Back
2014 Supreme(Kar) 212
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
B.S. PATIL, J.
ABHAY KUMAR DHANPAL JANAJ S/O DHANPAL JANAJ - PETITIONERS
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY - Respondent
W.P.Nos.45822-826/2013 & W.P.Nos.45827-836/2013 (CSRES) C/w W.P.No.51303/2013 (CSEL/M)
Decided on: 4.3.2014
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioners: (By Sri. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR.COUNSEL FOR Sri MANMOHAN P N, Sri. JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SR.COUNSEL)
For the Respondent: (By Sri.KIRAN KUMAR T.L., AGA FOR R1 & R3, Sri M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2, Sri G.F.HUNASIKATTIMATH & Sri M.S.RUDRAIAH, ADVS. FOR R 4 & 5)
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory conduct of elections before the expiry of the term of the Board and the limitations on supersession or suspension of the board, as well as the power vested in the Co-operative Election Commission for superintendence over such elections.
Headnote:
Election - Co-operative Society - Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Section 39-A, Section 39-AA, Section 121 - The court discussed the constitutional provisions introduced by the Ninety-seventh Amendment, the amendments made to the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, and the implications of these provisions on the appointment of a returning officer to conduct elections to the Co-operative Society. The court emphasized the mandatory conduct of elections before the expiry of the term of the Board and the limitations on supersession or suspension of the board, as well as the power vested in the Co-operative Election Commission for superintendence over such elections.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the appointment of a returning officer to conduct elections to the Co-operative Society, contending that the elections were not due and that the appointment of a special officer by the State Government had extended the term of the special officer till 2038, thereby precluding the need for elections.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of the returning officer and the proposed elections were legally tenable, emphasizing the constitutional mandate for conducting elections before the expiry of the term of the Board and the amendments made to the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, in line with the Ninety-seventh Amendment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the action of appointing a returning officer to conduct elections to the Co-operative Society was legally tenable, considering the constitutional provisions and the amendments to the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conduct of elections before the expiry of the term of the Board and the limitations on supersession or suspension of the board, as well as the power vested in the Co-operative Election Commission for superintendence over such elections, were crucial in determining the legality of appointing a returning officer and conducting elections.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding them devoid of merits and upholding the appointment of the returning officer and the proposed elections to the Co-operative Society.
1. In W.P.Nos.45822-45836/2013, petitioners are 2nd challenging the order dated 23.09.2013 passed by the respondent – Commissioner, Co-operative Election Commission vide Annexure-C thereby appointing a returning officer to conduct election to the 5th respondent – Raibag Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamitha (for short ‘the Society’).
2. Petitioners in W.P.Nos.45822-45836/2013 claim to be members of the 5th respondent – Society which is registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act’). The said Society has established a sugar factory at Bavachi Village of Raibag Taluk in Belgaum District. It is engaged in the manufacture of sugar and its by-products. As per the petition averments, there are in all 8903 members out of whom 7709 are sugar cane growers. It is alleged that due to grave mismanagement of the affairs of the 5th respondent – Society, the factory stopped crushing operation during 2003-04. It was unable to clear the dues of the farmers, workers and the banks. Steps were indeed taken towards winding up of the factory. However, due to intervention of the State Government, action was taken to revive the factory.
3. Tenders were floated inviting bids from interested parties to take over the factory on lease basis for 30 years. Shree Renuka Sugar Limited was declared as successful bidder and lease agreement was entered into on 16.10.2008 by the 5th respondent in favour of Shree Renuka Sugar Limited for a period of 30 years. The factory is presently operated and run by the lessee Shree Renuka Sugar Limited by carrying on crushing operation and making payments to the farmers, workers and others.
4. The 4th respondent – Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies was appointed as a special officer to the Society. His appointment was extended from time to time. Some of the members of the 5th respondent -Society made a request for extending the period of the 4th respondent – Special Officer by a further period of three years. In exercise of the powers under Section 121 of the Act, State Government passed an order dated 15.11.2012 extending the tenure of the 4th respondent – Special officer/administrator by relaxing the application of Section 31(1) of the Act. In the operative portion of the said order produced at Annexure-B, it is stated that ‘exercising the power under Section 121 and relaxing the provisions contained under Section 31(1) of the Act, period of the special officer has been extended with effect from 01.07.2012 till 30.09.2038 or the date on which the elections are held whichever is earlier. It is further stated in the order that the modification / relaxation made to Section 31(1) shall be in force till 30.09.2038 and after the expiry of the said period, the provisions of Section 31(1) shall be applicable as it stood prior to the modification.
5. It is necessary to notice that on 23.09.2013, the Commissioner, Co-operative Election Commission has issued the impugned order directing appointment of returning officer to hold election to the 5th respondent – Society by referring to the provisions contained under Section 39-A(1) and 39-AA(2). It is in this background, petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order passed by the Commissioner, Cooperative Election Commission.
6. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli that the Co-operative Election Commission has no power or jurisdiction to hold election when the elections are not at all due. He draws the attention of the Court to section 39A(3) and 39-AA(2) to contend that in the instant case elections are not due.
7. It is his next contention that amendment to the Act by way of insertion of Section 39-A and 39-AA was made on 11.02.2013 whereas Annexure-B order appointing special officer exercising power under section 121 of the Act was passed on 15.11.2012. Therefore, no retrospective operation can be given to the amendment and hence, the Commissioner, Co-operative Election Commission was not
