KATAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The essential facts of the case are these: Petitioners-1 to 7 are the Directors of the Milk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd., Siddenahally, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore District, and petitioner-8 is the President of the said society The petitioners have joined together with a common grievance and filed a single writ petition aggrieved by the order passed by respondent-3 on 13-8-1986 granting registration under Section 7 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to respondent-4 society. The petitioner society was carrying on the activities of procuring and supplying of milk within its jurisdiction and that there were no complaints against the society. The society had been carrying on the business for more than 12 years. According to the petitioners, the financial position of the society was quite sound and the society was capable of expanding its activities. It is alleged by the petitioners that on account of political animous certain political elements were out to destroy the society by prevailing upon respondent-3 for initiation of proceedings for liquidation of the society. By order dated 17-2-1986, the Deputy Registrar of Co operative Societies, Bangalore District, Bangalore, ordered for the liquidation of the Society and also directed The cancellation of the registration of the society after completion of the liquidation proceedings. According to the petitioners, the said order was passed without notice and without any enquiry. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 106 of the Act before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 20/85-86. On 22-8-1986, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and remanded the matter to respondent-3 to hold fresh enquiry. It is at that stage when the matter was pending, an application was made under Section 7 of the Act by respondent-4 to respondent-3 for registration of the very same society in their name. According to the petitioners, respondent-3, without making any verification and without determining the facts whether the petitioner society was liquidated granted the registration in favour of respondent-4 in the place of the existing society. A Certificate of Registration to that effect was also issued on 13-8-1986, the correctness of which is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) The short point for consideration is whether the impugned order dated 13-8-1986 issuing a Certificate of Registration is contrary to law.

(3.) It is necessary to refer to the impugned Certificate of Registration dated 13 8-1986 which reads thus :