RAMACHANDRA S. BHAGAVAT Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a member of respondent 4 -Co -operative Bank. He was elected as a director of the bank. He had lodged a complaint on 28 -11 -2008 before respondent 2 alleging acts of misappropriation and thereby causing deficiency in the funds and assets of respondent 4. Based on the said complaint respondent 2 issued a direction on 20 -12 -2008 to respondent 3 to initiate an enquiry into the affairs of the respondent 4. An Enquiry Officer having been appointed, conducted enquiry under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co -operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and submitted report which revealed the causing of deficiency in the funds and assets of the society. In furtherance of the said report the respondent 3 issued an order on 24 -3 -2010 under Section 68(1) of the Act, directing the respondent 4 to initiate further action and submit compliance report within 45 days. Respondent 2 sent a communication dated 19 -1 -2012 to respondent 3 to submit explanation and the action taken report insofar as the aforesaid aspects are concerned. Alleging inaction on the part of the authorities concerned, W.P. No. 66974 of 2012 was filed and the same was disposed of on 19 -2 -2013 with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider a notice, which the petitioner had caused on 11 -7 -2012. Respondent 3 having issued an endorsement in compliance of the order passed in W.P. No. 66974 of 2012, this writ petition was filed, to quash the endorsement dated 17 -6 -2013, vide Annexure -H and direct the respondent 3 to comply with the order passed on 19 -2 -2013 in W.P. No. 66974 of 2012, vide Annexure -G. Sri Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned Advocate, contended that the impugned endorsement is arbitrary and illegal. He submitted that the petitioner was not granted opportunity of hearing to substantiate his contentions and that mechanically the impugned endorsement was issued. He submitted that the respondent 3 ought to have initiated further action under Section 69 of the Act against the officers and members of the Managing Committee of respondent 4, who are responsible for the deficiencies which have been pointed out in the enquiry report submitted pursuant to the enquiry held under Section 64 of the Act.

(2.) SMT . K. Vidyavathi, learned AGA, on the other hand submitted that, pursuant to the mandamus issued on 19 -2 -2013 in W.P. No. 66974 of 2012, further action was taken. She submitted that having regard to the events which have taken place, the compliance reports having been submitted by the respondent 4, each item was examined and factual position was verified and the petitioner was informed on 17 -6 -2013 vide Annexure -H. She further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is untenable.