L KRISHNEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .the petitioners here in are three out of the ten people who were elected to the committee of management of respondent-2 co-operative agricultural rural development bank ltd , in k.p.nagar taluk, mysore district. It would appear just on the eve of the election scheduled to elect the president and vice president to that society, government stepped into to nominate five persons to the committee of respondent-2 committee and that was by an executive order made on 21 -2-1992 (annexure-c) in exercise of the power vested in the government under section 53-a (i) thereof. The nominees inducted into the committee are respondents-3 to 7. The position following the nomination of respondents-3 to 7 was the committee's strength stopd augmented and was boosted from 15 to 20. This committee it appears elected respondents-8 and 9 as the president and vice-president of respondent 2 bank. But then the three petitioners who take exception to both these steps, namely, nominating of respondents-3 to 7 by the government and holding (sic) of office bearers, namely, president and vice-president with the active participation of the five nominees of government referred to supra. In this writ petition (sic) challenged the nomination of respondents-3 to 7 as members of respondent-2 committee under annexure-c and inter alia also challenged the election of respondents-8 and 9 as president and vice-president of the co-operative bank in question.

(2.) the challenge to both these developments rests solely on the capacity of the power of government to have nominated five persons to the committee of management of respondent 2 bank in the purported (sic) power of government under section 53-a (1) of the Karnataka co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short 'the act') as done in annexure-c.

(3.) mr. Chandrasekhur, learned counsel supported (sic) this petition maintains that regard being had to the circumstance that admittedly ,(sic) the limited power of the government to nominate persons to the board of management, the endeavour of the government in boosting the strength of the committee from 15 to 20 by inducting five of their own nominees was clearly otiqse and without any jurisdiction. Elaborating the same, counsel points out that respondent 2-co-operative bank was an institution which had a total share holding of mule more than Rs. 9,00,000/- (rupees nine lakhs) out of which the share cipital contributed by the government \jias (sic) Rs. 61,000/-, he maintains that barring the aforesaid contribution by the government to the institution, it had otherwise received no (sic) assistance from the state government at all. He then submitted that in order to qualify for nominating members to the executive committee under section 53-a of the Act, the government should have contributed at least 50% of the share holding of the society or made contribution of atleast five lakhs of rupees, but if it was anything less than the foregoing limits government would not be entitled to make any nomination in terms enjoined in section 53-a of the act. In other words the argument lead is the power of the government to make a nomination upto 1/3rd of the total strength of the managing committee of the society depends on the enormity or extent of the financial assistance made to the share capital or by way of a direct subvention which should not be jess than Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs). these limits I notice flow from the provision in section 53-a of the act, itself. - since it is that provision which stipulated the same it is desirable to excerpt the provision to the extent it is necessary as follows :