PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY H. VEERAIAH, S/O HORAKERAPPA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPT. OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY, RETURNING OFFICER/JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have beard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS Court had passed an interim order on 23.11.2010 permitting the Petitioner to participate in the election to be held on 29.11.2010 for the third Respondent -Bank if they are not disqualified except for the reasons that they have not paid the dues as on 31.3.2010 for the year 2009 -10 on or before 15.4.2010 subject to the result of the writ petitions. The said order is in conformity with the order passed by the Circuit Bench of High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad in identical matters viz., W.P. Nos. 68378 to 68379/2010 dated 19.11.2010. (sic) the Circuit Bench of High Court of Karnataka at Gulbargahad stayed the Government Order dated 17.9.2010 in so far as it relate to the condition relating to recovery of 75% of the total demand of the society and the Petitioners therein were permitted to participate in the election process. The State Government has filed an application for modification of the said order in the said writ petitions. After hearing the parties, the Court has allowed the writ petitions on 25.11.2010 holding as under: In that view of the matter, the writ petitions are accordingly allowed. The order Annexure 'B' of the State in so far as it relates to imposing the condition to deposit 75% of the demand for the year 2009 -10 due as on 31.3.2010 in so far as Petitioners are concerned is quashed and in all other respects, remains unaltered and Petitioners are permitted to participate in the election process.

(3.) THE Petitioner has filed the applciation -Misc.W. No. 11447/2010 for a direction to the second Respondent to accept the nomination of the Petitioner and permit him to vote and participate in the election scheduled to be held on 29.11.2010. The contention of the Petitioner is that the interim order passed by this Court on 23.11.2010 has not been properly understood by the third Respondent -Bank. In the endorsement issued by the third Respondent -Bank dated 23.11.2010, it has been stated that the collection of dues has been restricted to the year 2009 -10 and not up -to 2009 -10.