AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J.—The petitioner was a Secretary of the 3rd respondent, a co-operative Society, which was converted as a ''Souhardha'', as per Section 4(b) of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari, Act 1997. The petitioner claims that he is entitled for payment and allowances from 2005 up to 2010. 2nd respondent having submitted a proposal dated 26.08.2009 vide Annexure-E to the 1st respondent for winding up of the Souhardha Sahakari and to appoint a liquidator and the 1st respondent having passed an order dated 08.07.2010 vide Annexure-F, canceling the registration of Souhardha Sahakari and registering the 3rd respondent as a Cooperative Society, in exercise of the power under Section 7 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959, this writ petition was filed to quash the order as at Annexure-F and asking for a mandamus to take action for liquidation of the Souhardha Sangha, pursuant to the proposal as at Annexure-E and direct the liquidator to take the properties of the Shirahatti Taluak Primary School Co-Operative Society and Shirahatti Souharda Sahakari and take action in terms of Section 47 of the Karnataka Souhardha Sahakari Act, 1977.
Sri. F.V. Patil, learned Advocate, contended that Annexure-F is arbitrary and illegal. He submitted that the proposal vide Annexure-E having been made for winding up, the 1st respondent has committed illegality in passing the order as at Annexure-F, which would deprive the petitioner of his right to receive arrears of salary and allowances amounting to Rs. 5,66,310/-, as has been shown in the Audit Report vide Annexure-D. Learned counsel submitted in the facts and circumstances of the case, Annexure-F calls for interference.
Smt. K. Vidyavathi, learned AGA and Sri. Laxman T. Mantagani, learned Advocates appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to question the order as at Annexure-F and hence, petition is liable to be dismissed. It was submitted that due to misconduct, misbehavior and wrongful administration of the Sahakari, it having suffered loss continuously, a statutory enquiry was ordered and it was found that the petitioner has enhanced his pay by himself and drawn the salary without approval of the managing committee or the Department and in the said circumstance, the proposal vide Annexure-E was submitted. They contended that the petitioner being the erstwhile Secretary of the Souhardha Sahakari, which is no more in existence, has no right to question the impugned order. They submitted that the petition being devoid of merit, may be dismissed.
Considered the rival submissions made by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and perused the record.
Primary question for consideration is
''Whether any right or interest of the petitioner has been adversely affected or jeopardized on account of the order as at Annexure-F?'' 6. A person cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless, he satisfies the Court that he falls within the category of ''aggrieved person''. Only a person who has suffered or suffers from legal injury can present a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right. Existence of a legally enforceable right is a condition precedent for invoking writ jurisdiction. Legal right that can be enforced, ordinarily, must be the right of the petitioner himself.
Sri. F.V. Patil, was unable to point out as to how the petitioner has suffered any legal injury on account of the passing of the order as at Annexure-F. If the petitioner is due to be paid any sum as arrears of salary and allowances, the impugned order as at clause-3 makes a provision in that regard. The clause being relevant is extracted herein for ready reference:
By the conversion of Souhardha Sangha into a Co-Operative Society and its registration by the 1st respondent as per in the order as at Annexure-F has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. The order as at Annexure-F has not adversely affected or jeopardized the right, if any, of the petitioner. On account of passing of the order as at Annexure-F, the petitioner has not suffered from any legal injury. The petitioner, if is due to recover any sum, he can do so by approaching the Competent Forum.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has no locus standi to invoke the writ jurisdiction against the order as at Annexure-F, since, he has not suffered any legal injury and hence, cannot be permitted to assail the order as at Annexure-F.
In the result, writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to seek remedy, if any, in accordance with law and before the Competent Forum i.e. in the matter of the payment of the arrears of salary and allowances.
No costs.