J.S. Venugopala Reddy and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others

S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—In this case, the Petitioners have sought for quashing the resolution dated 31.7.2010 passed by managing committee of Respondent No. 3 (Annexure ''C'') co-opting Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 as its Directors.

The third Respondent is a Federal Society. In the election held on 17.3.2008, 10 members were elected to the managing committee of the third Respondent. Section 98-T has been inserted by Act No. 6/2010 to the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (''Act'' for short), which is deemed to have come into force from 3.11.2009. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are the professionals in different fields. They were co-opted u/s 98-T of the Act as the Director of the third Respondent-society. Sri B.K. Manjunath. learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 submits that the election to the office of President and Vice-President of the 3rd Respondent is scheduled to be held on 30.9.2010. There is no bar u/s 98-T of the Act to co-opt the professionals in different fields as members of the third Respondent-society.

On the other hand, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that having regard to the language contained in Section 98-T of the Act, it is not permissible to directly co-opt the Directors to the managing committee of the third Respondent. It is argued that in the election, if such number of professionals do not get elected, then the society can co-opt the professionals to the extent of short fall having special knowledge, experience in such fields as may be stipulated by the Reserve Bank. Therefore, separate election has to be held creating a separate constituency for election of professionals. In the said election, if sufficient number of professionals do not get elected, then only co-option is permitted. Since no such election has been held, the co-option of Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 is not permissible in law.

I have carefully considered the argument of the learned Counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.

It is not in dispute that Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are the professionals having special knowledge, experience in the field stipulated by the Reserve Bank. The election to the managing committee of the third Respondent was held on 17.3.2008. It is also an admitted fact that in the election, professionals having special knowledge, experience in the fields stipulated by the Reserve Bank of India have not been elected. Therefore, the third Respondent 1 society has co-opted Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 as its Directors. I am not in agreement with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that a separate constituency has to be created for the election of professionals. Prima facie, I am of the view that in the election for the members of the managing committee of a society, if sufficient number of professionals are not elected, the managing committee can co-opt professionals to the extent of short fall as stipulated by the Reserve Bank. A separate election need not be held for electing the professionals to the managing committee. Therefore, interim order granted earlier requires to be vacated. Consequently, the order dated 26.8.2010 is. hereby vacated. Misc.W. No. 8431/2010 stands allowed accordingly.