NANJUNDASWAMY Vs. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO SOC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition itself is referred to the full Bench for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) The Writ petitioner is a member of the third respondent, which is a Co-operative Bank, registered under the Karnataka Co-operaive Socities Act, 1959. ' The Writ petitioner had filed a nomination paper for being elc6e4 upon the Committee of Management of the third respondent. At the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers an objection was raised, that the Writ petitioner was a partner of a partnership firm called Lakshmi Financers and that, therefore, his nomination ought to be rejected. The petitioner brought various documents to the knowledge of the Returning Officer to rebut the objection. However, the objection was upheld. The Writ Petition was filed to quash the order of the Returning Officer on the ground that he had erred in considering the documents produced by the Writ petitioner.

(3.) The learned single Judge, when the Writ Petition came up before him for Preliminary Hearing, referred it to a Division Bench in view of the conflicting Decisions of two Division Benches of this Court. When the matter came up before the Division Bench, the Division Bench noted that there was on the one hand the Judgment in Maruthi v. State of Karnataka, ILR 1990 Kar 1378 and on the other hand the Judgment in S. Gurlimallappa v. State of Karnataka, ILR 1991 Kar 577. The Division Bench was prima facie of the view that Section 70 (2) (c) of the Act and the Decision of the Full Bench in State of Karnataka v. N.A. Nagendrappa, ILR 1991 Kar 1057 could be held to be a bar to the entertainment of a Writ Petition in an election dispute under the Act It thought it proper to have the conflict resolved by a larger Bench, and the Writ Petition was referred to a Full Bench.