Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Smt. Kamalamma and Smt. Jayasheelamma, were elected directors of the Ballekere Mahila Milk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd. (respondent No.3). A complaint was filed against them on 28.10.2024, based on which the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (respondent No.2) issued a show cause notice on 11.11.2024 under Section 29C of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, read with Byelaw 38(8). The show cause notice required the petitioners to show cause why they should not be suspended. However, without waiting for their reply or affording them an opportunity of hearing, respondent No.2 passed an order on 21.11.2024 suspending the petitioners as directors. The petitioners challenged this order by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the suspension order. The High Court noted that the impugned order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, which is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The court observed that even if the authority has the power to suspend under Section 29C, such power must be exercised in a fair manner, and the affected parties must be heard before an adverse order is passed. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 and directed respondent No.2 to hear the petitioners and pass fresh orders within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The court also clarified that all contentions of the parties are kept open.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Law - Suspension of Directors - Natural Justice - Section 29C of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - The petitioners, elected directors of a cooperative society, were suspended by the Assistant Registrar based on a complaint and show cause notice, but the suspension order was passed without giving them an opportunity of hearing. The High Court held that the principles of natural justice require that a person be heard before an adverse order is passed, and set aside the suspension order, directing the respondents to hear the petitioners and pass fresh orders within two weeks. (Paras 1-5) B) Constitutional Law - Writ of Certiorari - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash an order passed in violation of natural justice, emphasizing that even if the authority has power to suspend, it must be exercised fairly and after hearing the affected parties. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 suspending the petitioners as directors of the respondent No.3-Society under Section 29C of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 is valid when no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners before passing the order.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 passed by respondent No.2, and directed respondent No.2 to hear the petitioners and pass fresh orders within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- audi alteram partem
- suspension of directors
- Section 29C Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act
- 1959
- Byelaw 38(8)
- writ of certiorari
