PUTTEGOWDA Vs. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent No.4 was elected as a Director of Committee of Management of the respondent No.3- Bank. THE respondent No.2 on the basis of the complaint lodged by respondent No.3-Bank under Section 29-C of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 seeking to disqualify respondent No.4 from the Directorship of Committee of Management of respondent No.3 for misappropriation and misconduct committed by him has disqualified him for a period of one year. THE petitioner was co-opted as a Director to the vacancy caused owing to the disqualification of respondent No.4. This was on 19.8.2011. THE respondent No.3 questioned the disqualification of respondent No.4 only to an extent of one year inasmuch as according to it the disqualification ought to have been much more. THE respondents 3 and 4 preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority. THE respondent No.3 sought for enhancement of the period of disqualification, whereas respondent No.4 sought for setting aside the order of disqualification. Both the appeals were dismissed. THE petitioner who was co- opted as a Director in place of respondent No.4 is before this Court questioning the period of disqualification inasmuch as according to him it ought to have been more having regard to the seriousness of the misconduct committed by respondent No.4. Apparently the petitioner certainly has no role to play inasmuch as he has no locus to file this writ petition on two counts. One is that as on the date when the transaction took place he was not a Director of the Society, he was co- opted only in the vacancy created by the disqualification of respondent No.4. Prima facie it appears the petitioner proposes to pre-empt what is likely to happen after the expiry of one year.

(2.) BE that as it may, I am of the view that the petitioner has no locus to question the order of the Appellate Authority.