Suresh Babu and Others vs State of Karnataka, The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Central Zone) and The Chief Election Commission for Co-operatives

B.S. Patil, J.—Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 are the Members of the Committee of Management of Aralepet Silk Handloom Weavers Production and Sales Co-operative Society Ltd., Balepet, Bangalore/petitioner No. 5 herein. It is their case that they were duly elected as Directors of the Society for a period of 5 years which term expired on 31-03-2013. The petitioner No. 5 - Co-operative Society has addressed a letter to the second respondent-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Central Zone), Margosa Road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore on 02-08-2013 enclosing the resolution passed by the Board of the Society on 25-07-2013, requesting the second respondent to take further action. This representation is produced at Annexure-A. The grievance of the petitioners is that the second respondent has failed to recommend the proposal made by the Society for appointment of a Returning Officer to conduct election for the Board of Directors of the Society. It is urged by these petitioners that unless the second respondent makes recommendation to the Election Commission as required under Rule 14 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960, the Returning Officer will not be duly appointed by the Chief Election Commissioner for Co-operative Societies. It is in this background, the petitioners claim to have made repeated correspondence with the respondents requesting them to appoint a Returning Officer to conduct the election to the 5th petitioner-Co-operative Society. As the representations have not been considered, these writ petitions are filed seeking writ of mandamus to the respondents to appoint a Returning Officer to conduct the election to the Committee of Management of the 5th petitioner-Co-operative Society.

Learned Additional Government Advocate was directed to take notice and secure instructions. On instruction, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that a Retuning Officer will be appointed as expeditiously as possible to conduct the election to the Committee of Management of the 5th petitioner Co-operative Society. In the light of this submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate, it is unnecessary to go into the legal contentions urged in these writ petitions.

A direction is issued to the respondents to appoint a Returning Officer to hold Election to the Committee of Management of the 5th petitioner-Co-operative Society as expeditiously as possible. As regards the amendment application filed for amendment, it is seen that the petitioners are seeking to challenge the show-cause notice issued on 24-10-2013. The remedy for the petitioners is to submit a reply to the show-cause notice and convince the Authority that they have not violated any of the provisions of the Act or the rules. Thus, reserving such liberty, these writ petitions are disposed of. The application filed for amendment therefore need not be allowed in view of the observations made above.