Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 31313
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 6780 OF 2023 (CS-RES)
C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 2514 OF 2023(CS-RES)
IN W.P. NO. 6780/2023 BETWEEN:
RAMALINGAPPA S, S/O SHIVASHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, NO.11, BEHIND A P S, NEAR ATTIMARAMMA TEMPLE, PARVATHIPURAM, WARD NO. 50, BENGALURU - 560 004.
…PETITIONER Digitally signed (BY SRI. JAI PRAKASH REDDY M., ADVOCATE)
by NARAYANAPPA AND:
LAKSHMA MMA Location: HIGH
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, COURT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. KARNATAKA RAJYA RASTHE SARIGE NIGAMA, NOUKARARA CREDIT SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PAPER PUBLICATION DATED 25.01.2023 IN NO.01/2022-23 PUBLISHED IN UDAYAVANI KANNADA DAILY NEWSPAPER ON 27.01.2023 ISSUED BY R3 VIDE ANNEXURE D AND ETC., IN W.P. NO. 2514/2023 BETWEEN:
1. MAHALINGAPPA Y P, S/O PUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
2. SHARATH K R, S/O RAJE GOWDA K D, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
3. IMTIYAZ, S/O MOHAMMAD SAD, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
4. ASHWATHNARAYANA, S/O LATE VENKATACHALA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
5. HUVACHARI, S/O DESHIKACHARI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, ALL ARE THE MEMBERS OF KARNATAKA RAJYA RASTHE SARIGE NIGAMA, NOUKARARA CREDIT SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAI PRAKASH REDDY M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. KARNATAKA RAJYA RASTHE SARIGE NIGAMA, NOUKARARA CREDIT SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SMT. A. R. SHARADAMBA., AGA FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE PAPER PUBLICATION DATED 25.01.2023 IN NO.01/22-23 PUBLICATION IN UDAYAVANI KANNADA DAILY NEWSPAPER ON 27.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner in W.P.No.6780/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the paper publication dated 25.01.2023 in No.01.2022-23 published in Udayavani Kannada Daily News paper o 27.01.2023 issued by the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-D.
b. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 and 2 to consider the representation dated 03.02.2023 in No. nil submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-F and direct the respondent No.3 to provide reservation to Schedule Cast, Schedule Tribe, OBC and Women candidates and thereafter fill up the
51 posts in respondent No.3.
c. Pass any such the appropriate Writ, order or direction that seems fit under the circumstances explained above.
2. The petitioners are before this Court in W.P.No.2154/2023 seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the paper publication dated 25.01.2023 in No.01.2022-23 published in Udayavani Kannada Daily News paper o 27.01.2023 issued by the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-C.
b. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 07.12.2022 in No. UBC-7/45/UCS/2022-21 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-D.
c. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to conduct enquiry into the affairs of the respondent No.3 Society and submit report as per the Note/tippani dated 18.04.2022 issued by the Personal Assistant to the Hon'ble Co-operative Minister vide Annexure-A.
d. Pass any such the appropriate Writ, order or direction that seems fit under the circumstances explained above.
3. Though the relief sought is more or less one and the same, the petitioner in W.P.No.6780/2023 is an applicant to the post advertised vide paper publication dated 27.01.2023 challenging the proceedings. The petitioners in W.P.No.2514/2023 claim to be the members of respondent No.3/Society.
4. The grounds urged and the arguments by the petitioner in W.P.No.6780/2023 are that when the advertisement for filling up of 51 posts had been issued by respondent No.3/Society there being no reservation which has been made for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and OBC Category and as such, the notification which had been issued violated the principles enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution and as such, the same was required to be quashed.
5. Insofar as W.P.No.2514/2023 is concerned, the contention is that respondent No.3/Society has no authority to invite applications for filling up the post without the sanction of the General Body. It is further contended that respondent No.3 has to make provisions for reservation for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and OBC Category as also women. Without the General Body of the Society discussing the issue of inviting applications for filling up the posts, applications could not have been invited. On these grounds, the said paper publication is called upon to be quashed and a enquiry to be conducted into the affairs of the Society.
6. Sri. Somashekar, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Society by relying upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.50930/2003 and other connected matters dated 20.09.2005 submits that the question of reservation would arise only in the event of the government holding a majority share in the Co-operative Society. In the present case, there is no shareholding of the government in the respondent No.3 / Society and as such, the question of reservation would not arise and there is no mandate or requirement for respondent No.3 to reserve any post or any category.
7. As regard the submission that the Society, in its general meeting, has to decide on the budgetary allocation and the requirement of the post. He submits that the opening of branches of the Society has been sanctioned by the Government of Karnataka so also the nu
