Vishnu Vs. State of Karnataka

Vishnu vs State of Karnataka

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Karnataka Decided Jan 12, 1995

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/382561

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/382561
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Eswara Prasad, J.
Decided On: Jan 12, 1995
Case Number: W.P. No. 717 of 1995
Subject: Tenancy
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959 - Section 29 : NOTIFICATION DATED 21.12.1994 - State Government empowered to cancel nomination of all members appointed under Section 29(1) holding office during pleasure of Government.; The State Government has the power to cancel the nomination of all members who were...

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 - Sections 29 and 29(1)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vishnu

Advocate Patil & Patil, Adv.

Respondent

State of Karnataka

Advocate A.N. Swamy, HCGP

Legal References

Acts: Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 - Sections 29 and 29(1)
Reported In: ILR1995KAR631; 1995(6)KarLJ95

Excerpt

.....ceased to be director by virtue of the cancellation of his nomination as director under the impugned order, he cannot hold the office of the president of the board of directors. the very basis on which he was elected as president goes, with his ceasing to be a director of the society. - contempt of courts act, 1971 -- sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & high court of karnataka (contempt of court proceedings) rules, 1981, clause (v) of rule 5; [dr.k. bhakthavatsala, j] whether the consent of the advocate general is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? held, as per clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 15 of the act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in section 14, the supreme court or the high court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the advocate general. the high court of karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under article 215 of the constitution of india and section 23 of the act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the high court of karnataka (contempt of court proceedings) rules, 1981. as per clause (v) of rule 5 of the contempt rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the advocate general and if so, produce the same. it further says that nothing shall preclude the high court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. under section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the advocate general, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the advocate general. therefore, obtaining consent of the advocate general to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. .....1991 sc537 , where the law officers in the entire state of u.p. were removed at one stroke, where under the rules, the law officers could be removed by the state government without assigning any reasons. the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that there was no provision similar to sub-section (2) of section 29 in the provisions under which the petitioners therein were appointed. in the case on hand, the petitioner holds office during the pleasure of the state government.4. under similar circumstances in om narain agarwal and ors. v. nagar palika, shahjahanpur : [1993]2scr34 , the supreme court held that there is no question of any violation of principles of natural justice in not affording opportunity to the nominated members before their removal nor the removal under the pleasure doctrine contained in the fourth proviso to section 9 of the act puts any stigma on the performance or character of the nominated members.5. the doctrine of pleasure was considered by the division bench of this court in sadanandaiah v. state of karnataka : ilr 1993 kar3119 while dealing with the provisions of the karnataka urban development authority act. a similar provision was made under the act enabling the appointment of members to the local authority, to hold office during the pleasure of the state government. relying on the decision in om narain agarwal and ors. v. nagar palika, shahjahanpur, the division bench held that the cancellation of the appointment of the nominated member in terms of the provisions was not arbitrary or violative of article 14 of the constitution.6. it has therefore to be held that the state government has the power to cancel the nomination of all members who were appointed under section 29(1) of the act, as they hold office during the pleasure of the government. once the petitioner ceased to be director by virtue of the cancellation of his nomination as director under the impugned order, he cannot hold.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Eswara Prasad, J.

1. The petitioner was nominated to the Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent Society by the 1st respondent in the year 1991, in exercise of the power under Section 29(1) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (the Act for short). The petitioner was later elected as the President of the Society on 3.5.1994 for the year 94-95. Later, the 1st respondent Government issued a Notification dated 21.12.1994 withdrawing the nominations of Directors made all over the State, by Annexure-C, resulting in the petitioner ceasing to be a nominated member and consequently, as the President of the Board of Directors came to an end. The petitioner questions the Notification dated 21.12.1994 - Annexure-C.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the removal of all the nominated Directors en masse by the 1st respondent is illegal. He further contends that the petitioner, on election as the President of the Board of Directors was entitled to continue for one calender year ending with 2.5.1995 and that he is entitled to hold office during the said period and his membership as a Director of the Board cannot be terminated by the impugned order.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Director of the Society under Section 29(1) of the Act. The petitioner holds office as a Member of the Committee as a nominated member during the pleasure of the State Government under Sub-section (2) of Section 29. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is based on KUMARI SHRILEKHA VIDYARTHI v. STATE OF UP. : AIR 1991 SC537 , where the Law Officers in the entire State of U.P. were removed at one stroke, where under the Rules, the Law Officers could be removed by the State Government without assigning any reasons. The said Decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that there was no provision similar to Sub-section (2) of Section 29 in the provisions under which the petitioners therein were appointed. In the case on hand, the petitioner holds office during the pleasure of the State Government.

4. Under similar circumstances in OM NARAIN AGARWAL AND ORS. v. NAGAR PALIKA, SHAHJAHANPUR : [1993]2SCR34 , the Supreme Court held that there is no question of any violation of principles of Natural Justice in not affording opportunity to the nominated members before their removal nor the removal under the pleasure doctrine contained in the fourth Proviso to Section 9 of the Act puts any stigma on the performance or character of the nominated members.

5. The doctrine of pleasure was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in SADANANDAIAH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA : ILR 1993 KAR3119 while dealing with the provisions of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act. A similar provision was made under the Act enabling the appointment of members to the Local Authority, to hold Office during the pleasure of the State Government. Relying on the Decision in Om Narain Agarwal and Ors. v. Nagar Palika, Shahjahanpur, the Division Bench held that the cancellation of the appointment of the nominated member in terms of the provisions was not arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

6. It has therefore to be held that the State Government has the power to cancel the nomination of all members who were appointed under Section 29(1) of the Act, as they hold office during the pleasure of the Government. Once the petitioner ceased to be Director by virtue of the cancellation of his nomination as Director under the impugned order, he cannot hold the office of the President of the Board of Directors. The very basis on which he was elected as a President goes, with his ceasing to be a Director of the Society.

The Writ Petition therefore fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1995 Same Parties Vishnu vs State of Karnataka Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge Eswara Prasad, J. Acts & Sections Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 - Sections 29 and ...

Tenancy