SHANKAR RAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st petitioner is the President of the 2nd petitioner-Belgaum District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the legality of the order made by the 2nd respondent Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka, Belgaum Dvn., Belgaum in exercise of his power under Section 64 (1) of the Act.

(2.) It is alleged in the petition that the Directors of the Bank and the present Government in Karnataka have political differences and that one Shri V. L. Patil, who is a Cabinet Minister in the State hails from Belgaum Distt. The petitioners have also set out in detail a number of other petitions which are pending in this Court in regard to certain notices issued under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. It is also urged that the order is bad-in-law because it is passed at the instance of the Dy. Registrar and not on account of the opinion formed by the 2nd respondent. In the result, it is prayed by the petitioners that the order be quashed being illegal and contrary to the intendment of Section 64 (1) of the Act. I do not think the allegations made or the contentions advanced by the petitioners require to be examined further.

(3.) The order made is mala fide is without substance. The Court is expected to inter mala fide on the allegations contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the statement of facts. Para 2 refers to the political differences, the petitioner Bank has with Mr. V. L. Patil. There is no allegation that Shri V. L. Patil is responsible for the impugned order being passed. This Court in order to infer that the impugned order is passed mala fide because the earlier actions taken against the Directors of the Bank by the Department of Co-operation in Karnataka in accordance with the provisions of the Act and are being questioned in this Court is not a fair submission. This Court in those proceedings will deal with them in accordance with law. But mere existence of litigation earlier to the passing of this order cannot compel this Court to infer mala fides. The impugned order which is at Annexure A to the writ petition clearly points out that the Bank has committed certain irregularities in its management which require an enquiry. As many as six irregularities are pointed out which are required to be enquired into by the Officer appointed and responsibility for mismanagement, if any, is to be fixed by that Officer. In other words the order is only a step in aid for the Registrar to act under Section 68 of the Act if found necessary.