A.R. ARUN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the members of the 3rd respondent -Malenadu Areca Marketing Co-operative Society Limited. The 3rd respondent is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act'). Petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies - 2nd respondent herein in approving and certifying the amendment to the bye-law framed by the 3rd respondent - Society as per Annexure-A only to the extent it amended bye-law No. 20 by restricting the voting rights of the members to elect only the representatives from their particular constituency in the place of earlier bye-law which provided for a right in favour of each member to elect all the representatives regardless of their constituency.

(2.) Main grievance made by the petitioners is that neither the meeting notice nor the draft of the proposed amendment to bye-law No. 20 has been issued and that there was no deliberations in the meeting with regard to the amendment to the existing provisions contained under bye-law No. 20 which entitled all the members of the Society to cast their vote to elect all the 17 Directors regardless of their constituency, however, the Society illegally passed a resolution amending bye-law No. 20 restricting the right of the members to elect the Directors from their respective constituency. Without noticing this procedural irregularity, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order - Annexure-A approving and certifying the amendment of the bye-law.

(3.) Sri K.M. Nataraj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that as per Rule 6(2) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960 (for short, the Rules') which deals with procedure regarding amendment of bye-laws it is laid down that no such resolution proposing to amend the bye-law by the Society shall be valid unless notice of clear 15 days with the text of the existing bye-law, text of the proposed amendment and reasons therefor has been given to the members of the Society in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society. He further contends that as per Rule 6(1) of the Rules, where a Co-operative Society proposes to amend its bye-laws, such resolution shall be supported by two thirds majority of the members present and voting at general meeting of the society. According to him, both these requirements have been violated in the instant case. He points out referring to the resolution produced at Annexure-B passed by the 3rd respondent - Society that there is nothing to show that any deliberations indeed took place with regard to the proposed amendment and there was any voting or that the members unanimously voted for the proposed amendment.