IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

WRIT PETITION No.80198/2013 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. B. S. IJARAD

AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: BRANCH MANAGER,

R/O. SHANTESHWAR NILAYA,

PRABHAT COLONY, VIDYANAGAR,

HUBLI- 580021.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. P. G. CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,

DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD.

2.

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

KARNATAKA CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD.,

DHARWAD.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI V. S. KALASOORMATH, HCGP FOR R1;

SRI. I. S. UPPIN, ADV., FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227

OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED

ORDER DATED 22.02.2012 IN APPEAL NO. 443/2006 PASSED BY

THE

KARNATAKA

APPELLATE

TRIBUNAL

BANGALORE

VIDE

ANNEXURE-B, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

2

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated

22.02.2012 passed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal

No.443/2006 (Annexure-B).

2.

Appeal No.443/2006 was filed questioning the order

dated 23.03.2006 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative

Societies (for short “DRCS”) vide Annexure –A. The petitioner had

raised dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative

Societies Act, as the DRCS was the designated authority to

entertain disputes in respect of KCC Bank, Dharwad, the 2^nd

respondent herein.

3.

The DRCS had entertained the dispute and passed an

award dated 23.03.2006 setting aside the order of dismissal from

service passed against the petitioner by the 2^nd respondent and

directing reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

3

4.

The said order was questioned before the Karnataka

Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the DRCS was not competent

to entertain the dispute as the Government by notification dated

18.04.2005 (Annexure-C) withdrew the empowerment of the DRCS

to decide disputes concerning KCC Bank, Dharwad. Thereafter vide

notification dated 10.11.2005, the said power was assigned to the

Joint

Registrar,

Karnataka

State

Urban

Co-operative

Banks

Federation Hubli.

5.

It is contended by the petitioner that though the

notification was prospective in nature and could not be applied to

pending proceedings before the DRCS and therefore, the award

passed by the DRCS was valid, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal set

aside the same merely on the ground of withdrawal of power.

Hence, the petitioner had questioned the order of the Appellate

Tribunal in this writ petition.

6.

Shri. P. G. Chikkanaragund, learned counsel for the

petitioner, at the outset urged that the notification at Annexure-D

being prospective, there was no proper justification to the Tribunal

to set aside a well considered award passed by the DRCS.

4

7.

It was also contended that the DRCS who was

competent to entertain the dispute, when it was presented before

him, had already recorded evidence in the dispute pending before

him and if the same were to be set at naught, valuable rights of the

petitioner would be lost. This aspect not having been taken note of

by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, interference was warranted in

this petition.

8.

It was further submitted that petitioner was already

aged 61 years at the time of filing of this petition and if fresh

proceedings are to be held, the delay would further prejudice the

petitioner.

9.

On the other hand, Sri. I. S. Uppin, learned counsel

appearing for respondent No.2 opposed the writ petition and

submitted that the observation of the Appellate Tribunal would

indicate that the petitioner had accepted his misconduct and

therefore, no useful purpose would be served in holding any further

proceedings.

10.

It was further submitted that when the notifications at

Annexures C and D were is