( 1 ) THE petitioners assailing the correctness and legality of the impugned order dt. 27. 7. 2001 in No. DRG/r/ssn/11/2001-02 on the file of the 2nd Respondent, Deputy Registrar of Co-op. , Societies, Bangalore Rural District, and the order dated 17. 10. 2001 in No. JRB/appeal/9/2001-02 on the file of the 1st respondent, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore, have presented the instant writ petition.

( 2 ) THESE petitioners are elected as Directors of the 2nd (3rd ) respondent Society. The only grievance made out before this Court as submitted by the learned counsel is, both the authorities have committed an error in passing orders superseding the management Committee of the 2nd respondent without following the mandatory provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and appointed the Administrator. The proceedings under Section 31 (1) of the Co-op. , Societies Act were initiated in pursuance of the direction issued by the A. R. C. S, which was not competent to pass such orders.

( 3 ) FURTHER, the specific case made out before the 2nd respondent that they requested the service of the Advocate but the same has been refused and 2nd respondent proceeded to pass the order holding that out of 12 charges, 10 charges have been proved.

( 4 ) THE concurrent finding of both the authorities are placed on record. The authorities have not considered the material objections filed by the petitioners in pursuance of the show-cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules, the petitioners were constrained to file this petition.

( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and the learned Government Pleader, and perused the impugned order passed by both the authorities and the entire papers available in the file with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

( 6 ) IT is manifest on the face of the records, the respondents 1 and 2 have not committed any error of law. Both the authorities have recorded the concurrent finding against the petitioners. Further, it emerges from the impugned orders of the respondents 1 and 2 that out of 12 charges, 10 charges have been proved beyond reasonable doubts. All the charges are serious in nature and the petitioners have failed to do their duties and responsibilities in pursuance of the relevant provisions of the Co-op. , Societies Act and Rules. Further, it is held that the petitioners have violated the bye-laws, directions and guidelines issued by the Officers attached to the respondents 1 and 2 and the Appellate Authority has further recorded a specific finding that the petitioners have misbehaved in an undignified manner and exhibited harshness and behaved in arrogant manner, when the Officers of the respondents Society inspected the said Society and further, both the authorities have recorded that the petitioners have consistently violated the mandatory provisions of the Co-op. , Societies Act and Rules. Therefore, having regard to all these serious charges proved against the petitioners, they have superseded the management of the respondents society and appointed the Administrator to take over management of the said society. Therefore, in view of the concurrent finding recorded by both the authorities against the petitioners, this court cannot sit over the judgment and decided in the writ of certiorari proceedings exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction nor the petitioners have made out any good grounds to interfere with the impugned orders passed by both the authorities. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be rejected.

( 7 ) YET another reason the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be rejected in view of the well settle principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. . Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd. , vs. Ram Bahagat reported in AIR 2002 SC 2914. It is worthwhile to extract the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document