DINESH SUVARNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 15-3-2003 passed by the 2nd respondent in No. AR:38: samanya:cr 54/02-03 (Annexure-E ).

(2.) THE only grievance of the petitioner as made out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition is that, when the matter had come up for orders before the 2nd respondent on 15-3-2003, the petitioner has filed an application requesting one more week's time to produce the documents to substantiate his case and also to produce the overdraft renewal order passed by the authorities. But, his request was refused by the 2nd respondent on the ground that along with the application he has not produced any documents. Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the manager of the Bank had appeared before the 2nd respondent, gave evidence and sought for ten days time to produce the order passed by the Competent authority renewing the overdraft facility provided to the petitioner. Instead of considering the request made on behalf of the petitioner and the Manager of the Bank, the 2nd respondent on the same day has proceeded to pass orders on the ground that in spite of giving sufficient opportunity, the petitioner has not utilized the same and therefore, he is not entitled for any further adjournment under Section 29-C (l) (a) of the Karnataka Co-operative societies Act, disqualified the petitioner from the membership and barred him from participating in the election and he could not become a member of the any Bank or Society for a period of three years. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

(3.) PER contra, the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent has substantiated the order passed by the 2nd respondent. He has vehemently submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the 2nd respondent after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, who in spite of sufficient opportunity given, has not utilized the same and failed to produce any documents. Further, he has submitted that, when the matter was listed on 15-3-2003 before the 2nd respondent, except making an oral statement that the renewal of the overdraft facility provided to the petitioner is pending adjudication before the competent Authority he has not produced any documents, therefore, the 2nd respondent has rightly refused an adjournment. Further, he has pointed out that, admittedly an award was passed against the petitioner, he was due the said award amount, he has not repaid the or produced any documents to that effect. Even as on date of the proceedings under Section 29-C (l) was initiated, the petitioner was a defaulter and he is not entitled to continue as the member. Therefore, he has submitted that, the 2nd respondent after taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter has passed the order in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act. No error or illegality as such was committed by the 2nd respondent, nor the petitioner has made out any grounds to interfere with the same. He has submitted that, the petitioner has got alternative, effective remedy by way of filing an appeal before the competent Authority as provided under the relevant provisions of the karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. The petitioner has not made out any good grounds to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, he has submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed.