MALLESWARAM CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY Vs. KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First petitioner is the Malleswaram Co-operative Society Ltd., while the 2nd petitioner is one of its Directors on the Board of Management, What really falls for determination in this Writ Petition is a short question and that is, whether a co-operative society is precluded from being represented in legal proceedings by a person other than the Secretary who is the designated person under one of its bye-laws to sue or to be sued in the name of the society ?

(2.) The facts leading to the case may be briefly stated as follows :-The 3rd respondent herein was an employee of the Co-operation Department of the State of Karnataka. He was for a lime deputed to function as Secretary of the first petitioner co-operative society. In the period he was functioning as such, he claimed certain increase in emoluments said to be payable by the society. Therefore, after his deputation ceased, he raised a dispute which was referred to the 2nd respondent Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). During the pendency of the dispute, on 15-6-1985 the 2nd respondent while permitting the 3rd respondent to engage the services of a Counsel to represent him and present his case in the dispute before the 2nd respondent, rejected the request of the 2nd petitioner to appear for and on behalf of the first petitioner society. 2(i) Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners herein preferred Revision Petition No. 25/85 to the 1st respondent Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') Unfortunately, the members of the Bench of the Tribunal consisting of a Co-operation Member and a Judicial Member did not agree with each other and reached divergent conclusions. While the Cooperation Member concurred with the conclusion reached by the 2nd respondent that only Secretary can represent the society and not the 2nd petitioner, the Judicial Member took the view that other authorised person may also represent the society. As a result of the dissent, as per the Regulations of the Tribunal, the matter was referred to a Full Bench of the Tribunal. The Full Bench has concurred with the Cooperation member and the 2nd respondent Joint Registrar and has held that none bat the Secretary shall represent the first petitioner society. I will advert to the reasons given by them later in the course of this order. 2(ii). Aggrieved by that Full Bench opinion rejecting the region, the present petition is presented by the first petitioner society and the 2nd petitioner who is its Director inter alia contending that the order is erroneous in law and quite contrary to the provisions of the Act as well as the Bye-Laws of the first petitioner society itself.

(3.) The Judgment of the Full Bench of the Tribunal is a long one. The Bench has been constituted with two Judicial Members and one Co-operation Member and therefore, it is some what shocking to this Court that the two Judicial Members, instead of giving some assistance to the Co-operation Member on the Bench in making a proper legal approach to decide the question referred to them, have in fact misguided the other Member also to reach the conclusion in a manner which does not befit their experience in the higher cadre of the subordinate judiciary of the State, I am constrained to make this remark on account of the ease with which the learned members of the Bench of the Tribunal have chosen to ignore the rulings of this Court and other High Courts in some what similar circumstances by resorting to the simple explanation that those cases had been decided on different set of facts, though I do not see any such difference in the over-all picture with which the Arbitrator was originally confronted by the request of the 2nd petitioner that he had been authorised by the society and therefore he could represent it.