TIPPANNA BHIMAPPA KAMATE Vs. CHIEF EXCUTIVE MANAGER HUKERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the court. Ia iii is filed for impleading. The same is allowed. The petitioner is to implead the applicants as additional respondents.

(2.) THE two petitioners by name Sri kamate and Sri doog are questioning the correctness of the endorsements dated 24. 11,2001 and annexures kand l on the following facts.

(3.) RESPONDENT 2, the hukeri taluk agriculture produce marketing society ltd. , (for short society r-2) is registered under the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959. It is a taluk level co-operative society. Respondent 4 belgaum district central co-operative bank ltd. , (for short central bank) is the financial bank. In terms of the bye-laws respondent 2 consists of nine members and one representative of the financing bank and the asstt. Registrar. Respondent 1 is appointed as manager / chief executive of the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 4 nominated both the petitioners on behalf of the central bank respondent 4. They have been functioning as directors for the last 2 years. Annual report Annexure c and evidences their working as directors. The chief executive society is statutorily bound to convey a meeting for electing office bearers for the post of president and vice-president of the society. A notice was required to be issued in terms of the act. Respondent 1 issued a notice dated 17. 11. 2001 to all the directors of respondent 2 society for electing president and vice-president in terms of Section 29f r / w Rule 14-a of the rules. A copy of the notice issued to one of the director produced at Annexure e. No notice was served on the petitioners and on enquiry they came to know that on account of appointment of two persons by respondent No. 4 notices have not been issued. Thereafter the petitioner No. 2 submitted his resignation in terms of Annexure f. A copy was handed over to society. A letter dated 23. 11. 2001 was also issued with regard to notice to him. At this stage respondent No. 1 issued an endorsement stating therein that he has been directed by respondent No. 3 not to issue notice to petitioners. A letter dated 24. 11. 2001 is filed in terms of Annexure l. According to petition averments annexures k and l have no sanction in law. Petitioner question these two letters in these petitions.