KRISHNAPPA Vs. C V VEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants and respondents 1 to 5 ore the elected Directors of 8th respondent society in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Co. operative Societies Act and Rules (hereinafter called as the Act and Rules in short) which is managed by its Chief Promoter. Respondents 1 to 5 tendered their resignation to their Managing Committee membership to Asst. Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 1-12-2004 as the Chief Executive Officer was not appointed to the society. The said resignation letters had been returned on 24-1-2005 because the a. R. C. S has no jurisdiction to accept the same under Section 29-B of the Act. Thereafter, they submitted the resignation letters on 19-3-2005 to the Chief Promoter, who forwarded them to the a. R. C. S. The same were accepted by the A. R. C. S on 19-4-2005 except the 5th respondent as he withdrew his resignation on 16-4-2005. The same was challenged in W. P. No. 14139/2005. Since the acceptance of resignation letters was withdrawn by the A. R. C. S, the said writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous. Thereafter, again the A. R. C. S passed order on 13-9-2005 holding that the resignation letters are deemed to have been accepted. The said order was confirmed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies by his order dated 17-4-2006. The writ petition filed challenging those orders was allowed by the learned single Judge, which is assailed by the Appellants in this writ appeal.

(2.) MR. S. R. Hegde Hudlamane, learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that since the 8th respondent society is newly formed and the Chief Executive is not appointed, the Chief Promoter must be construed as the Chief Executive for all purposes under the provisions of the KCS Act till such officer is appointed. The said contention cannot be accepted by us, as the definition of chief Executive under Section 2 (a-3) of the Act reads asunder:

(3.) IT is curious to note that the A. R. C. S in the first instance rightly returned the resignation letters to the Chief Promoter on die ground that he has no jurisdiction to accept the same. Subsequently, the resignation letters forwarded by the Chief Promotor have been accepted by him More interestingly, when the acceptance was questioned in W. P. No. 14139/2005, he withdrew the order and after disposal of the writ petition, he again ordered that the resignation letters are deemed to have been accepted. Such conduct of the A. R. C. S is highly depricated. He cannot exercise his power according to his whims and fancy in the matter of acceptance of the resignations of the committee shall act members shall act strictly in accordance with law as his action will have civil consequences upon such members and he is required to discharge his functions strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules in the interest of the society.