N R SURESH Vs. H R RAMEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 20th May, 2005 bearing No. JRB/appeal/04/2004-05 on the file of the fourth respondent only insofar as it relates to permitting the first respondent to contest in the election to the Committee of Management of the third respondent-Co-operative Society and the declaration of result of election that, the first respondent as having been duly elected to the Committee of Management of the third respondent on the file of the second respondent dated 3rd July, 2005 vide Annexures-C and D respectively, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner, has assailed the correctness of the order dated 21st July, 2005 in dispute No. 5 of 2005-06 on the file of the 5th respondent vide Annexure-E and sought for a declaration, to declare that, first respondent is not eligible to contest in the election to the Committee of Management for a period of four years from 5th July, 2004 in view of Section 30 of the Karnataka co-operative Societies Act, 1959.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is that, petitioner is one of the elected members to the Committee of third respondent-Co-operative Society in the election dated 3rd July, 2005. On the basis of the report submitted by fifth respondent, regarding mismanagement and misappropriation of the fund of the third respondent-Co-operative Society, for the co-operative years 1999-2004, the sixth respondent-Deputy Registrar of Co-operative of Societies, tumkur District, Tumkur, has passed the impugned order dated 5th july, 2004 vide Annexure-A, invoking Section 30 (1) of the Karnataka co-operative Societies Act ('act' for brevity), appointing the administrator for a period of six months and superseding the committee headed by first respondent and other ten elected members, holding that, the first respondent and other ten members are not eligible to contest for election to become members of the Committee of third respondent-Co-operative Society for a period of four years from the date of order. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 5th July, 2004 vide annexure-A, the first respondent and other members filed the appeal on the file of the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent in turn, after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, has passed the impugned order dated 20th May, 2005 vide Annexure-C dismissing the appeal filed by first respondent and others on the ground that, the order passed by Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies vide Annexure-A, appointing the Administrator for a period of six months has already elapsed and therefore it is appropriate to direct the concerned authority to conduct election within 45 days and directed to permit the first respondent and other members of the Committee to participate in the election. Accordingly, the Competent Authority has appointed the returning Officer to conduct election to the third respondent-Co-operative Society and pursuant to the calendar of events issued by the Returning Officer, election was conducted and the returning Officer has declared the result on 3rd July, 2005, wherein, the first respondent was declared elected including the petitioner herein. However, with regard to declaration of result of first respondent, the petitioner has raised a dispute on the file of the fifth respondent in dispute No. 5 of 2005-06. In the said dispute, he has filed the application seeking interim order of stay. The said application filed by petitioner had come up for consideration before the fifth respondent on 21st July, 2005 and the fifth respondent after hearing on the application filed by petitioner seeking interim order, has rejected the said application in view of the order passed by fourth respondent permitting the first respondent and others to participate in the election proceedings. The grievance of petitioner is that, the said rejection of the application seeking interim order of stay is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules and the order passed by fourth respondent is also contrary to Section 30 (3) of the Act. Therefore, petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner for considerable length of time. After careful evaluation of the impugned order at Annexure-C, declaration of result by the Returning Officer dated 3rd July, 2005 vide Annexure-D and the order dated 21st July, 2005 passed by the fifth respondent vide Annexure-E, rejecting the interim order sought for by petitioner, I do not find any justification or good grounds to entertain the instant petition, at this stage, in view of the fact that, the Competent Authority is seized of the matter in the dispute raised by petitioner and the Competent Authority, exercising discretionary power, has rejected the interim order sought for by petitioner giving valid reasons stating that, in pursuance of the order passed by fourth respondent dated 20th May, 2005, permitting the first respondent to participate in the election, granting stay of the said order is not justifiable. The said reasoning given by the Competent Authority is just and proper. Therefore, I do not find any good grounds to interfere in the instant writ petition. Therefore, interference at this stage in the discretionary order passed by fifth respondent is not justifiable invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction as envisaged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, especially when the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case for interference in the case.