Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, the President of the fourth respondent cooperative society, challenged a no-confidence motion moved by respondents 6 to 14, directors of the society. The motion was initiated after a prior motion was set aside by the High Court in an earlier writ petition with liberty to move afresh. The petitioner contended that the present motion was illegal on two grounds: first, the jurisdictional Registrar took more than seven days to authorize an officer to preside over the meeting, in violation of Rule 14-AKK(3) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960; and second, the authorized officer supplied only the notice of meeting and not the written notice signed by one-third members and the copy of the proposed motion, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that knowing the identity of the signatories would allow him to persuade them to withdraw the motion. The respondents argued that neither ground vitiated the motion. The court, after examining Rule 14-AKK, held that the time limit of seven days for the Registrar to authorize an officer is a duty owed to the members who moved the motion, not to the person against whom it is moved. Therefore, a delay of a couple of days gave no cause of action to the petitioner. On the second ground, the court found that Rule 14-AKK does not require the supply of the signed notice and proposed motion to the president; the rules only require notice of the meeting. Relying on the principle in Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu University that natural justice can be implied when a statute is silent, the court distinguished it, noting that here the statute provided a complete procedure and there was no adverse effect on the petitioner’s rights requiring such disclosure. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the no-confidence motion was upheld.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Societies – No-Confidence Motion – Authorization of Officer by Registrar – Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960, Rule 14-AKK(3) – Delay by jurisdictional Registrar in authorizing an officer beyond seven days does not violate the rights of the person against whom the no-confidence motion is moved; the cause of action for such delay lies with the members who moved the motion, not with the office bearer. Held, the petitioner cannot assail the motion on this ground. (Para 6)
B) Cooperative Societies – No-Confidence Motion – Natural Justice – Supply of Signed Notice to Office Bearer – Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960, Rule 14-AKK – The Rules do not mandate supply of the written no-confidence notice signed by one-third members and copy of the proposed motion to the president; merely providing the notice of meeting is sufficient. Held, there is no violation of principles of natural justice as the statutory scheme does not contemplate such disclosure, and interference is unwarranted. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the no-confidence motion is vitiated due to (i) the jurisdictional Registrar taking more than seven days to authorize an officer to preside over the meeting, and (ii) the authorized officer not supplying the petitioner with the written notice signed by one-third of the members along with a copy of the proposed motion
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The no-confidence motion is upheld, and the prayer to quash the impugned order and notice is rejected.
Law Points
- Delay by Registrar in authorizing officer under Rule 14-AKK(3) does not give cause to the person against whom no-confidence motion is moved
- cause lies with movers
- Rule 14-AKK does not require supply of signed no-confidence notice and copy of motion to the office bearer
- principles of natural justice not violated when statute is silent and no adverse effect on rights shown
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (04) 1
Writ Petition No. 102307 of 2023 (CS-EL/M)
Prof. Ravivarmakumar, Sri. Gangadhar J M, Sri. Vinayak Kulkarni, Sri. I. S. Uppin, Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, K. Anandkumar
State of Karnataka & Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging a no-confidence motion moved against the President of a cooperative society.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the 5th respondent and consequent notice of no-confidence motion dated 27.03.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent.
Filing Reason
Petitioner contended that the no-confidence motion was in violation of Rule 14-AKK of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960, specifically regarding delay in authorizing an officer and non-supply of the signed no-confidence notice and proposed motion.
Previous Decisions
An earlier no-confidence motion was challenged in W.P. No. 101470/2023 and was set aside by the High Court with liberty to the directors to move a fresh motion.
Issues
Whether the delay by the jurisdictional Registrar in authorizing an officer beyond the seven-day period prescribed under Rule 14-AKK(3) vitiates the no-confidence motion.
Whether non-supply of the written notice of no-confidence signed by one-third members and the copy of the proposed motion to the president violates principles of natural justice and invalidates the motion.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Registrar's delay beyond seven days to authorize an officer was unlawful and rendered the entire process illegal.
Petitioner contended that the authorized officer was required to supply him with the signed no-confidence notice and copy of the motion so that he could know the identity of the signatories and attempt to persuade them to withdraw the motion, and failure to do so violated natural justice.
Respondents argued that the two grounds raised by the petitioner do not vitiate the no-confidence motion, and that Rule 14-AKK does not require supply of the signed notice and motion to the president.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Rule 14-AKK(3), the time limit for the Registrar to authorize an officer is a duty owed to the members who moved the no-confidence motion, not to the person against whom it is moved; delay does not give a cause of action to the president. Rule 14-AKK does not contemplate supply of the signed no-confidence notice and copy of the proposed motion to the president; the statutory scheme only requires notice of the meeting, and no violation of natural justice arises in the absence of such a requirement.
Judgment Excerpts
The persons who have moved the no confidence motion, get a cause of action against the Registrar. Thus, the petitioner cannot take shelter under the said provision. In the instant case, there is a delay of couple of days on part of the Registrar to act. It does not give any cause of action to the petitioner.
The provisions of Rule 14-AKK of Rules, 1960 does not contemplate supply of the notice of no confidence and the copy of the motion to be given to the person against whom the no confidence motion is moved and it contemplates only supply of the notice of meeting.
Procedural History
The petitioner, as President of the 4th respondent cooperative society, filed W.P. No. 101470/2023 challenging an earlier no-confidence motion. The High Court set aside that motion but granted liberty to respondents 6 to 14 to move a fresh motion. Subsequently, respondents 6 to 14 moved the present no-confidence motion, leading to the impugned order dated 24.03.2023 and notice dated 27.03.2023. The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash those proceedings.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960: Rule 14-AKK
