C SHIVALINGAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Karnataka State Judicial Department employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited - the 5th respondent herein is a co-operative society (for short 'society') registered under Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for Short 'act' ). The society is managed by a committee of management elected by its members for a term of five years. On 27. 3. 2005 elections were held to the committee of management of society and 15 director that is the petitioners in these three writ petitions were elected for a term of five years. On 14. 6. 2007 the 3rd respondent issued a show-cause notice under Section 30 (1) of the Act framing 16 charges and to show-cause as to why committee of management of the society shall not be superseded. The second respondent in the impugned order in the appeal before him summarises the charges as under:

(2.) THE society submitted its reply on 18. 7. 2007 interalia contending that the charges are untrue, baseless and requested to drop further proceedings. In reply to the charges the society also produced number of documents. The 3rd respondent by considering reply submitted by the society passed an order on 8. 8. 2007 superseding the committee of management of the society and appointed the 4th respondent as administrator to the society. Aggrieved by this order of supersession some of the Directors of the society i. e. , the petitioners in W. P. No. 20081/2007 filed an appeal before the Secretary to Government in Appeal/cmw 10/cap/2007 under Section 106 of the Act. The Secretary to Government vide endorsement dated 31. 10. 2007 dismissed the appeal as not maintainable on the ground that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is the appellate authority and not the Government. Some of the Directors filed an appeal against the order of supersession before the Registrar of co-operative Societies in Appeal No. RCS/dap/d1/23/2007-08 i. e. , the petitioners in W. P. No. 19053/2007 and 19054/2007. The 2nd respondent-Registrar of Co-operative Societies vide order dated 29. 11. 2007 dismissed the appeal and sustained the order of supersession. Hence these writ petition questioning the order of supersession dated 8. 8. 2007, order of appellate authority dated 29. 11. 2007 and the endorsement dated 31. 10. 2007 and for. other reliefs.

(3.) SRI T. R. Subbanna, learned senior Counsel for some of the petitioners contend that the impugned order of supersession dated 8. 8. 2007 passed by the 3rd respondent is opposed to the principles of natural justice. The petitioners after submitting their objections and documents, orally requested the 3rd respondent to give a personal hearing and the same was denied. The 3rd respondent in the impugned order of supersession held that some of the charges as proved on the ground that the society has not produced necessary documents in support of their defence. The 3rd respondent ought to have called upon the society to produce the necessary documents and ought to have provided an oral hearing. He contends that the hearing includes oral hearing. Therefore, he contends that the impugned order is opposed to principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed.