Karnataka High Court
Sidagouda S/O Sadashiv Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 June, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7320
WP No. 102539 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.102539 OF 2024 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
SIDAGOUDA S/O SADASHIV PATIL,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
CHIEF PROMOTER,
PROPOSED SHRI SIDDESHWAR
VIVIDODESH PRATHMIK GRAMEEN
KRUSHI SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,
JANAWAD, AT: JANAWAD,
TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONER
(BY MISS SANJANA S. MUDHOL AND
SRI SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
BHARATHI CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
HM
CHIKKODI SUB-DIVISION,
Digitally signed by BHARATHI H
M
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
CHIKKODI, AT: CHIKKODI,
BENCH
Date: 2024.06.12 15:24:47
+0530 DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN-591201.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO:
1. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22/12/2023 IN NO.AR-
11/RSR/106/2023-24 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE
ANNEXURE-C.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7320
WP No. 102539 of 2024
2. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO GRANT PERMISSION TO FLOUTING OF
THE SHARE AMOUNT FOR PRE-REGISTRATION OF THE SOCIETY IN
THE NAME OF THE NIYOJIT SHRI SIDDESHWAR VIVIDODESH
PRATHMIK GRAMEEN KRUSHI SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT, JANAWAD
BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. The petitioner is an agriculturist and permanent
resident of Janawad village, takuk Chikkodi, district Belagavi.
He was not enrolled as member of any of the primary Co-
Operative Societies. The petitioner and other similarly situated
farmers have called for a Gram Sabha meeting at Janawad
village to address their grievances and problems suffered by
the farmers in the village and therefore, decided to form a
society in the name of Niyojit Shri Siddeshwar Vividodesh
Prathmik Grameen Krushi Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Janawad
village to the welfare of the farmers in the village. In view of
the same, the petitioner made a representation to respondent
No.2 on 18.10.2023 to grant permission for floating the share
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7320
collection from the eligible farmers for registration of the Co-
Operative Society in the name of Niyojit Shri Siddeshwar
Vividodesh Prathmik Grameen Krushi Sahakari Sangh Niyamit,
Janawad. Respondent No.2 sent a letter to the Co-Operative
Inspector requesting him to submit a report regarding
economic viability of the proposed society by a letter dated
07.11.2023 without hearing the petitioner or notifying the
petitioner. The Co-Operative Inspector submitted a report
which was also without notice and knowledge of the petitioner
and based on the said report, respondent No.2 without hearing
the petitioner passed the impugned order and rejected the
proposal for grant of floating of the share collection to the
proposed permission of the society by order dated 22.12.2023,
which is impugned herein. It is contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 has rejected the
proposal for floating of the share collection only on the reason
that it is not viable and there could be overlapping of the
society, that there are already five societies registered in the
same area. Therefore, the question of the present society being
successful for overlapping other Co-Operative Societies already
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7320
existing with the same qualities which is against the guideline
prescribed by the NABARD.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
said reasoning provided by respondent No.2 is arbitrary, illegal
and unsustainable. It is without application of judicial mind.
There is no such requirement forthcoming under the Act or the
Rules for permitting floating of shares as what is opined by the
respondent. Whether there is a chance of success of Co-
Operative Society and economic viability that requires to be
considered, which was not been appreciated and no application
of mind has been applied by this respondent while passing the
impugned order and without even hearing and notifying the
petitioner has out rightly rejected the proposal for floating of
share collection for formation of the society.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the
judgment of Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in WP
No.100493/2024 dated 06.02.2024 wherein similar matter on
similar grounds the assistant registrar of Co-Operative Societies
has rejected without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to
satisfy the requirement and chances of success and viability.
The writ petition came to be allowed. Another judgment has
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7320
been also relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP
No.104197/2021 which also goes in favour of the petitioner for
the reason that while considering the application for economic
viability and success of the floating of shares, the respondent
may not look into the existence of societies or viability of the
other Co-Operative Societies. It is only on the basis of
information furnished by the promoters that the registrar is
required to be satisfied on the proposed floating of share by the
Society to have reasonable chance of success and economic
viability i.e., required to be satisfied which has to be considered
by the registrar, which is not been done in the present case.
Also it is not the case of the respondent that there are other
rival Co-Operative Societies which have filed any complaint or
objection to the floating of share of the present petitioner or
formation of the societies. Under these circumstances, there is
force in the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is appreciated by this Court for allowing the petition.
Hence, the petition is required to be allowed. Accordingly, it is
allowed. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7320
ii) The impugned order dated 22.12.2023 No.AR-
11/RSR/106/2023-24 passed by respondent
No.2 vide Annexure-C is hereby quashed.
iii) The respondent is directed to collect the share
amount for floating of the shares of society for
registration subject to the petitioner satisfying
other requirements of the law and providing an
opportunity to the petitioner before passing any
such orders.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SSP
CT:BCK
