GANAPATHY SEETHARAM BHAT Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the second respondent before us is the agricultural produce co-operative marketing society which was established to provide the marketing of the agricultural produce to its members. The appellantbefore us who was the writ petitioner, was elected as a director and subsequently as the chairman of the managing committee. Apart from the elected members the government though it fit to nominate respondents 3 to 5 as its nominees under Section 29 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 (the 'act'). The nomination was done on 28th august, 1991. The period of the nominees to function as the members of the managing committee was not stated in the nomination and it was to be "until further orders." the petitioner challenged these nominations on the ground that the state government had no power at all to nominate them under Section 29 of the act which was not at all attracted. Since the question involved before us is the interpretation of Section 29 we will refer to the relevant Provisions which reads thus:

(2.) according to the petitioner there is no subsisting share capital subscribed by the state government in the society. The petitioner also pointed out that the state government has not assisted indirectly in the formation or augmentation of the share capital of this society as provided in chapter vi of the act. Similarly, there has been no guarantee by the state government for the repayment of the principal and payment of interest on debentures issued by this society. Neither this society nor any other society has so far issued any debenture and that it has not obtained debentures from any other co-operative society which has issued debentures out of the loan given to the society, so also there was no guarantee on loans and advances. There is no loan incurred by the petitioner on which the state government has offered guarantee.

(3.) the state government has not filed any statement of objection. It is only respondents 3 to 5 i.e., the nominees who have filed an application in the writ petition considered as statement of objections. These nominees have pointed out that it is not necessary for the state government to have a share in the share capital at the time of nominating the members. It is sufficient that the state government had at any time subscribed to the capital, even though the said share capital had been returned to the government by the cooperative society. In the instant case the government had subscribed to the share capital which existed between the years 1960-61 to 1984-85. However, admittedly since the year 1985-86 government ceased to have any share in the share capital of this society.