LAWS(KAR)-2012-9-164

DATTAPRASAD CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BANGALORE DIVISION

Decided On September 12, 2012
Dattaprasad Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Appellant
V/S
Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies, Bangalore Division Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners 2 to 10 claim to be the office bearers of society called Dattaprasad Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') which according to them has the nomenclature 'Tenant Co-partnership Society' which is registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and has been carrying on business in accordance with its bye-laws and the provisions of the Act. The petitioners are questioning the validity of the show-cause notice issued by the first respondent on 29-2-2012 on the ground that the said notice could not have been issued, inasmuch as the charges levelled against the petitioners have been resolved in a proceedings initiated under Sections 64 and 68 of the Act. The said notice is issued under Section 30(1) of the Act proposing to supersede the present Committee of the first petitioner-Society and to appoint an Administrator.

(2.) The factual background of the proceedings can be summarised as follows:

(3.) The first petitioner-Society is the absolute owner and in lawful possession of 9 multi tenement buildings consisting of totally 66 residential flats equaling to the members of the Society. The second respondent is one such member of the first petitioner-Society. Suffice to note that Section 64 proceedings have been initiated as against the members of the society. The grievances of the petitioners then was that they were not permitted to engage the services of a counsel and the Enquiry Officer was biased, etc. The petitioners were before this Court in W.P. No. 11963 of 2007 and W.P. No. 7286 of 2007 with a request to direct the first respondent therein to permit the members of the Society to engage an Advocate in the enquiry initiated under Section 64 of the Act and also contended that the Enquiry Officer was biased. This Court disposed of the said writ petitions with the certain directions.