H.D. REVANNA S/O H.D. DEVEGOWDA, CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA MILK FEDERATION AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions are by a Co -operative Society known as Karnataka Milk Federation and represented by its Managing Director in WP No. 14153/2008 and by persons who are either in the management of this Federation or as the majority of the Management Committee of the very Federation, for the common object of quashing two orders mainly the order dated 3.11.2008 or the communication of this date originating from the State Government and addressed to the Director of Co -operative Audit (copy produced as Annexure -G to the Writ Petition No. 14153/2007), calling upon the Director to become active in respect of the transaction of the 1st petitioner -Federation for the year 2001 -2002 to 2007 -2008 and in exercise of the powers of the Director of Co -operative Audit available under Section 63 of the Karnataka Co -operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) and also for quashing the consequential order dated 5.11.2008 No. Tha.Pa.Gha/KA.Sa.Ha.U.Ma/Bem/ Ma.Pa/2008 -09 (produced as Annexure -F to the Writ Petition No. 14153/2007) passed by the Director of Co -operative Audit, the State Government figuring as 1st respondent and the Director of Co -operative Audit figuring as 2nd second in this petition; quoting the very order of the Government and purporting to issue the order in exercise of his powers under Section 63(11) of the Act.

(2.) THE common object of the petitioners is to prevent the proposed re -look into the transactions of the Society including the accounts which have undergone scrutiny as envisaged under the provisions of the Act and to have a second look at them and on the ground that the power exercised by the Government and the Director of Co -operative Audit for the purposes for which Annexures -G and F orders are passed are either not available to them under the provisions of the Act or has not been used for the purposes for which such powers are conferred on either of these respondents.

(3.) FURTHER argument is that the orders are issued not for any bonafide purposes but to tarnish the image of the persons and to settle political scores and therefore it is nothing but a colourable exercise of power vitiating not only the order of the Government at Annexure -L but also the consequential order passed by the Director of Co -operative Audit in Annexure -K.