M SANJEEVA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ appeals are filed against the common order dated 24-7-2003 passed in W. P. No. 6058 of 2003 wherein the learned Single Judge has not interfered with notification dated 26-12-2002 (Annexure-A), issued by the 1st respondent. As in both the appeals, common questions of law and fact are involved, they are taken up together.

(2.) IT is stated that the 2nd respondent is a society governed by the multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (Central Act 39 of 2002) (for short, 'the 2002 Act' ). Earlier the Act of 1984 was in force and it was replaced by the 2002 Act. The management of the 2nd respondent-Society is vested with the Board of Directors. The appellant/petitioner was elected as a member of the Board of Directors vide notification dated 22-1-2003 for a period of 3 years. Being aggrieved by the issuance of notification dated 26-12-2002, issued by the State Government, the appellant/petitioner filed the above writ petition challenging the nomination of the 3rd and the 4th respondents, made by the Government, to the 2nd respondent-Society. The learned Single Judge, as stated, while not interfering with the impugned notification dismissed the writ petition. Hence, these writ appeals.

(3.) SRI Acharya, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that while rule 31 (2) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies (Regulation, Membership, etc.) Rules, 1985, which starts with a non obstante clause, provides for nomination of persons in excess of the limits prescribed in Rule 31 (1), as per the present Section i. e. , Section 48 of the Act of 2002, the state Government can nominate only specified number of persons to the board. According to the learned Counsel, the learned Single Judge has not considered all these factors. He also submits that as per Section 41 (3) of the 2002 Act, the Board shall consist of such number of Directors as specified in the bye-laws, which is 19 in the present case, and if the reasoning of the learned Single Judge is accepted it would exceed the maximum number specified in the bye-laws. He further submits that the learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating the judgment of the kerala High Court in O. P. No. 2097 of 2003 (Y), DD: 29-1-2003, in a proper perspective, and therefore, the notification dated 26-12-2002 is liable to be quashed and the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.