KARNATAKA CO OPERATIVE CONSUMERS FEDERATION AND ITS UNITS EMPLOYEES WELFARE UNION BANGALORE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioncr-Karnataka co-operative consumers federation and its units employees welfare union feels aggrieved by a notification issued by the state of Karnataka (respondent No. 1) dated 24-7-1991 (vide Annexure-D ) nominating three more persons, namely, s.g. srinivasa, v.s. paramashivaiah and y.v, jogannavar- respondents-5, 6 and 7 herein, to be the nominees (sic) on the board of directors-respondent-2-Karnataka co-operative consumers federation limited with immediate effect fixing their tenure of office as three years from the date of notification. It transpires that earlier in the year 1986 the state of Karnataka had issued a notification earlier as per Annexure-A purporting to act under bye-law No. 26(3) of respondent-2-society nominating one Sri H. Hanumappa along with the registrar of co-operative societies and the additional registrar of co-operative societies, government of Karnataka, Bangalore to be on the board of directors of respondent-2-society. Later, by yet another notification dated 6-5-1988 (annexure b) the government acting under Section 53-a of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short 'the act') read with bye-law No. 26(3) of respondent- 2-society substituted additional registrar of co-operative societies, Bangalore by the deputy secretary to government, co-operation department who was inducted on the board of management of respondent-2 in the place of the additional registrar of co-operative societies nominated under annexure-a. Again under Annexure-C dated 31-3-1989, the government, claiming to act under sections 29 and 53-a of the act cancelled the nomination of the non-official members on the board of directors of societies like respondent No. 2 with immediate effect with the result the nomination of Sri H. Hanumappa under Annexure-A was annulled.

(2.) when matters were drifting in this fashion, government issued notification atannexure-d dated 24-7-1991 under which it nominated respondcnts-5, 6 and 7 as its nominess and this was done under Section 29(1) of the act. It is this notification which is impugned in this writ petition. For the sake of (sic) it requires to be excerpted: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_12_KANTLJ3_1991Image1.jpg</IMG> the ground on which the notification Annexure-D is sought to be assailed on the basis of non-availability of the power in government to make such nominations acting under Section 29 of the Act, because it is said, government having already acted under the bye-laws of the society and having nominated two ex-officio members- deputy secretary and registrar of co-operative societies could not thereafter go back and make further nominations under Section 29 of the act.

(3.) it is strongly urged by Sri H. Billappa, who appears in support of this writ petitionthat in a case like this power of nomination under the bye-laws is co-equal to and identical with the power of nomination exercisable under Section 29 of the act. It is said that government cannot exercise that power twice, once under the bye-law and again under Section 29 of the act. It is argued that power exercisable under the bye-laws being the same as available under Section 29 of the Act, government cannot resort to both sources for packing the board of directors of a co-operative society with its own nominees as that would result in hiking the strength of the nominees by more than one third of the total strength of the executive committee of the society, a step made impermissible under Section 29 of the Act, itself. It is pointed out that there being already two persons as government nominees under annexure-a, the nomination of three more persons under Annexure-D would bring the total number of nominations to five is clearly illegal and in excess the power of the government for which reason I am asked to strike down the notification Annexure-D .