Sri. O.G. Ravi Gowda vs The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Manager Primary Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Petitioner was elected as a Director to the Managing Committee of 3rd Respondent - co-operative bank. The 2nd Respondent issued to the Petitioner a show cause notice dated. 03.12.2010 u/s 29C of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (for short ''the Act''). The 2nd Respondent upon hearing the Petitioner passed an order, disqualifying the Petitioner from holding office in the 3rd Respondent or in any other co-operative society for a period of five years. The Petitioner has deposited in the 3rd Respondent Rs. 57,548/- on 14.12.2010. The 3rd Respondent has issued a confirmation letter dated 14.12.2010 with regard to the payment and the Petitioner ceasing to be a defaulter.

The Petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st Respondent questioning the aforesaid order passed by the 2nd Respondent. Alongwith the appeal, an application u/s 106(3) of the Act was filed to stay the impugned order in the appeal i.e., the disqualification order passed by the 2nd Respondent. The 1st Respondent upon consideration of the said application and finding that, on the date the disqualification order was passed, the Petitioner was a defaulter and the amount has only been deposited on 14.12.2010, has rejected the prayer for interim relief and has directed the appeal to be posted for hearing on 07.01.2011. The 1st & 2nd Respondents were directed to be present with the record without fail on the hearing date. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the said order passed by the 1st Respondent and to grant an interim stay of the disqualification order passed by the 2nd Respondent.

Sri Anandarama K, learned advocate appearing for the Petitioner contended that, the order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the 2nd Respondent is arbitrary and illegal, in that, he has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in him under law by disqualifying the Petitioner from holding any office in any of the co-operative societies for a period of five years, which is not contemplated u/s 29C(8) of the Act. Learned Counsel further contends that, the 1st Respondent has not considered the matter in the correct perspective and hence, the impugned order is bad and illegal. Learned Counsel submits that, the Petitioner would suffer great prejudice if the order passed by the 2nd Respondent is not stayed, as the Managing Committee of the 3rd Respondent may co-opt another member to be its Director, which would result in multiplicity of proceedings.

I have perused the writ petition papers.

The 3rd Respondent is a co-operative society. Petitioner had borrowed loan from the 3rd Respondent. On receipt of the information that the Petitioner is a defaulter, show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner by the 2nd Respondent. Upon hearing the Petitioner, the order dated 13.12.2010 was passed. It is thereafter, the Petitioner has remitted the arrears of Rs. 57,548/- and the 3rd Respondent has issued confirmation letter, wherein it has been stated that, as on 14.12.2010 the Petitioner has ceased to be the defaulter.

The 1st Respondent having regard to the fact situation and also the fact that the appeal itself is to be heard and decided at the earliest, fixing the final hearing date as 07.01.2001, has declined to stay the impugned order. Granting stay or otherwise of the impugned order is within the discretion of the 1st Respondent. Since the 1st Respondent has decided to hear the main appeal itself at the earliest and as a result, has declined to stay the impugned order before him, it cannot be said that, there is any arbitrariness or irrationality on the part of the 1st Respondent.

Co-option, if were to be made by the 3rd Respondent before the hearing and disposal of the appeal by the 1st Respondent, the same shall be subject to the result of the appeal filed by the Petitioner, pending before the 1st Respondent. Needless to observe that, in case the appeal fifed by the Petitioner were to be allowed, any action taken by the 3rd Respondent as a result of the order passed by the 2nd Respondent, will get nullified and the status of the Petitioner will stand restored.

In the said view of the matter, I do not deem it appropriate to entertain this writ petition and interfere with the interlocutory order passed by the 1st Respondent. In the circumstance of the case, it is more appropriate to direct the 1st Respondent to decide the case of the appeal within a time frame.

In the result, the writ petition stands rejected. However, the 1st Respondent is directed to hear the appeal on 07.01.2001 and decide the same before 14.01.2011.

Contentions of the Petitioner raised in the appeal pending before the 1st Respondent are kept open for consideration for decision by the 1st Respondent, who shall decide the appeal on its merit uninfluenced by the observations made herein or in the order dated 20.12.2010 passed by him.