BASANAGOUDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the first writ petition, the petitioner herein had sought for issue of writ in the nature or prohibition, prohibiting the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 from exercising their franchise in the election of the Chairman of the respondent No. 2-Bank schedule to be held on 7-8-1999 pursuant to the nomination dated 8-7-1999 made by the respondent No. 1 nominating the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 as Board of Directors under Section 29 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (henceforth in brief as the 'act') as the Karnataka Ordinance No. 4 of 1999 conferring right to vote on the nominated members in the election had lapsed on 3-8-1999, whereas in the second writ petition, the petitioner-Director of the respondent No. 3-Bank had prayed for declaration of the above ordinance as unconstitutional, void and inoperative and further for quashing of the meeting notice dated 29-6-1999, copy as at Annexure C to that writ petition, issued by the respondent No. 2-Co-operative Development Officer, Hadagali, conveing the meeting of the Committee of Management of the respondent No. 3-Bank to hold the election of the office bearers of the Bank proposed to be held on 8-7-1999. The third writ petition was filed by the petitioner in the second writ petition to challenge the further election notice dated 1-9-1999 issued by his Society-respondent No. 2 in the third writ petition conveing the meeting to elect the President and Vice-President on 10-9-1999, copy as at Annexure C to the third writ petition.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri F. V. Patil in the first writ petition and Sri H. K. Vasudeva Reddy, the learned counsel appearing along with Sri K. Nageshwarappa in the second and third writ petition, so also I heard the learned counsel, Sri R. Padmanabha, appearing for the caveators-respondents Nos. 3 to 5 in the first writ petition and Sri Chidanandaiah, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in the second writ petition.

(3.) THE learned Additional Government Advocate had appeared for the State in all three petitions and further appeared for the respondent No. 2 in the second writ petition.