K V NAGARAJ Vs. KARNATAKA MILK PRODUCERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the Directors of the Karnataka Milk Producers Federation Ltd. , seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the notice Annexure D dated 1. 10. 2002 and also seeking for a writ of prohibiting respondent No. 3 from functioning as President of Respondent No. 1. The petitioner states in the petition that the first respondent is a Federal Society of Milk Unions. The third respondent cannot be considered to be an elected Director in view of an order is confirmed in writ Appeal No. 3454/2000. A S. L. P is pending without stay. Respondent no. 3, according to the petitioners is not an elected Director and he cannot be the president or chairman of the 1st respondent. One Sri. H. D. Revanna was the elected Director of the 1st respondent. Election was to be held on 19. 9. 2001. Sri. Revanna and the 3rd respondent contested the election for the post of President. Rival Groups created a situation where voting was not possible and even ballot papers were also torn. The ex-o0fficer directors have drawn Annexure A. The President Authority did not declare the result of the election. Those proceedings were challenged in two Writ Petitions in W. P. Nos. 30682/2001 and 37122/2001. In the said petition, the 3rd respondent made an application seeking for a direction to assume charge of president. Application was rejected. S. L. P. also is rejected. Matter was finally heard by a division bench on reference made by a Single Judge. Writ Petitions came to be rejected in terms of Annexure C. Now, Annexure D is issued. In Annexure D , a reference is made with regard to the president ship of the 3rd respondent. Annexure D is questioned by the petitioners on several grounds.

(2.) NOTICE was issued pursuant to which a detailed statement of Objection is filed to IA. They say that the petition is to be dismissed in the light of the earlier decision. Matter is listed before me for final hearing. Heard the counsel for the parties.

(3.) SRI. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Counsel invites my attention to the facts leading to his prayers. He invites my attention to the order of this court in which it is stated that it is unnecessary to examine whether the requirement of Rule 14 A in so far as the same envisage the declaration of the result by the presiding authority substantially, if not fully complied with. In the light of these findings, according to the learned counsel, the earlier proceedings cannot said to come in his way and the learned counsel elaborates by contending that Rule 14 (a) (14) requires a declaration and so long as declaration is not forthcoming respondent No. 3 cannot declare himself as president to call for a meeting in terms of annexure D. Learned counsel strongly relies on a Judgment of Supreme Court in AIR 1982 SC 831 (Sri. Ram Pyare Chaudhary and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) and also the Judgment of the Supreme Court in 1985 (4) SCC 194 (Krishna Ballabh Prasad Singh vs. Sub-Divisional Officer Hilsa-cum-returning officer and others ).