C S MOHAN Vs. ASST COMMR CHIKBALLAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who had filed nomination for election to the Managing Committee of the Gauribidanur Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., Gowribidanur, which is a society registered and functioning under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, presented this writ petition challenging the order of the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination paper as per order dated 24-3-1978 (Ex. G) . The' Returning Officer rejected his nomination paper solely on the ground that the name of the petitioner has been included in the list of defaulters published under Rule 14(1) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960. As to the objection of the petitioner that the petitioner is not a defaulter, the Returning Officer specifically stated that, as the name of the petitioner was included in the list of defaulters, he has to proceed on that basis and he cannot enquire about the correctness of such an inclusion.

(2.) The petitioner in the writ petition stated as follows in para 4 of the petition:

(3.) The fourth respondent has taken notice through Sri G.V.Shantaraju, learned counsel and has moved for vacating stay by filing IA. No. 1. He produced a list of defaulters published on the notice board of the Society. It is dated 11-3-1978 and the heading of the list says that it is a list of defaulters of G.S.S.K. Limited, Gowribidanur, for the purpose of the General Body Meeting. On the verification of the said list, I find that the name of the petitioner has been included at Si. NO. 45 in the list. When confronted with this list, the learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to explain to the effect that the name of the petitioner is included in the miscellaneous category and the arrears mentioned is not with regard to the dues as a share holder of the Society and the inclusion therefore is illegal and the petitioner suffered from no disqualification. Whatever that may be, the fact remains that the name of the petitioner has been included in the list of defaulters and the petitioner had made categorical statement to the contrary in the petition. If the petitioner had any case notwithstanding the inclusion of his name in the list of defaulters, he should have made out such a case in the petition itseif, by telling the truth to the Court. But the petitioner persuaded me to issue rule nisi only on the basis of the statement made in para 4 of the writ petition referred to above to the effect that his name was not included in the said list. This is now found to be a clear case where the petitioner has obtained rule nisi by suppression of material information and also by making a statement false to his knowledge.