High CourtsDivision Bench(2013) 03 KAR CK 0048

K.P. Karanth vs Registrar of Co-Operative Societies in Karnataka and Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 15 March 2013 · Citation: (2013) 3 KarLJ 545

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravi Malimath, J · K.L. Manjunath, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Appeal No. 3019 of 2012 (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

5 paragraphs · 298 words

Ravi Malimath, J.—Aggrieved by the order dated 30-3-2012, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 17483 of 2011, dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner has filed the present appeal. The case of the petitioner is that surcharge proceedings were initiated by the respondent before the Deputy Registrar u/s 69 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, ''the Act''). The appellant sought for transfer of these proceedings from the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Udupi to be heard and decided by another Competent Authority. The same was ordered.

2.

Thereafter, the Registrar having taken note of the subsequent developments has ordered retransfer of the case from Joint Registrar to the Deputy Registrar. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition in W.P. No. 17483 of 2011, was filed which came to be dismissed. Hence the present appeal.

3.

The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the order of transfer of proceedings from the Joint Registrar to the Deputy Registrar is opposed to law.

4.

However the learned Counsel for the respondent placed on record, the notification issued by the Karnataka Government Secretariat, dated 17-2-2011, wherein specific powers have been granted to the officers mentioned therein. In terms of the notification the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies has powers to delegate the authority as mentioned in column (3). Under these circumstances, the contention of the appellant runs contrary to the said notification.

5.

Even otherwise, the learned Single Judge while considering the writ petition on merits was of the view that there is no ground made out by the petitioner that calls for interference. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that, there is no error committed by the learned Single Judge that calls for interference. The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.