ASWATHAPPA Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO OP SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the 3rd respondent is a co-operative society. The 2nd respondent on the basis of the report submitted by some of his subordinates he found that a prima facie case has been made out to take action against society under Section 30(1) of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959. Accordingly framed as many as 12 charges and issued show cause notice to the society and to all the members of the managing committee on 26-9-1989. On 2/3-11-1989 pursuant to the said show cause notice the members of the managing committee submitted a detailed explanation denying each and every charge levelled against them. They contended in their explanation that there is nothing to indicate that in any way the members of the managing committee have committed any default or negligence so as to invoke the Provisions of Section 30(1) of the Karnataka co-operstive societies Act, 1959 and thus they sought for withdrawing the show cause notice. The deputy registrar of co-operative societies, after receipt of the explanation went through each and every explanation and came to the conclusion that out of 12 charges he held 11 charges as proved and after satisfying that in the interest of the institution it is better to keep away the members of the managing committee in performing the duties of the institution by way of superseding the committee of management and to appoint the second respondent as an administrator in place of the committee and accordingly he passed an order in No. Drb. Ssm. 28/88-89 dated 15-12-1989 vide Annexure-B under Section 30(1) of the act superseding the managing committee and appointing an administrator.

(2.) the main grounds of attack in thiswrit petition are that

(3.) sri. Kantharaj, learned high courtgovernment pleader submitted that as per the Provisions of Section 30(1) of the Act, an appeal lies to the next higher authority. Whereas, in the instant case, the petitioners without availing the alternative remedy provided to them under the act have approached this court as such writ petition has to be dismissed. He further contended that under article 226 of the constitution, it is not open for this court to appreciate the findings which infact were already considered by the deputy registrar of co-operative societies and thus he prayed the writ petition be dismissed.