C. Narayanaswamy Vs. State of Karnataka - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
karnataka co-operative societies act, 1959 (karnataka act no. 11 of 1959) - section 14a & 15(2) -conspectus - order under section 15(2) necessary concomitant of order under section 14a: futile to malign order under section 14a superimposed by order under section 15(2) - society rendered non est factum, challenge by erstwhile members unwarranted & ill advised - section 14a(1) providing nobody need be heard, not ground to strike it down: valid & not offending constitutional mandate.;the order under section 15(2) follows in the wake of an order under section 14a being a necessary concomitant of an order of amalgamation passed under section 14a.... it is futile to malign an order under section 14a when it is already superimposed by an order made under section 15(2) as well. there is no gainsay in denying that the society and its members must coexist and that one cannot live without the other. in a case where the society itself is rendered honest factum in the eye of law, those who were members of that society can hardly contend against any action taken by the authority under the act to the detriment of the society. if the society does not exist at all, it vainly leans on the erstwhile members who raise the banner of revolt against the offending order... the effect of cancellation of registration certificates of the societies would certainly render the challenge by the erstwhile members of the societies wholly unwarranted and ill-advised. ;(ii) section 14a(1) no doubt makes it clear that it is neither necessary nor requisite to hear the affected societies or any body else whoever may be affected by an order of amalgamation made under section 14a.... no court can arrogate to itself to the position of a super legislature and seek to sit in judgment over a legislative fiat. the legislature having thought it fit to limit the terrain over which it could allow a confrontation by the citizens, every one must be tramelled by the fiat of the legislature and cannot rebel against it... if the legislature says nobody need be heard whatever be the circumstances, the court cannot say the legislature has erred and therefore strike down the provision of the constitution to ban. all said and done sub-section (1a) is a statutory provision, nowhere was a fundamental right guaranteed under the constitution... if an order made under section 14a is prima facie violated or is found to be un justifying the court can certainly strike it down whether or not somebody is heard or somebody is not heard in which case the circumstances of non-granting of a hearing and not giving an opportunity of being heard to an affected person would not be very material... section 14a(1a) is a valid provision and does not offend any constitutional mandate. ;the impugned order is a self-contained code in itself. the facts cited therein admit of no dispute at all... if year after year the societies run up huge losses and fritter away the generous subsidies provided by the state in the hope that the societies will exert to assist the poor weavers, but in the end all of them turns out to be a bad dream it would then be time enough to cry halt to this kind of sustained mismanagement leading to losses of public money and wasteful expenditure entailing in the making of an order under section 14a of the act. - karnataka municipal corporations act, 1976 section 114: [ram mohan reddy,j] change of khata - obligation of transferor and transferee to give notice of transfer- transfer of title - payment of property tax held, , the word katha is not found in the act, but in common parlance, over the years, is synonymous with the certificate issued by the corporation in exercise of jurisdiction under section 114 of the act, recording the name of the owner/occupier of the immovable property, primarily responsible to pay the corporation taxes. it is also true that this katha, is important on account of its relevancy for variety of purposes, be it securing a gas connection, telephone line, driving licence, ration card, mortgage by deposit of title deeds, conveyance of immovable property, licence to erect a building, so on and so forth, though does not confer right, title or interest in the immovable property. sub-section (1) of section 114 requires the transferor and the transferee to give a notice in writing to the commissioner of the city corporation over the change in right, title and interest in the property, falling within the territorial limits of the corporation. the action of the commissioner of the corporation of the city of bangalore, by propounding a simplified scheme for transfer of katha in the name of a sarala katha scheme prescribing an application contrary to the requirement of section 114 of the act, exhibits a callous disregard of the normal requirements of rule of law, apart from what is legitimately and reasonably expected from a state functioning in a society governed by the constitution which guarantees its citizens against arbitrary invasion by the executive of peaceful possession and enjoyment of immovable properties. suffice it to state that the bbmp is a creature of a statute and cannot perpetuate a wrong by not making available a form for transfer of katha in consonance with the provisions of section 114 of the act. sections 114 & 114a : [ram mohan reddy,j] powers of the commissioner - held, section 114a empowers the commissioner to review the order passed under section 114, within a period of three years there from, if satisfied that the transfer of title was got recorded in the corporation register by fraud, mis-representation or suppression of facts or by furnishing false, incorrect of incomplete material. on facts held, the petitioner did make out a case for review of the order transferring the katha of the property in question in favour of the 3rd respondent, which the 2nd respondent, fell in serious error in declining to adjudicate upon. the transfer of katha in violation of section 114 of the act and the principles of katha in violation of section 114 of the act and the principles of natural justice, is illegal, and as a consequence the order of the 3rd respondent declining to review the order of transfer of katha, is unsustainable. katha of the property in question stands restored to the name of the petitioner. - 2. the second respondent has since thought it fit to order a fusion of the two societies referred to above on the ground that the same was essential in public interest as well as in the interest of co-operative movement. under these circumstances, i am satisfied that it is essential in public interest and in the interest of co-operative movement to amalgamate these two apex weavers co-operative societies and to form a single apex society.ordershyamsundar, j.1. this writ petition is by a group of 15 petitioners all claiming to be the elected directors of two co-operative societies viz., karnataka state silk handloom weavers co-operative apex ltd., bangalore and the karnataka state cotton handloom weavers co-operative ltd., bangalore. they are seriously aggrieved by an order of the additional registrar of co-operative societies dated 29.6.92 vide annexure-a under which the learned registrar who is a party respondent in this writ petition - (r2) ordered the amalgamation of the two societies referred to supra who are incidentally respondents 4 and 5 herein and in their places brought out a new society called the karnataka, co-operative handloom weavers federation ltd., bangalore who is the third respondent in this writ petition. challenging the order of the second respondent - additional registrar as aforesaid, the erstwhile directors of the two societies i.e., some of them have made a serious grievance of the action taken by the second respondent to wipe out from existence the two societies i.e., 4th and 5th respondents, both of whom had been created due to the initiative of a large number of members of the two societies that had been in existence probably from quite some time.2. the second respondent has since thought it fit to order a fusion of the two societies referred to above on the ground that the same was essential in public interest as well as in the interest of co-operative movement. the operative portion of the second respondent's order is as follows:'under these circumstances, i am satisfied that it is essential in public interest and in the interest of co-operative movement to amalgamate these two apex weavers co-operative societies and to form a single apex society. hence, i pass the following order.

Judgment:
ORDER

Shyamsundar, J.

1. This Writ Petition is by a group of 15 petitioners all claiming to be the elected Directors of two Co-operative Societies viz., Karnataka State Silk Handloom Weavers Co-operative Apex Ltd., Bangalore and the Karnataka State Cotton Handloom Weavers Co-operative Ltd., Bangalore. They are seriously aggrieved by an order of the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 29.6.92 vide Annexure-A under which the learned Registrar who is a party respondent in this Writ Petition - (R2) ordered the amalgamation of the two Societies referred to supra who are incidentally respondents 4 and 5 herein and in their places brought out a new Society called the Karnataka, Co-operative Handloom Weavers Federation Ltd., Bangalore who is the third respondent in this Writ Petition. Challenging the order of the second respondent - Additional Registrar as aforesaid, the erstwhile Directors of the two Societies i.e., some of them have made a serious grievance of the action taken by the second respondent to wipe out from existence the two Societies i.e., 4th and 5th respondents, both of whom had been created due to the initiative of a large number of Members of the two Societies that had been in existence probably from quite some time.

2. The second respondent has since thought it fit to order a fusion of the two Societies referred to above on the ground that the same was essential in public interest as well as in the interest of co-operative movement. The operative portion of the second respondent's order is as follows:

'Under these circumstances, I am satisfied that it is essential in public interest and in the interest of Co-operative movement to amalgamate these two Apex Weavers Co-operative Societies and to form a single Apex Society. Hence, I pass the following order.