AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This writ petition is directed against the impugned notification dated 1.9.2001 in No. CMW 272 CNS-2001.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that, the Petitioner''s society is the registered co-operative society under Co-operative Societies Act, it has not taken any assistance from the Government either in the form of share capital or as a loan; it is functioning on the basis of the investments made by the members of the society with the help of D.C.C. Bank and it is not assisted society as defined under the Co-operative Societies Act. No amount is due to the Government by the Petitioner-society as on date of appointing the Respondents 3 to 5 as members of the society. The notification issued by the Government nominating the Respondents 3 to 5 as directors of the society is contrary to Section 2(a)(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act and the said notification is one without jurisdiction, as such it is liable to be set aside.
Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Respondents 1 and 2. The Respondents 3 to 5 are served and remained un-represented.
On the face of the records, I do not find any justification to sustain the impugned notification issued by the Government as per Annexure-A. The definition of the "Assisted Society" as defined u/s 2(a)(1) of the Act, reads as under:
"ASSISTED SOCIETY" means a co-operative society which has received the Government Assistance in the form of share capital from the Government.
After careful reading of the same, it is clear that, if there is any share capital by the Government in the society then only the Government can make nominations of the directors to that society.
In the instant case, it is the case of the Petitioner that, no share capital is in the society by the Government and the said society is functioning purely on the basis of the investment made by the members of the society alone. Therefore, I do not find any share capital of the Government in the Petitioner''s society and to that effect regulation was made by the society and the same is not denied by the Government by filing objections. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, the notification issued by the 1st Respondent is one without jurisdiction and it is liable to be set aside.
Yet another reason, the writ petition is liable to be allowed is in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ganapathy Seetharam Bhat v. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1992 Kar. 2413. If the ratio of the law laid down by this Court in the case cited supra is taken into consideration, the Government has no power to nominate any members to the managing committee of the society, if there is no share capital by the Government. By following the law laid down by this Court as stated supra, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned notification dated 1.9.2001 in No. CMW 272 CNS-2001 issued by the 1st Respondent is hereby set aside.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition stands disposed of.
The Government pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.