High CourtsSingle Bench(2013) 09 KAR CK 0025

Arecanut Processing and Sale Co-Operative Society Limited (APSCOS), APMC YARD, SAGAR vs State of Karnataka and Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 19 September 2013 · Citation: (2014) 1 KarLJ 442

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.S. Patil, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 37043 of 2013 (CS-RES)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 248 words

B.S. Patil, J.—The grievance made by the petitioner-Society in this writ petition is, against the provisions contained in Section 27(4) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, as amended by Kamataka Act No. 3 of 2013 and also Rule 14-AJ(5) and 14-AJ(8) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960, as amended by Karnataka Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Rules, 2013, insofar as it provides for quorum for the meetings which shall not be less than 20% of the members eligible to vote at the meeting. Learned Additional Government Advocate makes available the Government Order dated 13-9-2013 issued in exercise of the powers conferred u/s 54 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2012 and Section 132 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, which reads as under:

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960, for the annual general meetings of the co-operative society during 2013, the quorum shall be as specified in the bye-laws.

2.

It is thus clear from the Government Order extracted above, that the requirement of having 20% of the members eligible to vote at the meeting to form quorum for conducting a meeting is exempted for the year 2013. Therefore, the grievance made by the petitioner for the present does not survive for consideration. If and when need arises, petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court seeking the same relief. Reserving such liberty, this writ petition is disposed of, as having become unnecessary for the present.