KARNATAKA RAJYA SOUHARDHA SAHAKARI SAMYUKTA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA BANGALORE Vs. REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the order at Annexure-D, dated 1-10-2004 passed by the 1st respondent in No.RSR:SA:135:XAR-2004-05, insofar as appointing the administrator as returning officer for conducting the election of the 3rd respondent-Bank. Further to direct the administrator to conduct the election with the Returning Officer appointed by the petitioner.

(2.) The only grievance made out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, the petitioner is the Federal Co-operative as constituted under the Karnataka Souhardha Sahakari Act, 1997. The Federal Co-operative is the main co-ordinator and regulatory body, constituted under Section 53 of the Act and the bye-laws of Federal Co-operative are binding on all the Co-operative Societies Registered under the Act. The 3rd respondent herein is a Souhardha Co-operative Bank registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Souhardha Sahakari Act, 1997. Be that as it may, after expiry of the term of the 3rd respondent-Bank, the 3rd respondent-Bank has not conducted the election. The members of the 3rd respondent-Bank had come up before this Court, by way of filing writ petitions seeking directions to the Registrar to decide the matter in strict compliance of amended Section 26 of the Karnataka Souhardha Sahakari Act. The said writ petitions filed by the members of the 3rd respondent-Bank were disposed of by this Court by its order dated 16-9-2004. After the disposal of the said writ petitions, the 1st respondent exercising his power under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Act, has appointed the Administrator-cum-Returning Officer to conduct the election to the 3rd respondent-Bank for the Co-operative years 2004-05 to 2008-09 and to complete the same within three months. When the petitioner came to know about the same, immediately he has given a representation to the 1st respondent bringing to his notice that, the authority has the power to appoint only the Administrator and the power to appoint the Returning Officer vests with the petitioner alone as per Bye-law No. 45/1, vide Annexure-E. In spite of bringing the same to the notice of the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent has not taken any action. Therefore, the petitioner felt necessitated to present this writ petition, assailing the correctness of Annexure-D, dated 1-10-2004, so far as appointing the Returning Officer to conduct the election to the 3rd respondent-Bank.

(3.) The principal submission canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, so far as appointing the Returning Officer is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction of law. As per Section 53 of the Act, a Federal Co-operative Society constituted and all the co-operative are members of Federal Co-operative and the bye-laws of the petitioner are binding on all the members, including the 3rd respondent-Bank. Further, he vehemently submitted that, as per Section 53(7)(q) of the Act, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to make arrangements for holding the election of its members and in that regard, Bye-laws provides for appointing the Returning Officer. The 1st respondent has appointed an Administrator as the Returning Officer and now the said Returning Officer has fixed date for holding the election. The entire proceedings are totally without authority of law. The 1st respondent has failed to discharge the statutory duty by appointing the Administrator as the Returning Officer, which is totally opposed to Bye-laws of the petitioner-Federation. Further, he is quick to point out and taken me through sub-section (1) of Section 26 and submitted that, the board of a co-operative shall conduct elections to elect the succeeding board before the expiry of the term of office of the outgoing board in the manner specified in the Bye-laws and this aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the 1st respondent while appointing the Administrator as the Returning Officer to conduct election to the 3rd respondent-Bank. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned order so far as appointing the Administrator as the Returning Officer to the 3rd respondent-Bank for conducting the election is contrary to the statute and one without jurisdiction and it is liable to be set aside.