AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Petitioner being the member and one of the Directors of the 2nd respondent Co-operative Society had availed agricultural loan, which had to be repaid in installments. Petitioner was elected to the Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent-society in the election held on 01.06.2009. Petitioner was served with a notice dated 11.06.2010 stating that he is a defaulter and his directorship is liable to be cancelled. The installment which become due on 03.06.2010 had not been paid and as such, the petitioner remitted the installment amount of Rs. 5,700/- on 15.06.2010 and submitted a reply, wherein, it is stated that he has already paid the due installment. The 1st respondent initiated the suo motu proceeding by issue of show cause notice dated 11.06.2010, to disqualify the petitioner in exercise of the power under S. 29-C of the Act. Though the petitioner submitted a reply, the 1st respondent disqualified the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was a defaulter, in that the installment which had become due on 03.06.2010 was not remitted till 15.06.2010. Assailing the disqualification order as at Annexure-A, this writ petition has been filed.
By an order dated 21.07.2010, the impugned order was stayed and thus the petitioner has continued to be a director of the 2nd respondent-society.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondent and perused the writ petition record. In the case of The Tarihal V.S.S. Sangha Ltd., Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies & others, 1979 (2) KLJ 318, it has been held that S.29-C of the Act does not empower the Registrar to suo motu initiate proceedings and disqualify a member of a committee of management of a society. It has been held that the disqualifications under S.29-C and those under S.126-A of the Act are not one and the same. The ratio of law of the said decision squarely applies to the case on hand, in as much as, the impugned action was initiated by the 1st respondent suo motu. Thus, the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal and hence, is unsustainable.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed.
No costs.