Kaniyanahundi Milk Producers'' Co-operative Society Limited vs Co-operation Department, bangalore and others

The petitioner herein being the Milk Producers'' Co-operative Society, Heggadadevanakote had filed the instant writ petition with a prayer that this Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the calendar of events dated 6-5-1999 issued by the respondent 4-the Returning Officer, copy at Annexure-D to writ petition and further for issue of writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to amend the bye-law on disposal of an earlier writ petition filed by non-party Director of respondent 3-Society and further to hold the election in accordance with Section 28-A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act.

I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri K.L. Manjunath and Sri Jayakumar S. Patil appearing for the contesting respondent 3. The learned Additional Government Advocate Sri M.N. Ramanjaneya Gowda represented the respondent 1-State, the respondent 2-the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the respondent 4-the Headquarters Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore and the Returning Officer. Hence, rule is issued. I have also perused the case papers.

I feel it appropriate to advert to the facts of the case in brief. They are as hereunder:

That, two of the Directors of the respondent 3-Mysore District Co-operative Milk Producers'' Union Limited, had earlier filed W.P. No. 14037 of 1999 with a prayer to quash the order dated 18-12-1998 passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (respondent 2 in that writ petition), whereby the said co-operative authority had passed an order u/s 12(6) of the Co-operative Societies Act to amend the bye-law of the respondent 3-Society. That, this Court while issuing rule in the said writ petition stayed the said order of the non-party Registrar of Co-operative Societies, amending the bye-law u/s 12(6) of the Co-operative Societies Act.

That, subsequently, the respondent 4 came to be appointed as the Returning Officer to hold the election to the respondent 3-District Co-operative Milk Producers'' Union, and upon his appointment, the respondent 4 had issued a calendar of events dated 6-5-1999, copy at Annexure-D to writ petition, by issuing whereof, he had moved the process of holding the election to the Committee of the respondent 3 and he further fixed the poll date as 27-5-1999. That the petitioner herein had challenged the said calendar of events on the ground that the said election could not be held by the Returning Officer since the co-operative sub-divisions came to be changed with the bifurcation of the original Mysore District into Mysore District and Chamarajanagar District and furthermore, the co-operative sub-division called Nanjangud sub-division came to be abolished.

The contesting respondent 3 in filing a detailed objection statement had challenged the contention of the petitioner herein, for according to it, the election was proposed to be held by issuance of calendar of events at Annexure-D as per the existing bye-law and that the carving out of the Chamarajanagar District out of the Mysore District and further the abolition of the co-operative sub-division called Nanjangud subdivision and further creation of Chamarajanagar sub-division were of no consequence. It was also the contention of the respondent 3-Society that the formation of the revenue divisions was nothing to do with the co-operative divisions and further that the co-operative divisions were formed by the respondent 3-Society with reference to the area of operation as contemplated under Rule 13 of the Co-operative Societies Rules.

When the matter was before this Court, one Ramakrishne Gowda and 7 others filed I.A. No. 1 to implead themselves as necessary parties to the instant writ petition. When the matter was heard, the said application had not been considered by this Court and the same was lying over. The matter was heard finally by me. That I did, as I thought that the consideration of that I.A. was of no consequence to the final result of the writ petition.

In the light of the above contentions by the contending parties before me, the sole question that arose for my consideration was as to whether, the election proposed to be held by the respondent 4-the Returning Officer could be held in pursuance of the calendar of events, copy at Annexure-D to writ petition issued as per the old bye-law, in view of the circumstances that this Court had granted interim order in W.P. No. 14037 of 1999, staying the operation of the amended bye-law.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Manjunath in his argument submitted at the outset that the respondent 1-State had passed an order dated 30-12-1998, copy at Annexure-F to rejoinder to the objection statement filed by the respondent 3, and that, as per the said Government Order, the original co-operative sub-divisions by name Mysore subdivision, Nanjangud sub-division and Hunsur sub-division came to be re-organized in view of the bifurcation of the original Mysore District and further formation of two independent Districts by name Mysore District and Chamarajanagar District and that in the place of the above three co-operative sub-divisions in the Mysore District, there came to be formed Mysore Co-operative sub-division, consisting of Mysore Taluk, Nanjangud Taluk and T. Narasipur Taluk, Hunsur sub-division having Hunsur Taluk, H.D. Kote Taluk, K.R. Nagar Taluk and Periyapatna Taluk and further Chamarajanagar sub-division consisting of Chamarajanagar Taluk, Kollegal Taluk, Gundlupet Taluk and Yelandur Taluk in Chamarajanagar District. That submission Sri Manjunath made with reference to Schedule IV to Annexure-F adverted to above. Furthermore, he had also pointed out that Nanjangud Taluk came to be included now in the Mysore sub-division, when the original Nanjangud sub-division in Mysore District was totally obliterated.

With this background, Sri Manjunath had taken me through the Bye-law 19(1)(i) of the respondent 3-Society at Annexure-R2 to the objection statement. He had pointedly drawn my attention to the said provision of the bye-law, wherein it is clearly mentioned that. 4 members were to be elected from the Nanjangud sub-division out of the total number of members to be elected i.e., 4 members each from Mysore sub-division, Hunsur sub-division and Nanjangud sub-division.

In continuation of his submission, Sri Manjunath had also argued that when the Nanjangud sub-division came to be abolished totally with the re-organization of the co-operative divisions, question of election of 4 members from Nanjangud sub-division as now proposed to be elected by the respondent 4 in issuance of the calendar of events at Annexure-D to writ petition did not arise at all. Therefore, he submitted that it was totally impermissible for the respondent 4-Returning Officer to hold the election in pursuance of the calendar of events issued by him. 11. Yet another aspect of the case Sri Manjunath highlighted before me in this context is that the Managing Director of the respondent 3-Society himself had opined that, in view of the division of the Mysore District as Mysore District and Chamarajanagar District and with the formation of the new co-operative divisions, it was not technically feasible to hold election to the respondent 3-Society as per Bye-law No. 19(1)(i) of the Society. It was further argued by Sri Manjunath that as a matter of fact, in issuance of calendar of events, the Returning Officer at page 1 thereof had set out that 4 members each had to be elected to the three divisions including the Nanjangud sub-division. Therefore, he submitted that the instant writ petition is liable to be allowed by quashing the calendar of events at Annexure-D to writ petition.

The learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent 3, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil on the other side argued that the formation of the Co-operative societies was totally within the domain of the Society and as such, it had got nothing to do with the bifurcation of the co-operative sub-divisions. To sustain that argument of his, Sri Patil had also drawn my attention to sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, according to which, a Co-operative society may for the purpose of election of the members to its committee, divide its membership into different groups on a territorial or any other basis. It was also argued by Sri Patil that such a situation could very well be appreciated by this Court while adverting to sub-rule (2) of Rule 13, wherein it is stated that the bye-laws of such a society may specify the number or proportion of the members of the committee, who may be elected to represent each such group or the Committee and may specify further that such representative may be elected. In substance, it was the argument of Sri Patil in this regard that bifurcation of the Mysore District into Mysore District and Chamarajanagar District and further the re-organization of the co-operative divisions as pointed out by him would not come on the way of the respondent 3-Society to hold the election as per the original bye-law. Sri Patil had also posed a question before the Court as to whether election to the Committee of the petitioner-Society had to be held up from being arranged, just because an interim order came to be granted by this Court in an earlier writ petition staying the operation of the amended bye-law. In posing the said question, Sri Patil had also answered the same himself in the negative.

The other points Sri Jayakumar S. Patil canvassed before me are, firstly that the instant writ petition was filed belatedly in view of the fact that the calendar of events had already been published by the Returning Officer and secondly that the petitioner herein had no locus standi to maintain the instant writ petition before this Court, since one, B. Boregowda was authorised to contest for and on behalf of the petitioner-Society. According to him, it was totally untenable on the part of the petitioner herein to resort to the instant writ petition. To demonstrate before this Court that the above said Boregowda was authorised to contest on behalf of the petitioner-Society, he had also adverted to Annexure-R1 to the objection statement filed by the respondent 3.

In reply Sri Manjunath had referred to Annexure-E to the rejoinder he filed, wherein the petitioner herein was authorised to file the instant writ petition before this Court. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into that minor issue before me, for according to me, they are all sub-issues having no bearing on the main issue before me. The main issue is whether the proposed election to the respondent 3-Society could be held in view of the twin reasons, firstly that the original Mysore District came to be bifurcated into Mysore District and Chamarajanagar District and that the co-operative divisions came to be re-organized and furthermore, more importantly, the Nanjangud sub-division came to be abolished.

In this context, I feel it appropriate to set out the sub-divisions as it stood when the Mysore District was a composite District. As I was given to understand, in the original Mysore District, there were three co-operative sub-divisions. They were Mysore sub-division, Hunsur subdivision and Nanjangud sub-division. Those sub-divisions in fact were referred to in Bye-law 19(1)(i) and furthermore in page (1) of the calendar of events at Annexure-D to writ petition.

Now with the re-organization of the Districts, there came to be two divisions in Mysore District and one division in Chamarajanagar District. The original co-operative sub-divisions in Mysore District are as follows.-

(i) Mysore sub-division consisting of Mysore Taluk, Kollegal Taluk and T. Narasipur Taluk.

(ii) Hunsur sub-division consisting of Hunsur Taluk, K.R. Nagar Taluk, Periyapatna Taluk and H.D. Kote Taluk.

(iii) Nanjangud sub-division consisting of Nanjangud Taluk, Chamarajanagar taluk, Yelandur Taluk and Gundlupet Taluk.

Now if we co-relate the original co-operative divisions as it stood in the composite Mysore District as above with reference to the new co-operative sub-divisions that came to be re-organized with the bifurcation of the two Districts in original Mysore District as above, it is clear therefrom that the co-operative sub-division called ''Nanjangud division'' came to be abolished and the taluks coming under that sub-division were bifurcated and added to the re-organized sub-divisions and more particularly, Nanjangud taluk came to be included in the Mysore sub-division.

If the above was the position in the matter of re-organization of the co-operative sub-divisions and further in the matter of abolition of one of the sub-divisions i.e., Nanjangud sub-division, it was crystal clear that the Returning Officer could not hold the election to represent the four taluks in the Nanjangud sub-division in the original composite Mysore District.

That being so, it is difficult for me to accept the argument of Sri Patil that under the original bye-law, the respondent 3 could hold the election to elect the new body of Committee of Management for the respondent 3-Society and that there was every justification on the part of the respondent 4-Returning Officer in issuing the calendar of events, copy at Annexure-D to writ petition for holding the election. The further argument of Sri Patil that under Rule 13 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, it was well within the authority of the respondent 3-Society to organise its area of operation could not be acceptable, for it was not the case that with reference to the re-organized co-operative divisions on the bifurcation of the original Mysore District, the proposed election was arranged to be held by the respondent 4; let apart, as I see, the co-operative divisions provided for in Bye-law 19(1)(i) was with reference to the original co-operative divisions as they stood in the composite Mysore District and if one could not overlook that circumstances, I was not left with any doubt that the respondent 4-Returning Officer could not hold the proposed election as it stood in Bye-law 19(1)(i). As a matter of fact, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the respondent 4-Returning Officer had raised that genuine doubt at the meeting held by the Managing Director of the respondent 3-Society, as per Annexure-C to writ petition, a meeting note to which Sri Manjunath had also drawn my attention. Para (5) of Annexure-C reads as hereunder:

That being the position, I find every merit in the instant writ petition.

In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

The impugned calendar of events dated 6-5-1999, copy at Annexure-D to writ petition issued by the respondent 4-Returning Officer to hold the election to the respondent 3-Society is quashed.

The respondent 4 as well as the respondent 3-Society are hereby directed to hold the General Body only on disposal of W.P. No. 14037 of 1999, now on the file of this Court.

In view of the above conclusions I have reached, I.A. No. 1 filed by certain applicants to implead themselves as parties does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said application stands disposed off.

The Registry is directed to post the said writ petition for regular hearing in the second week of July 1999, provided the pleadings in that are complete.

The other writ petition in No. 14037 of 1999 tagged on to this writ petition stands delinked.

The writ petition succeeds and accordingly stands allowed. Rule issued made absolute. No cost.