ABHAYKUMAR DHANPAL JANAJ Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of learned Single Judge dated 04.03.2014 passed in WP Nos.45822 -26/2013 & connected petitions is assailed in these appeals. In those writ petitions, Annexure -C which is an order passed by the Commissioner, Co -operative Election Commission constituted under Section 39 -AA of the Karnataka Co -operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short the Act ) dated 23.09.2013, appointing a Returning Officer for the conduct of election to the Board of Directors and office bearers of respondent No.5 - Co -operative Society was assailed. Learned Single Judge by his order considered various contentions raised by the appellants who are the original petitioners and dismissed the writ petitions. It is against that order, these appeals have been filed.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Principal Government Advocate who has appeared for respondent Nos.1 to 5 on advance notice and perused the material on record.

(3.) ON behalf of appellants, it was contended that the impugned order at Annexure -C was issued by respondent No.2 without having any jurisdiction; that in view of the order dated 15.11.2012 passed by the Government in respect of respondent No.5 society, no election could have been conducted before 30.09.2038, as till that date the Special Officer has to function for and on behalf of respondent No.5 -society. The order dated 15.11.2012 was passed by the State Government invoking Section 121 of the Act, which relaxed the applicability of Section 31 insofar as respondent No.5 -society was concerned. Therefore, the impugned order at Annexure -C could not have been issued until 30.09.2038, till which time a Special Officer was appointed for respondent No.5 society. It was also contended that the amendment made to the Constitution by insertion of Chapter IXB was not applicable in view of provisions of Section 121 being invoked in the instant case. It was thus contended that having regard to the situation that existed in respect of respondent No.5 society, the State Government had taken a decision to appoint a Special Officer and thereafter to extend his term up to 30.09.2038 and the Commissioner could not have issued the order at Annexure -C for appointing a Returning Officer to conduct the election. It was in sum and substance contended that the order of learned Single Judge was not in accordance with law. Therefore, interference was called for in these appeals.