CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts(1989) 01 KAR CK 0017

Channabasanagouda Dyavanagouda Patil vs Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Savanur and Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 16 January 1989 · Citation: (1989) 1 KarLJ 133

HON’BLE JUDGES
H. G. Balakrishna, J
CASE NUMBER
W.P. No. 17568/1987

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

5 paragraphs · 356 words

Balakrishna, J.-The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent has set aside the law and passed the impugned order dated 17-11-1987 (Annexure D). The prayer of the petitioner is to set aside the impugned order and to restore the law.

2.

The only point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the impugned order deserves to be quashed for improper exercise of power by the 1st respondent.

3.

Though the fact is that the petitioner was a defaulter only in respect of the 2nd respondent society, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order removing the petitioner from the Committee of respondents-3 and 4 societies. Respondent-3 society is of Taluk level whereas respondent-4 society is of sub-taluk level. The other infirmities which are patent on the face of the record are that the 1st respondent is empowered to act under Section 126A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, only in respect of sub-taluk level society. But, in the instant case, he has exercised a power which is not vested in him by acting under Section 126A of the Act in respect of respondent-3 society which is a taluk level society. Besides transgressing his jurisdiction, the 1st respondent has not only removed the petitioner from the Committee of respondents-3 and 4 societies, but also disabled him from holding office or exercising functions and powers in any other society. This is a clear case of executive excess. The 1st respondent has firstly committed the error of exercising a jurisdiction which is not vested in him; secondly he has committed an error in issuing a composite notice and passing a composite order and thirdly he has committed the gross error of removing the petitioner from respondents-3 and 4 societies in respect of which the petitioner is not a defaulter at ail. Hence, this writ petition deserves to be allowed without a second thought on the face of the errors apparent on the face of the record.

4.

In the result, for the reasons stated above, rule is issued and made absolute. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed.

Writ petition allowed.