        ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADV.)

AND:

  1. KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCESRS'
     FEDERATION LIMITED
     KMF COMPLEX, P.B.NO.2915
     DR.M.H.MARIGOWDA ROAD
     BENGALURU-560 029
     REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

  2. THE DIRECTOR (MARKETING)
     KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS'
     FEDERATION LIMITED
     KMF COMPLEX, P.B.NO.2915
     DR.M.H.MARIGOWDA ROAD
     BENGALURU-560 029.
                                   2

   3. M/S. M.S.NAVEEN AND CO.,
      NO.15/4, 1ST CROSS, A BLOCK
      APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA
      MYSORE-560024
      REP. BY ITS PARTNER
      SHRI M.S.NAVEEN
      AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
      S/O M.P.SHIVASWAMY.
                                                   ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.NAGANAND, SR.COUNSEL FOR
 M/S. JUST LAW FOR R1 & 2
 SRI K.J.KAMATH, ADV. FOR R3)


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED LETTER DATED 26.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-


                             ORDER

The petitioner, a distributor of Nandini Milk Products of

respondent-Karnataka Milk Producers' Federation Limited is

before this Court, questioning Annexure-A/communication

bearing No. PÀºÁªÀÄ/ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉ×/ªÀiÁ&J/2020-21 dated 26.11.2020

from the second respondent to the Depot Supervisor, Mysore

Marketing Area, Mysore wherein it is communicated to

withdraw the additional market area entrusted to the

petitioner which was withdrawn from 3rd respondent

M/s.Naveen and Co.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Kalyana

Basavaraj, learned Senior Counsel Sri.S.S.Naganand for

M/s.Just Law for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned

counsel Sri.K.J.Kamath for respondent No.3. Perused the

writ petition papers.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the petitioner is a wholesale distributor of Nandini Milk

Products as per letter of intent dated 28.12.2001. The

petitioner was allotted additional area by letter dated

25.08.2015, on withdrawal of such additional area from

respondent No.3 in addition to existing market area of the

petitioner. The 3rd respondent is said to have made

representation to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to restore the area

which is withdrawn from him and allotted as additional area

to the petitioner. In pursuance of the same, respondent No.2

addressed a letter at Annexure-A to the Depot Supervisor,

Mysore Marketing Area, Mysore. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned Senior counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2

apart from arguing the matter on merits, mainly contended

that the petitioner is provided with alternate remedy of raising

a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative

Societies Act, 1959 (for short "the Act"). Learned Senior

counsel for the respondents particularly refers to Section

70(1)(b) of the Act to say that the petitioner who is a

wholesale distributor, for distribution of products could raise

dispute as it touches the business of a Co-operative Society.

It is submitted that respondent No.1 is a Co-operative Society

within the meaning of 1959 Act. Therefore, he submits that

without going into merits, the petitioner be relegated to raise

dispute under Section 70 of the Act.

5. Learned counsel Sri.Kalyana Basavaraj appearing for

the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not covered under

Section 70 of the Act and the petitioner is neither a member

nor past member, any officer, agent or employee of the Society

so as to raise a dispute. It is submitted that the petitioner

being a distributor cannot be relegated to avail the remedy of

raising a dispute under Section 70 of the Act.

6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties on the

preliminary objection raised by respondents No.1 and 2, the

only point for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is

to be relegated to avail alternate remedy of raising a dispute

under Section 70 of the Act?

7. Answer to the above point would be in the affirmative

for the following reasons:

The petitioner is allotted wholesale dealership of selling

Nandini Milk Products in the areas of KRS, Srirangapatna,

Pandavapura, Baburayanakoppalu, Kadakola, Yeliwala,

Bogadi, Belwadi, Belekere and Hebbal under Annexure-R1

dated 28.12.2001. Under Annexure-R1/allotment letter, the

KMF reserves right to discontinue supplies and dealership

dealings at its own discretion, which means that the

petitioner is a dealer and he is doing business with the

respondent-Milk Federation. The petitioner was allotted

additional business area, on withdrawal of a part of the area

from respondent No.3 under Annexure-B dated 25.08.2015.

On representation by 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent had

written a letter to take action to withdraw the additional area

allotted to the petitioner under Annexure-B, which is not

communicated to the petitioner.

8. Section 70(1) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies

Act, 1959 reads as follows:

"70. Disputes which may be referred to Registrar for decision - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management, or the business of a co-operative society arises -

(a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, or

(b) between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its board or any officer, agent or employee of the society, or

(c) between the society or its board and any past board, any officer, agent or employee or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society, or

(d) between the society and any other co- operative society or a credit agency.

such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no Civil or Labour or Revenue Court or Industrial Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute."1

A reading of the above provision particularly 70(1)(b) makes it

clear that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for

the time being in force, if any dispute touching the

constitution, management, or the business of a co-operative

society between a member, past member or person claiming

through a member, past member or deceased member and

the society, its board or any officer, agent or employee of the

society could raise a dispute which shall be referred to the

Registrar for decision. The petitioner is a dealer or agent of

the respondents/Co-operative Society for distribution of its

milk products. The petitioner is covered under Section

70(1)(b) of the Act. It is not open for the petitioner to say that

he is not an agent when Annexure-R1/ allotment letter itself

indicates that the petitioner is distributor of milk products of

the respondent/Co-operative Society. The petitioner is doing

business with the respondent/Co-operative Society. Any

dispute arising out of business between the petitioner and

respondent is a matter for raising a dispute under Section 70

of the Act.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CITY AND INDUSTRIAL

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs DOSU AARDESHIR

BHIWANDIWALA AND OTHERS reported in (2009) 1 SCC

168 has laid down principles that is to be followed while

exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. Paragraph 30 of the judgment reads as follows:

"30. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether.

(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;

(b) the petition reveals all material facts;

(c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;

(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;

(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;

(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors."

While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the Court is bound to examine as to

whether petitioner has any alternative and efficacious remedy

for the resolution of the dispute. Moreover, where statute

provides for alternate remedy, the High Court would be slow

in entertaining writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, unless extraordinary ground is made

out.

10. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is to be

relegated to avail alternate remedy of raising a dispute under

Section 70 of the Act. Accordingly, the writ petition is

disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to raise a dispute

under Section 70 of the Act.

Sd/-

JUDGE

mpk/-* CT:bms