HEMAVATHI MAHILA SAHAKARI BANK NIYAMTTHA CHANNAKESHAVA BUILDING KASTURBAI ROAD NEAR KATTINAKERE MARKET HASSAN 573201 REPRESENTED BY SMT. V.G. LALITHAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION M.S. BUILDING DR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE promoters of the Petitioner -Bank applied to the third respondent for license to constitute and run the Manila Co -operative Bank in the District of Hassan. The third respondent accorded formal permission vide Annexure - R1 dated 29.01.1996 and imposed a condition that a Co -operative Society has to be registered with minimum of 1500 members and that after registration of the Society within three months, an application is to be made for grant of license. The Registrar of Co -operative Societies propose inclusion of 300 members into the Society. The said proposal was seriously opposed and challenged resulting in tiling of writ petitions and writ appeals and also SLP before the Supreme Court The litigation became almost long drawn. The general body meeting of the Petitioner -Society elected the office bearers. The Registrar held that the elections of the office bearers is illegal A writ petition was filed before this Court in W.R No. 29329/1997. This writ petition was clubbed with earlier writ petition No. 23212/1997, which was disposed of by this Court, on 27.02.1998 holding that the elections held are valid and also. the direction to include 300 members' is invalid. Writ Appeal was filed in W.A. Nos. 3148/1998 and 974/1999. The Writ Appeals were disposed with certain directions on 09.12.2002.

(2.) THE persons whose request to become members was rejected, filed S.E.P. before the Supreme Court. The S.L.P. was dismissed on 15.10.2004. in the meantime, the third respondent vide Annexure - 'R1' had communicated to the petitioner bank that the formal approval granted for setting up a Mahila Co -operative Bank has been withdrawn. Respondent No. 3 vide Annexure - 'R2' granted extension of time till 30.09.1996 for registration and submission of license application. The petitioner bank because of the above litigations could not submit an application for license within the time stipulated vide Annexure - R2.

(3.) THE third respondent again wrote a letter dated 14.10.2003 to the Revenue Minister that in view of the change in the licensing policy it is not possible to reconsider the decision of withdrawing the permission. The third respondent has produced vide Annexure - 'R3', the licensing of new Primary (Urban) Co -operative Banks, which is as follows: Pleas a refer to you letter dated July 24, 2003 requesting far restoring the 'in -principle' approval for selling up of the above bank. In this connection, we advise that we have carefully considered the case. However, we regret, to inform you that it is not possible to accede to the request as the 'in -principle' approval was granted to the bank in January 1996. Since then the licensing policy has been revised twice. As such, it is not possible to reconsider our decision of withdrawing the in principle approval granted for setting up of the above bank.