AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioners herein are aggrieved by order dated 29.3.2014 in proceedings No.AD(H&M) D2.DAP.09/2013-14 on the file of first respondent -
Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Bengaluru. The said proceedings is with reference to challenge to the closure of enquiry report by
second respondent - Joint Registrar by order dated 27.6.2013 in NoJRB.Section.64/3/2008-09. While setting aside the order dated 27.6.2013,
first respondent has observed that in the event of more than one offence is said to have been found against the members of second respondent -
society in said proceedings, namely NGEF Employees and Former Employees House Building Cooperative Society, it is open for initiation of fresh
proceedings, therefore, earlier proceedings could not be closed by quashing the FIR.
The order passed by first respondent is sought to be challenged by the petitioners in these three writ petitions on the premise that same would
affect their interest, inasmuch as they have already secured an order in Appeal Nos. AD(H&M) D2.DAP.06 to 10/2012-13, where the order
dated 24.8.2012 of Joint Registrar in proceedings No.JRB:Section 64:03/2008-09 is treated as show cause notice and permitted the appellants in
said five appeals, out of which three are writ petitioners herein, to file their objections before the Joint Registrar, Bengaluru, within 15 days and the
Joint Registrar is permitted to pass orders afresh under Section 68 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 within 45 days.
When the order impugned and the earlier order which is passed in favour of petitioners herein in the aforesaid five appeals are looked into, it is
seen that they are totally different and infact the earlier order is in a set of appeals, which are filed in Nos. AD(H&M) D2.DAP.06 to 10/2012-13
on the file of Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies, wherein certain observation are made by the Additional Registrar of Cooperative
Societies. As against that when the order impugned is looked into, it is seen that it is totally a different proceedings in different set of facts and
circumstances, in which the petitioners are not even parties. Therefore, their contention that the same would affect their interest cannot be
accepted.
Accordingly, these three writ petitions are dismissed as they do not survive for consideration.