Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 21515
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA, J
SHARANABASAPPA – Appellant
Versus
THE JOINT REGISTRAR AND ORS – Respondent
WP 200911/2024
SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SRI S.S. MAMADAPUR, SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP
The court ruled that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal must adjudicate interim applications on their merits without considering irrelevant extraneous facts.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act - Interim orders - The writ petition challenges the rejection of an interim order by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which denied a stay on a decision regarding the directorship of a cooperative bank. The KAT's reasons were deemed improper as they considered extraneous facts not relevant to the interim application. (Paras 3, 10, 12)
(B) Principles of natural justice - The court emphasized that an illegality cannot be perpetuated and that the KAT must decide the interim application on its merits without extraneous considerations. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was elected as a director of the cooperative bank and had been serving for over three years before a dispute arose regarding another candidate's nomination. The KAT rejected the petitioner's application for a stay, leading to this writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The KAT failed to adjudicate the interim application on its merits and relied on irrelevant facts.
Issues: Whether the KAT properly understood the interim order and whether it had jurisdiction in the matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the KAT must properly consider the merits of the interim application and cannot rely on extraneous facts.
Result: Writ petition allowed; KAT's order set aside and matter remitted for fresh disposal.
Heard Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, HCGP, for respondent Nos.1 and 3, and Sri Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel, for respondent No.4.
2. The present writ petition is filed with the following reliefs:
- (a) Issue a writ in a nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction, quashing the rejection of interim order dated 28.3.2024 passed in appeal No.57/2024 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bengaluru under Annexure-C by allowing the application for interim order filed by the petitioner, in the interest of justice.
- (b) Issue a writ in a nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction, quashing the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the 1st respondent in Dispute No.Sam.Ni.Ra:Vi- 4:Kalam-70/2020-21 under Annexure-A1, in the interest of justice.
- (c) Such other writ or order as direction as deemed fit as circumstances of the case including an order for Costs.
3. Though the parties have addressed a detail argument on several aspects of the matter, fact remains that by virtue of interim order passed by this Court in WP No.200771/2024, which is culled out in Para No.9 of the writ petition, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘KAT’) considered the application of the writ petitioner for stay of the order passed by the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kalaburagi Division, in Dispute No.Sam.Ni.Ra:Vi-4:Kalam- 70/2020-21 and rejected the application. While so rejecting the application, which is challenged in this writ petition, the KAT has assigned the reasons as under:
- “In view of the above said submissions, we have perused the document available on record. From the perusal of the materials on record, more particularly the impugned order of the learned 1st respondent, it is to be seen that the dispute in question (dispute No.73/2020-
21) has been allowed by the learned 1st respondent after taking into consideration, the material evidence placed before him and that the said dispute appears to have been initiated in the year 2020-21 and the impugned order has been passed on 05.03.2024 and during the pendency of the said dispute, the present appellant appears to have enjoyed the post of director of 2nd respondent bank until setting aside of his candidature by the learned 1st respondent (from 29.11.2020 until 05.03.2024 i.e., for a period of nearly 03 years, 03 months) vide the impugned order. In our opinion, the question whether the decision taken by the 2nd respondent bank to co-opt the 4th respondent herein (Sri Kalyan Rao) as a director of the said bank subsequent to the impugned order of the learned 1st respondent, is right or not, is not in our consideration in this appeal.
It is not in dispute that the appellant herein having been elected unopposed due to rejection of nomination of the 4th respondent had already enjoyed directorship for a period of three years from the date of election of the Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent bank (i.e., 29.11.2020) and that the impugned order was not sudden and out of blue.
Moreover, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has submitted that the 2nd respondent bank has already co-opted the 4th respondent (Sri Kalyan Rao) as director of the 2nd respondent bank in the post of General category class ‘A’ director, which fell vacant subsequent to the passing of the impugned order by the learned 1st respondent and that the 4th respondent is already functioning as the director of 2nd respondent bank.
As such, in our opinion it may not be just and proper to stay the impugned order passed by the learned 1st respondent, at this stage since if the impugned order is stayed, it may lead to multiplicity of proceedings and accordingly we pass the following:”
4. The reasoning assigned by the KAT is questioned by the writ petitioner stating that the KAT has totally misunderstood the order passed in WP No.200771/2024 and by improperly assigned flimsy reasons, has rejected the prayer.
5. Sri Jayakuma
