Result: Writ petition allowed. Rule made absolute.

D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J.

Writ petition by a person who was an elected Director of Krishnarajanagar Taluk Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited, Krishnarajanagar Taluk, Mysore District, who is aggrieved by the adverse order that he has suffered at the hands of the second respondent - Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mysore Division, Mysore who had in exercise of his powers under Section 29-C of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short the Act’) disqualified him from holding the Directorship of the society in terms of his order dated 6.7.2006 (copy at Annexure-D) and which the petitioner was unable to get over in his appeal before the first respondent – Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in an appeal under Section 106 of the Act as the appeal came to be dismissed affirming the order passed by the Deputy Registrar as per order dated 19.12.2006 passed in Appeal No.5/2006-07 [copy at Annexure-K].

2. It is to get over these orders, the present writ petition seeking for quashing of these orders.

3. The respondents had been put on notice. Statutory functionaries - respondents 1 and 2 are represented by Smt. Sarojini Muthanna, learned Additional Government Advocate, the society and the secretary of the society-respondents 3 and 4 respectively are represented by Sri. Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel.

4. Writ petition is mainly on the premise that the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar and affirmed by the Joint Registrar are not tenable in law; that it is without any proper foundation; that it is also in violation of the principles of natural justice; that no proper or adequate opportunity had been given to the petitioner before passing such orders; that the orders visit the petitioner with serious consequences and can act as a stigma even in future; that the orders are required to be quashed etc.,.

5. On behalf of the respondents, the respondents 3 & 4 have filed statement of objections. These respondents have supported the impugned orders and have contended that the writ petition is wholly false, vexatious; that the petitioner being one of the Directors of the Bank had availed the loan for purchase of sheep, bullocks and bullock carts; that an inspection of the premises of the petitioner on 8.3.2006 -as a routine or surprise visit revealed that the petitioner in fact had sold away the bullock carts, bullocks and sheep; that nothing was found at his house; that the petitioner having misused the loan by selling away the bullock carts, bullocks and sheep purchased from out of the money advanced by the bank, the bank had in terms of the agreement recalled the entire loan, had called upon the petitioner to make payment of the full loan amount with interest within fifteen days; that the petitioner instead of repaying the loan amount had given an untenable reply and had become a defaulter; that the Bank and its officials visited the house of the petitioner again on 16.6.2006 and even then bullocks, bullock carts or sheep were not found, a mahazar was drawn in the presence of the villagers; that the petitioner had misused the loan amount and also had become a defaulter and it is for such reason, the bank had requested the Deputy Registrar to take suitable action against the petitioner; that the continuation of the petitioner as a Director of the Bank was detrimental to the interest of the bank and the Deputy Registrar on enquiry having found the petitioner guilty was disqualified in terms of the provisions of Section 29-C of the Act; that the appeal being without merit had been rightly dismissed by the first respondent - Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies; that the petitioner has made false and untenable allegations even against the fourth respondent; that certain allegations are levelled against the fourth respondent only as a counter blast to the action initiated by the fourth respondent against the petitioner; that the fourth respondent was a very honest, upright pers