Karnataka High Court
Gaddikeri Milk Producer Co Operative ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 February, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4341
WP No. 107266 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 107266 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. GADDIKERI MILK PRODUCER,
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,
R/BY ITS DIRECTOR,
SANJEEVREDDI SUGNALLI
S/O GOVINDAREDDI,
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICUTLURE,
NO. 107, GADDIKERI,
TQ. HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583214.
2. ALABUR MILK PRODUCER,
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
Digitally
signed by
MANJANNA
N. HALESHA S/O IRAPPA,
MANJANNA E
E Date:
2024.02.23
16:19:26
AGED. 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
+0530
NO. 107/3, ALBUR VILLAGE,
TQ. KOTTUR, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583220.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIDYAVATI M. KOTTURURSHETTAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE,
R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIKASA SOUDHA, SPL OFFICER & EX OFFICIO,
BENGALURU-560001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4341
WP No. 107266 of 2023
2. THE REGISTER,
OFFICE OF REGISTER OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560052.
3. THE JOINT REGISTER OF CO-OEPRATIVE SOCIETY,
KALABURAGI DIVISION, VENKATESHWARA COLONY,
HOUSE NO.1/11/55/56 LINGASUGUR ROAD,
RAICHUR-584101.
4. KARNATAKA MILK FIDERATION,
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR,
DR. M.H. MAREGOUDA ROAD,
DHARMARUM COLLEGE POST,
BENGALURU-560029.
5. RAICHUR, BELLARY KOPPAL & VIJAYANAGAR,
MILK PRODUCER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
MILK UNION LIMITED,
R/BY MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SANJAY GANDHINAGAR,
NEAR FIRE STATION,
BALLERY-583104.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ GODACHI, AGA FOR R1-R3;
PROF. RAVI VARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHARANABASAVARAJ C., ADV. FOR R4 & R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITIUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED VIDE GOVT ORDER NO. CO.218 CCB 2023
BANGALORE DATED 06/10/2023 ANNEXURE-L ISSUED BY 1ST
RESPONDENT AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4341
WP No. 107266 of 2023
ORDER
1. The petitioners are the Milk Producer Co-Operative
Societies.
2. It is not in dispute that these Societies are
members of the 5th respondent-Union.
3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the
Government dated 06.10.2023, by which the Government has
accorded approval for filling up 84 sanctioned posts in the
Union.
4. The petitioners are also challenging the recruitment
notification that has been issued pursuant to the said
Government Order.
5. Lastly the petitioners are seeking for a mandamus
to direct the 5th respondent-Union to increase the price of milk
from Rs.30.50 to Rs.35.00 per liter as has been done in the
other Milk Unions.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that,
the petitioners being the members of the Union would be
financially affected if the recruitment is permitted to go on. She
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4341
submits that, the Milk Union has in fact suffered losses for the
month of September, 2023 and if despite the losses, the Union
is permitted to recruit 84 persons, it would have a severe
financial burden on all the Societies. It is also submitted that,
since the prices for procurement of milk is fixed, societies will
be constrained to suffer huge losses and it would therefore not
be permissible for the Union to recruit 84 posts.
7. An argument is also advanced that, a Government
Order was passed on 19.09.2023 approving the
recommendations of the rationalization committee in respect of
224 posts and on the very same day, a resolution has been
passed by the 5th respondent-Union accepting the same. She
submitted that it would be impossible for the 5th respondent-
Union to even been communicated with the Government order,
which was passed on the same day therefore approval of the
5th respondent-Union to the rationalization permitted under the
Government Order dated 19.09.2023, would be illegal. It is
submitted that, since the impugned recruitment notification as
a result of such an improper resolution, the entire proceedings
would stand vitiated.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4341
8. Learned counsel submits that, the petitioners being
society members they would have the right to challenge the
notification and in support of the said contention, learned
counsel places reliance on the judgment rendered by the seven
judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
R.C.Cooper Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1970
Supreme Court 564.
9. The Government Order which is impugned in this
writ petition has permitted the filling of 85 vacancies in the fifth
respondent Union. In the preamble of the order, it is stated as
follows.
"ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ, MPÀÆÌlzÀ vÀdÕPÀÆl ¸À«Äw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DqÀ½vÀ
ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19-09-2023 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ
ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ 242 ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À°è £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÉ SÁ° EgÀĪÀ
85 ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¨sÀwð ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî®Ä
¤tð¬Ä¹gÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹gÀÄvÁÛ, MPÀÆÌlªÀÅ PÀ¼ÉzÀ 3 ¸Á®ÄUÀ¼À°è
¸ÀvÀvÀªÁV >Á¨sÀUÀ½¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ »A¢£À ¸Á°£À ¹§âA¢ ªÉZÀѪÀÅ
gÀÆ.15.69 PÉÆÃnUÀ½zÀÄÝ, CzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¸Á°£À ªÁ¶ðPÀ ªÀ»ªÁlÄ
gÀÆ.320.05 PÉÆÃnUÀ½UÉ ±ÉÃ.4.90 gÀµÁÖVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 2023-24£Éà ¸Á°£À
DAiÀĪÀåAiÀÄzÀ°è ¹§âA¢ ªÉZÀÑUÀ½UÁV gÀÆ.19.28 PÉÆÃn CªÀPÁ±À
PÀ°à¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¸ÀÄvÁÛ, MPÀÆÌlªÀÅ £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÉ SÁ°
EgÀĪÀ 85 ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀUÀ¼À ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1960 ¤AiÀĪÀÄ
17, 17J ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 18 ºÁUÀÆ «ÄøÀ>ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Á°¹ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4341
¨sÀwð ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÀiÁr ¤§AzsÀPÀgÀÄ
¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀÆ®APÀµÀªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¹, ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀUÀ¼À
¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½ 1960gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ-17 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀªÀÅ
¸ÀvÀvÀªÁV £ÀµÀÖzÀ°èzÀÝ°è CxÀªÁ ªÁ¶ðPÀ ªÀ»ªÁlÄ CxÀªÁ zÀÄrAiÀÄĪÀ
§AqÀªÁ¼ÀPÉÌ ¹§âA¢ ªÉZÀѪÀÅ ±ÉÃ.2 QÌAvÀ ºÉaÑzÀÝ°è ªÀÈAzÀ §® ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÃvÀ£À
±ÉæÃtÂUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ, £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî®Ä
CªÀPÁ±À«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀUÀ¼À ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½ 1960
¤AiÀĪÀÄ 17(J) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ MPÀÆÌlzÀ°è SÁ°¬ÄgÀĪÀ ««zsÀ zÀeÉðAiÀÄ MlÄÖ
85 ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¨sÀwð ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw
¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ wêÀiÁ𤹠F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉò¹zÉ."
10. As could be seen from the above, the Government
took a decision to approve the recruitment of 85 vacancies,
since the fifth respondent Union was earning profits
consistently and therefore, it would be appropriate to fill up the
sanctioned posts.
11. In my view, this decision of the Government cannot
be questioned by a Constituent Member of the Union on the
ground that it would have an adverse impact on the finances of
the societies.
12. It cannot be denied that a member of a Corporate
Society would have the right to challenge an order, which it
feels would be inappropriate. It is however to be noticed that
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4341
the decision of the Government, after taking into all relevant
factors, cannot be questioned on the ground that the wisdom
behind the decision was incorrect. The State Government,
being the ultimate authority to monitor the financial conditions
of the Milk Union would be at liberty to take an appropriate
decision to safeguard the overall interests of the Milk Union.
Merely because a few Constituent Members of the Union were
of the view that the recruitment to a post or recruitment to
various posts would have a detrimental effect on its finances,
the same cannot be permitted to be stalled.
13. It is to be stated here that the recruitment
notification can primarily be challenged on the ground that it
has been issued contrary to the statutory rules essentially by
applicants, who are aggrieved by any illegality in it. A member
of the Milk Union cannot have the locus standi to question the
recruitment notification itself. As already held above, the policy
decision taken by the Government to fill up the vacancies after
considering the fact that the Milk Union was profitable would lie
outside the domain of individual members to question.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4341
14. It is therefore clear that the challenge to the
Government Order and the consequential recruitment
notification cannot be sustained. Petition is therefore dismissed.
15. As far as the prayer regarding direction to the fifth
respondent Union to increase the milk price, it would be open
to the petitioners to make an appropriate representation in this
regard and if such a representation is made, the same shall be
considered by the fifth respondent Union in accordance with
law, after taking into consideration all the relevant factors.
Sd/-
JUDGE
EM & VB/CT:BCK
