Karnataka High Court
Raju S/O Ravasaheb Dhang vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 May, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7138
WP No. 101951 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.101951 OF 2024 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
RAJU S/O RAVASAHEB DHANG,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
CHIEF PROMOTER, PROPOSED JAI HANUMAN
VIVIDODESH PRATHAMIK GRAMEEN KRUSHI
SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,
TAPAKARWADI, AT: TAPAKARWADI, TQ: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI, R/O: TAPAKARWADI, TQ: CHIKKODI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
... PETITIONER
(BY MISS SANJANA S. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
Digitally signed
by YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR CHIKKODI SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKODI, AT: CHIKKODI,
Location: HIGH
YASHAVANT COURT OF
NARAYANKAR KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN-591201.
BENCH
Date:
2024.06.03
... RESPONDENTS
12:05:30 +0530
(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/123/2023-24 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 FLOUTING OF THE SHARE AMOUNT FOR
PRE-REGISTRATION OF THE SOCIETY IN THE NAME OF THE NIYOJIT
JAI HANUMAN VIVIDODESH PRATHMIK GRAMEEN KRUSHI SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT, TAPAKARWADI BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7138
WP No. 101951 of 2024
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP 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 respondent/State.
2. The petitioner is an agriculturist and permanent
resident of Tapakarwadi 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
Tapakarwadi 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 Jai Hanuman Vividodesh
Prathmik Grameen Krushi Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, near
Tapakarwadi 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 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 Niyojit Jai Hanuman
Vividodesh Prathmik Grameen Krushi Sahakari Sangh Niyamit,
near Tapakarwadi village. Respondent No.2 sent a letter to the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7138
Co-Operative Inspector requesting him to submit a report
regarding economic viability of the proposed society by a letter
dated 17.11.2023 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
existing with the same qualities which is against the guideline
prescribed by the NABARD.
3. 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.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7138
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.
4. 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
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
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7138
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.
ii) The impugned order dated 22.12.2023 No.AR-
11/RSR/123/2023-24 passed by respondent
No.2 vide Annexure-C is hereby quashed.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7138
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
