N GANESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners and the sixth respondent, along with others, had been elected to the Committee of the second respondent-Society. In pursuance of Section 29-F (4) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 ('act' for short) and Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 ('rules' for short), the Chief Executive of the second respondent-Society arranged to have the President of the Society elected on 10-6-1999. A day earlier, i. e. , on 9-6-1999, as at Annexure-E, first respondent-State Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 29 (1) of the Act, nominated respondents 3 to 5 as its representatives on the Committee of the second respondent-Society. The said nominated members of the Committee, together with the elected members of the committee, participated in the election of the President held on 10-6-1999. As Annexure-F would show, out of 18 members of the Committee, including the elected and the nominated, 10 members voted in favour of sixth respondent while 8 in favour of the first petitioner, though in view of Section 28-A (6) of the Act and Rule 14-A (12) of the Rules, it is not possible to determine which member of the Committee voted for which of the two candidates amongst the first petitioner and the sixth respondent, since the election had to be by secret ballot.

(2.) PETITIONERS contend that respondent 2-Society has not received any assistance in the form of share capital from the State Government and therefore respondent 2 is not an 'assisted Society' for the purpose of section 29 of the Act, and that the State Government has therefore no power under Section 29 (1) of the Act to nominate any representative of its on the Committee of respondent 2-Society. In this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution, they seek quashing of nomination of respondents 3 to 5 under Section 29 (1) of the Act as made under Annexure-E. Petitioners contend that the participation of respondents 3 to 5 in the Meeting of 10-6-1999 has vitiated the entire proceedings of the meeting including the election to the post of President, and, as such, the chief Executive of the second respondent should conduct the meeting afresh for the election to the post of President. They contend that the sixth respondent got elected by the addition of votes of respondents 3 to 5, and, that therefore, since the nomination itself was incompetent, the election of sixth respondent also stood vitiated.

(3.) THE sixth respondent points out that the nomination of respondents 3 to 5 made under Annexure-E has since been withdrawn by respondent 1 passing an order to that effect on 28-10-1999 as at Annexure-R1, and as such, the question of going into legality or otherwise of the nomination of R-3 to R-5 under Section 29 (1) of the Act as per annexure-E would not arise. Respondent 6 contends that since the very nomination of R-3 to R-5 has since been cancelled under Annexure-R1, the writ petition has become infructuous. Even otherwise, according to the sixth respondent, respondent 2-Society is an Assisted Society since the 'assistance' includes what is given by the State under any other mode of financial assistance and not necessarily by way of share capital, and therefore, nomination of respondents 3 to 5 made by the respondent-State Government under Section 29 (1) under Annexure-E was competent. Respondent 6 next contends that the contention of the petitioners that the sixth respondent got elected on account of the votes of respondents 3 to 5 in his favour was untenable. That apart, when the election nad to be by secret ballot, petitioners' contention that the sixth respondent got elected on account of votes cast by respondents 3 to 5 was highly speculative. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the election of the sixth respondent as President, remedy lies in their raising an election dispute under Section 70 of the Act, and that recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution would be impermissible. The other respondents have not filed objection statement.