IN THE HIGH OCURT OF KAR}ATALA AT BANGALORE. Dated this the 2nd day of June 1998 Before THE ‘BLE yR. JUSTICE KUMAR RAJARATNAM WRIT PETITION No. 15736 OF 1998. Between: Mallikarjunappa Meraveerappa Kalappanavar ,Maj or, Chairman Vyavaeaya Seva Sabakari Saagba Niyamitba, Kummur Tq.Byadagi, Have.ri Diet, .. Petitioner. (By Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, Advocate for Sri Amruthesb N.P. Advocate ) And: 1. State of Karnataka by its Secretary to Gove.raent Departmefltof Co—operation M. S .Buildings, Bangalo.re—1. 2. Deputy Regisfrar of Co—op. Societies, Dharwad District Dharwad. 3. Asst,Registrar of Co—op Societies Haven Taluk & District Haven. 4. Vyavasaya Seva Satiaka.ri Sangba Kunirnur ¶q.Byadagi, Dist.Heveri. 5. Nananagoude Vee.rana gouda Patil Major, Agriculturist Nellikoppa Grama, q.Byadegi, Diet. Havni. 6. Sri S.S..Patil,Hon’ble Minister for Co-operation, Vidhana Soudha Bangalone—1. .. Respondents. (By Sri B.Veerappa, HCGP ) V — 2— This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned Resolu tion by R-5 at innexure B dated 20-4—98 and the meeting notice at Annexure N dated 25—5—98 and direct 1st and 2nd respondent-s to take action against R—3 for passing order at Annexure M. This Writ Petition is coming for Prly. bearing this day, the Court made the foil owing: ORDER. 1. The petitioner is the director and the Chairman of the fourth respondent- Society. He was elected as the Chairman of the fourth respon dent society on 13—1-1997. On 24-3—1997 the regisi-ration of the society was cancelled and the second respondent sought to amalgamate the society with another society. 2. This amalgamation was challenged in this Court. The Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 4-2—1998 set aside the amalgamation order and directed the first respondent to pass orders to .reconst±tute the society in accordance with law, This society was again brought into —3— existence by nnexu.re ‘C’ byan order dated 31—3—98. The legal inference is that the office bearers including the petitioner assumed their respective positions in the society. 4 c 3. The petitioner is the president w.e called 1 for a meeting on 14—4—1998 as per Anaexure ‘D’ Some transactions took place at the meeting on 14-4—1998. A second meeting was called by the petitioner in his capacity as the chairman on 20—4—1998. Certain transactionsAtook place as per-I< agenda. In the las4 item ny other subject curiously A a no confidence motion was passed against the peti tioner. It is common ground that the petitioner’s term is for one year with effect from 31—3—1998. 4. Mr. Jayakumar S.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously submitted that the no confidence moti passed at the board meeting is a nullity and being aggrieved by the no confidence motion be raised a dispute in Enquiry No.1/98—99. be letfer addressed by the third respondent is placed before me. 5. The letfr addressed by the third respon dent at Annexure ‘G’ reads as follows: V No.Sa N.16 RSR:XMC:192/98 Office of ‘the Assistant Registrar of Co—operative Societies, Sub-Division, Haven Date : 22—4—1998. The Secretary Kummur Vyvasaya Seva Sabakara Saagba Niyamitha, Kuminur Tq:Bydagi. Subject: With the permission of the President the Motion moved! Resolution passed on 20—4—1998 by the Board of Director, mov ing no—confidence motion against the Chairman and subse quently changed the Chairman. Ref Your letter dt: 21—4-1998. With .referenee to ‘the above subject cited in your reference letter dt: 21—4—1998, perused the referred letter and in Karnataka Co—operative societies Act, there is no provisionwith regard to the moving of ‘ no-confidence motion’ • This is for your in formsti nfl. Sd/— Asst. Registrar of Co operative Societies, Sub Division, Haven. “ 6. While the dispute was pending and while the learned counsel for the petitioner was absent an order was sought to be made in the dispute at Annexuze ‘A’. Curiously the order was passed by the third respondent who issued Annexure ‘G’. VI -5— 7. In his interim order the third respondent directed the election of the president without waiting for the orders of the president and within three days a meeting was to be called for regarding election of the new president. Si. order was passed on 26-5-1998. Although the order appears to be a final order in the operative portion of the order it is stated that this is an interim aider. Against the interim order at Annezure ‘K’ passed by the third respendent, there is a revisits available under Section 107 to the tribunal. there is an alternative and efflcaoious remedy available it would be proper to direct the petitioner to file a revision in accordaooâ with law. 8. Accordingly, the peti toner is directed to file a revision against the interim order at Annezure ‘K’ dated 26-5-1998. In view of the reasons given by the third respondent at Annezure ‘0’ holding that there is no provision with regard to moving of ne confidence motion, there wifl be an interim stay of Annexures ‘K’ and ‘N’ (notice for calling for the meeting) for a period of four weeks to enable the petitioner to move the tribunal under Section 107 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. V 0 0 00 0 *, 0 ) a i *a fr. 0 00 0 a’