ORDER

1. The petitioner are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a) Issue a writ or such other order in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 23.2.2023 of the 1st Respondent, inso far it pertains to only issuing notice to the respondents in the Dispute under Section 70 KCS Act, preferred by petitioner, which is produced as Annexure N and N1 and b) Issue a writ or such other order in the nature of certiorari to quash the resolution dated 17.02.2023 of the 2nd Respondent produced as Annexure-J;

c) Issue a writ or such other order in the nature of certiorari to quash the notice along with calendar of events dated 28.02.2023 of the 2nd Respondent produced as Annexure-

P;

d) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The petitioner is elected Director of 3rd respondent, the election having taken place on 2.02.2020, he was elected as President of the Society. A ‘No Confidence Motion’ was moved on 31.05.2022 by total of 9 members out of 12 active members, however the same came to be abandoned on 2.06.2022 on account of 4 members who had earlier moved the No Confidence Motion withdrew from the same. Now once again on 30.01.2023 a new No Confidence Motion has been moved against the petitioner, in furtherance of which the 2nd respondent issued notices to all the members fixing the date, time and place when No Confidence Motion would be considered.

3. The petitioner raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Societies Act and had taken up the same with the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Legal Cell), Bangalore. 1st respondent on 23.02.2022 had issued notice on the petition and interim application and adjourned the matter to 17.3.2023. In the meanwhile, the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bangalore has fixed the date on 27.03.2023 to conduct the elections and elect the President of the 3rd respondent-Society. It is aggrieved by the resolution dated 17.2.2023 and 23.02.2023, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Sri.B.N.Mahesh, learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to Section 29-H of the Act submits that once No Confidence Motion had been moved and did not go through, no No Confidence Motion can not be moved atleast for another period of one year thereafter. In the present case the No Confidence Motion having been moved on 31.2.2023, the present No Confidence Motion moved within a period of one year, the same cannot be allowed to go on and would have to be quashed.

5. Per contra, Sri.V.G.Bhanuprakash, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that on the earlier occasion No Confidence Motion did not go through, inasmuch as there is no floor test which has been carried out as soon as the four members who had joined other five for moving No Confidence withdrew their support thereto. The No Confidence Motion earlier moved on 31.05.2022 had been abandoned. Abandonment would not amount to defeating the No Confidence Motion and as such, bar under Section

29-H of the Act would not be applicable.

6. Heard Sri.B.N.Mahesh Chandra, learned counsel for Sri.Naveen.G.S, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.V.G.Bhanuprakash, learned counsel for caveat respondent No.3. Perused papers.

7. Section 29-H(1) of the Act is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

29-H-Motion of no confidence against office bearer:

(1) A motion of no confidence against an office bearer may be moved only after two years of his assumption of office. In case, the motion of no confidence is once defeated, a fresh motion shall not be introduced within one year thereafter. No motion of no confidence shall be moved unless there is a request from not less than one-third of the elected members of the board of a Co-

operative Society concerned.

8. There are three layers of protection which are contained in the said provision insofar as elected office bearer, more particularly a President. In terms of Section 29-H, the motion of No Confidence cannot be move