BALARAJU Vs. MUNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an employee of Heggadahalli Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha. He was employed as examiner of Milk. On certain charges of misconduct, the Secretary of the Co-operative Society(which is not a party to this writ petition) was dismissed. The said Secretary was none other than the 3rd respondent herein. Janardhana, the dismissed Secretary raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in Dispute No. 26/1982-83 before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Doddaballapur Sub-Division, Doddaballapur, Bangalore District. In the said dispute, the Arbitrator held against the dismissed Secretary. Thereupon, he filed Appeal No. 481/1984 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). In the meanwhile, the petitioner- Balaraju who was the milk examiner, was at first, appointed temporarily to officiate as Secretary of the Heggadahalli Milk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd. and later on confirmed as Secretary of the Co-operative Society. At that point of time, he made an application before the Tribunal in Appeal No. 481/1984 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. seeking to implead himself as a necessary party. That application came to be dismissed by an order of the Tribunal dated 21sl January, 1985. Thereafter, a joint memo appears to have been filed in the said appeal before the Tribunal by which the dispute was compromised and Janardhana the appellant before the Tribunal was in terms of the compromise reinstated as Secretary of the Cooperative Society.

(2.) In the meanwhile, on 19th January. 1985 in another dispute raised by a member of the aforementioned Co-operative Society, Muneyya, the President of the Co-operative Society and four others were restrained from functioning as directors on the Board of Management in Dispute No. 268/1985 on the file of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Doddaballapur Sub-Division, Doddaballapur. In other words, in the light of the argument advanced for the petitioner, it is useful to notice here that the restraint order was passed two days before I.A.No. 3 filed before the Tribunal was rejected. It is reasonable to assume that I.A.No. 3 was filed some time before it was dismissed. Therefore, on the data I.A.No. 3 was presented, this Court must proceed on the assumption that there is no restraint order on the president and four others as evidenced by An- nexure-A. I.A.No. 3 in Appeal No. 481/1984 on the file of the Tribunal came to be dismissed on the ground, inter alia, that there was no lis between the applicant-Balaraju the petitioner herein and the dispute raised in regard to the removal of Janardhana from the post of Secretary. Therefore, the compromise memo dated 22-1-1985 which restored Janardhana as Secretary, the petitioner, claims has affected him and therefore he has presented this writ petition seeking the following relief. (1) To quash the order of the Tribunal dated 21-1-1985 rejecting his application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. as well as the order passed on the joint memo of compromise resulting in the reinstatement of Janardhana, 3rd respondent, as Secretary of the Co-operative Society in question. He has also asked for quashing of certain resolutions passed by the Co-operatives Society which I may straight-away reject as not tenable for the reasons that the Cooperative Society is not a Party to this proceeding and also this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the Management of the Co-operative Society which is not a local authority or other authority as defined under Art. 12 of the Constitution, and as such, this Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction against the Co-operative Society under Art. 226 of the Constitution, to quash any resolution passed by it concerning its internal management nor issue a mandamus asking it to reinstate the petitioner as Secretary which, undoubtedly, is part of its internal management.

(3.) Therefore, what remains for consideration by this Court is whether the reliefs asked for quashing the order rejecting I.A.No. 3 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. to implead himself as a necessary party and the order made on the joint memo of compromise reinstating the 3rd respondent, should be quashed.