Basappa vs The Additional Registrar of Co-Operative Societies and Head Quarter Asst. Office of The Cane Development Commissioner and Director of Sugar and The Nandi Sahakari, Sakkare Karkhane Niyamitha

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—I.A. No. 2/2013 is filed to condone the delay of 35 days in filing the appeal calling in question the order dated 09.07.2013 of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P. No. 87948/2012 at the preliminary hearing stage without issuing notice to the respondents, on the premise that the applicant has an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing a statutory appeal u/s 105 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short ''the Act'') calling in question the order passed u/s 71 of the Act. Accepting the cause shown, the delay is condoned. I.A. No. 2/2013 is allowed accordingly.

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in exercise of jurisdiction u/s 70 of the Act adjudicating a dispute over applicant''s dismissal from service from a Co-operative society did not frame a preliminary issue over the validity of the domestic enquiry held by the society hence, militates against the principles of natural justice which the learned Single Judge did not take into consideration while declining to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Having perused the pleadings and examined the order of the learned Single Judge, we find no cause for interference. It is no doubt true that alternative remedy is not a bar to entertain a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in two well-recognized exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies. Firstly when the proceedings are taken before the forum under a provision of law which is ultra vires, it is open to a party aggrieved thereby to move the High Court for quashing the proceedings on the ground that they are incompetent without a party being obliged to wait until those proceedings run their full course. Secondly, the doctrine has no application when the impugned order has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, where the proceedings itself are an abuse of process of law, the High Court in an appropriate case can entertain a writ petition. So also, when an allegation of infringement of fundamental rights or when on the undisputed facts the taxing authorities are shown to have assumed jurisdiction which they do not possess, these can be the grounds on which the writ petitions can be entertained. But normally, the High Court should not entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there is something more in a case, something going to the root of the jurisdiction of the officer, something which would show that it would be a case of palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the statute as held by the Apex Court in State of H.P. and Others Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and Another, .

In The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and Another Vs. Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Ltd. and Another, on the facts obtaining therein, the State Corporation had cancelled the allotment of land made in favour of the company in exercise of its power under relevant statutory rules read with terms of lease agreement concerned, writ petition challenging the said cancellation order, without resorting to remedy of statutory review or appeal or arbitration proceedings in terms of lease deed, held thus:

xxxx It is a settled law that writ does not lie merely because it is lawful to do so. A person may be asked to exhaust the statutory/alternative remedy available to him in law.

Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of this case, as aired by the learned counsel for the appellant the grievance is that the Registrar of Societies exercising jurisdiction u/s 70 of the Act to adjudicate the dispute of dismissal from service having not framed an issue over the validity of the domestic enquiry held by the management before terminating the appellant from service and not recording a finding thereon, is violation of principles of natural justice. It is not the case of the appellant that an adjudication of a dispute u/s 70 requires framing an issue on validity of the domestic enquiry. If there has been an alleged infringement of a procedure, it is open for the appellant to question the same in a statutory appeal u/s 105 of the Act. It is not shown that non-framing of a preliminary issue over the validity of the domestic enquiry tantamounts to violation of principles of natural justice, hence does not call for interference with the decision rendered by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies u/s 71 of the Act, disposing of the dispute filed u/s 70 of the Act. We find no legal grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Appeal devoid of merit is rejected.