NARAYANAGOWDA, S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA, AGRICULTURIST AND DIRECTOR, CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD. AND SRI S.P. RAMESH, S/O PARASHURAMAIAH Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY, CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI S.P. Prakash has filed this application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting this Court to implead him as an additional Respondent. In support of the application, he has filed an affidavit staling that the Petitioner is one of the elected Directors of Bangalore Rural and Ramanagar District Co -operative Central Bank Limited, Bangalore When he was the Chairman of the adhoc committee of the Bank as well as the President of the Bank, he has caused wrongful loss of Rs. 971.18 lakhs to the Bank corresponding wrongful gain to himself and others. The Registrar of Co -operative Societies has accorded sanction to prosecute him and others. The matter was referred to the CBI by the State Government and the CBI after investigation has filed charge sheet against the Petitioner. The Petitioner is still continuing to be the President of the Bank, which is against the interest of the Bank. In this connection, he has filed Public Interest Litigation ('PIL' for short) in W.P. No. 3945/2010, which is pending. The Petitioner is stalling the proceedings initiated against him by instituting cases before the Courts. Therefore, he wants to come on record with a view to safeguard the interest of the Bank.

(2.) THE Petitioner has filed objections to the application. It is contended that the applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings. He is not the member of the Bank. He has challenged the validity of Section 98 -N(i)(iii)(c)(f) of the Karnataka Co -operative Societies Act, 1959 as inserted by Act No. 6/2010 in this petition. He has no role to play in the proceedings particularly when the validity of a statutory provision is under challenge. The intention of the applicant is to impede the progress of the writ petition in the guise of getting impleaded as the Respondent.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has challenged the validity of Section 98 -N(i)(iii)(c)(f) of the Act in this petition. The applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings. He is not even the member of the Bank.