Karnataka High Court
Vinod S/O Sadashiv Mane vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7470
WP No. 103032 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.103032 OF 2024 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
VINOD S/O SADASHIV MANE,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
CHIEF PROMOTER,
PROPOSED SHRI MAILILAXMI VIVIDODESH
PRATHMIK GRAMEEN KRUSHI SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT, TANGYANWADI (HIREKODI),
AT: TANGYANWADI (HIREKODI),
TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI,
R/O: TANGYANWADI (HIREKODI),
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,
Digitally
signed by
BHARATHI H
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
M
BHARATHI
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
HM KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date:
2024.06.10
2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
11:36:34
+0530
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
CHIKKODI SUB-DIVISION,
CHIKKODI, AT CHIKKODI,
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-
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7470
WP No. 103032 of 2024
11/RSR/108/2023-24 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE
ANNEXURE-C.
2. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO GRANT PERMISSION TO FLOATING OF
THE SHARE AMOUNT FOR PRE-REGISTRATION OF THE SOCIETY IN
THE NAME OF THE NIYOJIT SHRI MAILILAXMI VIVIDODESH
PRATHMIK GRAMEEN KRUSHI SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,
TANGYANWADI (HIREKODI) 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
Miss.Sanjana S. Mudhol and the learned HCGP for the
respondents.
2. The petitioner is an agriculturist and permanent
resident of Tangyanwadi (Hirekodi) village, Chikkodi takuk,
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 Tangyanwadi (Hirekodi) 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 Shri Maililaxmi Vividodesh Prathmik Grameen Krushi
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7470
Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Tangyanwadi (Hirekodi), to the
welfare of the farmers in the village.
3. In view of the same, the petitioner made a
representation to respondent No.2 on 16.10.2023 to grant
permission for floating the share collection from the eligible
farmers for registration of the Co-operative Society in the
name of Shri Maililaxmi Vividodesh Prathmik Grameen Krushi
Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Tangyanwadi (Hirekodi).
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 13.12.2023
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 formation of the society by order dated
22.12.2023, which is impugned herein.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7470
4. 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 three societies registered in the same area.
Therefore, the question of the present society being
successful for overlapping other Co-operative Societies
already existing with the same qualities is against the
guidelines prescribed by NABARD.
5. 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 to there
being a chance of success of Co-operative Society and
economic viability. There is no application of mind by the
respondent while passing the impugned order and is without
even hearing and notifying the petitioner has out rightly
rejected the proposal for floating of share collection for
formation of the society.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7470
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the
judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP
No.100493/2024 dated 06.02.2024 wherein in similar matter
on similar grounds the assistant registrar of Co-operative
Societies has rejected the application 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 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 shares by the Society
to have reasonable chance of success and economic viability
that is required to be satisfied which has to be considered by
the Registrar, which has not been done in the present case.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7470
7. It is also 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 shares 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 and is appreciated by
this Court for allowing the petition. Hence, the petition is
required to be allowed. Hence, I pass the following order:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 22.12.2023
in No.AR-11/RSR/108/2023-24 passed by
respondent No.2 vide Annexure-C is hereby
quashed.
iii) The respondent No.2 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
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7470
provide an opportunity to the petitioner before
passing any such orders.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MRK
CT:BCK
