IY TRE HIGH CRT E KA:NATPkA AT BANGLRE. Dated this the 4th day of June 1998. Before B HO’3i$ .JLSTCE KAR RAJARATNAM WRIT PTIIN Nos, 17962& 17963 OF 1996w Be twe en: Sri T.Thimmegowda Sb Sri Tbimmegoada 44 years, Ex President and Present Dirsctor of 1DCC Bank itd,1andya H/at Ohandagelu Duddahobli Mendya Taluk, ,, Petiti ner in (P. 17962/96) V.P.No.17963/1996 Shri Kempegwda @ Thamrnanna, Zxzi Tie Director, ‘DCC Bank LdMandya P/at radIi ega1apu a 1av1. I Taluk, randya Dist, Petiti’iner (By Sri CJ. Basavarya, Advocate) And: 1, The State of Kar ataka by its Secratar to the Government o—operative Department Vidhana Sudha, Banaiore. 2. The ?DDC Bank Ltd. ,Mandya by its Managing Tiirector I ndya. 3. The Returning Offioer,VD Ben’ Itu, Yandya Cum- The As t.Comissioner, !endya Sub—division, Mandya. .. capon ent. (By Sri V.T. Rayareddy, Advocate for R2) (By Sri B. Veerappa, HCGP) —2— These flit Petlticns are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash ‘be calendar of events at Annexure ‘V issued by R—3 for tha election to the office bearere of R—2 sob’ duled to be held on 30—6—96. Th.-se kit Petlti ns are coming an for Prly. hearing this day, tte Court made the following: ORDER. 1. Both ftc writ pet’! ci’s have been filed challenging ‘be calender of evehts at Annexure V and the election that was to be held on 30—6—1996. 2. he !irst pet’ioner in W.i.No.17962/96 is t e ex-prei3ent and the petitt nez in ff.P.17963/96 is tte direc’or. s.w in’erim order passed b this Court was that tie elaction if any, teld in the me’ntime stall remain subje’t to the result f the wri’ petition. 3. It is submitted by kr.Rayarcd 1 arned ounsel far tIi second “e poniert tat tie Iatjor were held and prorerly el—c ted zanagement is runni ig tbe bank. 4 The main ground u”ged b the petit’ oner s tLat sre Co—operative Banks were not enrolled as memoers to the second respondent—bank. If the —3— pettioners are aggri’ved by non-inclusion of the persons ought to have been included as members of the bank, the proper thing for the petitioners to do would be to raise a dispute under section 70 of the Karnataka Co—operative Societies Act. 5. Learned orninsel Mr.Basavarya, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there has been serious irregularies in thevoters list and the persons ought to have been the members were not included and the persons ought not to have been members were included, 6. However taking into account that there is an alternative and efficacious remedy available under section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, i4 is open - the peti’eners to approach such authority in accordance with law to redress their grievances. 7. Vuith these observatIDra t’ee writ petitis are disposed of, Jo order as to ceats, 1A I Th mL( 7 dO