Karnataka High Court
The Prathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6277-DB
WA No.100095 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT APPEAL NO.100095 OF 2024 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE PRATHAMIK PATTIN
SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMIT HIREHAL
HIREHAL-582209, TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG
R/BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SHRI SHANKARAGOUDA S/O. VEERANAGOUDA GOUDAR,
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. 385 GARADI ONI, WARD NO.2,
HIREHAL-582209, TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHUBHENDU A AKALWADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY
DEPT. OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING,
Location:
HIGH DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.
COURT OF
VISHAL KARNATAKA
NINGAPPA DHARWAD
BENCH
PATTIHAL Date:
2024.04.10
2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
16:59:02
+0530
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
GADAG SUB-DIVISION, GADAG-581117,
TQ. AND DIST. GADAG.
3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
GADAG-581117, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG.
4. VEERANAGOUDA S. POLICEPATIL
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREHAL-582209, TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURAMATH, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6277-DB
WA No.100095 of 2024
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 13.03.2024 IN
W.P.NO.103984/2022 BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13.09.2022 IN NO.
AR-18/KALAM.64/CR-1/2022-23/297 VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE
WRIT PETITION & ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, M.I.ARUN, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant is a Cooperative Society. An enquiry
under Section 64 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies
Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act') has been ordered to
examine the financial functioning of the Cooperative
Society.
2. Section 64(1) and (2) of the Act reads as
follows:
"64. Inquiry by Registrar.-(1) The Registrar may, of his
own motion, by himself or by a person authorised by him,
by order in writing, hold an inquiry into 3[any matter
specified in the order touching] the constitution, working
and financial condition of a co-operative society.
(2) An inquiry of the nature referred to in sub-section (1)
shall be held on the application of. -
(a) a co-operative society to which the society
concerned is affiliated;
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6277-DB
(b) a majority of the members of the 4[board] of
the society; or
(c) not less than one-third of the total number of
members of the society.
[(2-A) An inquiry under sub-section (1) shall be
completed 2[within a period of twelve months which may,
however be extended by [by the Registrar for the
reasons to be recorded in writing], for a further period of
six months]:]
[Provided that the State Government shall, on a
report made by the Registrar, shall have power to extend
the period for holding the enquiry beyond eighteen
months if it is satisfied that, there are genuine grounds
for the extension"
3. In the instant case, certain complaints have
been made against the functioning of the appellant-
Society, based on which, Competent Officer has made
preliminary enquiry and upon coming to the conclusion
that there is prima facie material against the Society has
ordered for an enquiry.
4. Reading of the Section 64 of the Act makes it
clear that an enquiry can be initiated either suo moto by
the Registrar or by any person authorized or under certain
other circumstances as contemplated under Section 64(2)
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6277-DB
of the Act. In the instant case, upon the materials placed
before us, it has to be concluded that the Competent
Officer has ordered for enquiry by invoking his suo moto
power. We do not find any irregularity in the same.
5. Learned Single Judge apart from appreciating
the aforementioned facts and position of law, on the
ground that the appellant herein has suppressed the
material facts and that he had already participated in the
enquiry before filing writ petition and that he had obtained
interim order suppressing the material facts and stalled
the enquiry, has imposed a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- on the
appellant herein. We do not find any error in the same.
6. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ appeal
is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
NAA/CT:VP
