RONALD JEROME D SOUZA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , questioning the legality and validity of the impugned order/notice (as claimed by petitioner) dated 28th September 2007 bearing No. UBC/4/77/ (dis -qualification)/ 2007 -08 passed/issued by second respondent herein, has presented the instant writ petition.

(2.) THE only grievance of petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner is one of the elected Directors of the Managing Committee of the Akshaya Co -operative Credit Society Limited, Karwar, Uttara Kannada District ('Society' for short). When petitioner was so discharging his duties as elected Director of the said Society, to the shock and surprise of petitioner, the impugned order cum notice dated 28th September 2007 vide Annexure A came to be issued without issuing notice to the petitioner and without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to meet the allegations made against the petitioner. Therefore, it is the case of petitioner that, the second respondent has proceeded to issue the impugned order cum notice, which is one without jurisdiction for the reason that, the same is issued on the basis of the alleged report submitted by third respondent. Therefore, being aggrieved by the impugned notice issued by second respondent, invoking its power under Section 29 -C(1)(a) of the Karnataka Co -operative Societies Act, 1959, as referred above, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition, seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra.

(3.) PER contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents, inter alia, contended and submitted that, the impugned notice issued by second respondent by invoking Section 29 -C(1)(a) of the Act is purely on the basis of the report submitted by third respondent. It is crystal clear from the contents and preamble of the notice that, as per the report submitted by third respondent, the petitioner who is one of the Directors of the Akshaya Co -operative Credit Society Limited, Karwar has drawn amounts under different heads/accounts and has failed to repay the said amounts well within the time and therefore, he has been issued with the show cause notice, calling upon him to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 29 -C of the Act. Further, he submitted that, the impugned notice cum order, as contended by petitioner is only a show cause notice issued to petitioner, affording an opportunity and calling upon him to file the objections, if any, in writing and appear before the second respondent on 15th October 2007 at 11.00 A.M. failing which, appropriate decision will be taken in accordance with law. Therefore, he submitted that, the second respondent has not committed any error or illegality in issuing the impugned notice nor petitioner has made out any good grounds to entertain the instant writ petition and hence, the prayer sought for by petitioner is liable to be rejected at the threshold itself.