Ii TkiE HLG COJt E tAtu’AiAi(A AT BAGA0E Dated : This the 5th day of June, 1998 £hL HNB d. JUbiI(B JMAk MAAflAM WLUT TITION NOS.694Q & 6941 OF 1998 BETwiEN D.M. Suresh, major, Sb D.V.Muniswaniy, aged about 40 years, No.36, 7th cross, 6th Main, S.R.Nagar, PETITIONER in Bangalore—5600 27. .P.6940/1998. P,Vasudev, major, sb i?illanna, aged about 39 years, No.2, LI Block, 25th cross, Cubbonpet, PETITIONER in Bangalore—2. .P.6941/1998. (By Sri B.Ramaswy iyengar, Advocate) 1. State by Department of Co—operation, k4ultistoryed buildings, Veedhana Veedhi, Bangalore—560001. 2. The Deputy egistrar of Co—operative Societies ainparnahakavi wad, Chamaraj pet, Bangalore— 5600 18. 3. The Management, Mysore bilic Cloth Lvierchants’ Co—operative Bank Ltd., Sanjeeva Naika Lane, Avenue oad cross, bangalore—5600 02, RESNDENTS (By Sri B.Veerappa HCGP for R—1 & R—2; Sri P.G.C.Chengappa, Ady,, for R—3) 4 Both these Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annezure—B dated 1.12.1997 and direct the respondents to pay the commission amount which was being paid prior to Revision of Rules and to direct the fr”2 to dispose of the disputes raised ez9editiously. The petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in B—Group this day, this Court made the following a— OdDI Zhe writ petitions are taxen up with the consent of parties. 2. the petitioners nez quashing of the Rules framed under the £aadhe, Deposit Rules which has beem given effect to from 1.12.1997 at Anneaire-’B. By this Rule the commission of the petitioners was reduced from 3.5 to 3% below £a25,000/e of the collections of the pigmy deposit. The other prayer in the writ petitions was to direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the disputes raised expeditiously. 3. The first prayer to quash the Rules cannot arise because it flows from contractual relations and if the petitioners are aggrieved V I S -I —3— the proper thing for the petitions’s to do is to tare appropriate steps as they say ooape4led to do, if jessary, by filing a civil siit. the petitioners have also raised 1% disputes under Section 70 of the Go—operative Societies Act. There csi be no ob3ection in directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the disputes in accordawe with Is as expeditiously as possible. With this obser vation the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/ N JUDGE 8J. a I a a a