Sri Ramchandra Seetaram Bhagawat vs State of Karnataka and Others

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Petitioner is a member of 7th respondent-Kumta Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kumta, Uttara Kannada District-581343. On 10.12.2012, a Special Officer was appointed to the 7th respondent. Feeling aggrieved, on 30.01.2013, the petitioner filed an appeal under S. 106 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies, Act, 1959 before the 2nd respondent. On 02.02.2013, an interim order was passed in the said appeal. However, on 16.02.2013, the interim order of stay having been vacated, was questioned in W.P. No. 9253/2013. Taking note of the submissions made by the respondents, that the term of the Special Officer expired, writ petition was disposed of on 15.03.2013, by observing that the appeal pending before the Registrar has virtually become infructuous and thus, the impugned order has spent itself. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to ventilate his grievance, to seek appropriate reliefs in appropriate forums. However, the term of the Special Officer having been extended after disposal of the said writ petition, an application was filed before the 2nd respondent, seeking permission to amend the appeal. The 2nd respondent by merely taking note of the observations made in the said order, the application filed for amendment of appeal was rejected on 14.06.2013, vide Annexure-A1, with an observation that the appellant is at liberty to file a fresh appeal. As a consequence, the appeal was rejected on 21.06.2013 as not surviving for consideration vide Annexure-A2. The term of the Special Officer having been extended vide order dated 23.03.2013 and 07.06.2013 as at Annexures-T1 and T3, this writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned advocates and perused the writ petition record. It is unnecessary to record the rival contentions and findings thereon, since the matter requires consideration by the Appellate Authority - 2nd respondent.

The order dated 10.12.2012 appointing the Special Officer was questioned before the 2nd respondent by filing an appeal on 30.01.2013. Interim order passed in the appeal having been vacated on 16.02.2013 W.P. No. 9253/2013 was filed. Taking note of the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that the proceedings in the appeal as having become infructuous on the ground that the period for which the Special Officer was appointed on 10.12.2012 as having been expired, by observing that the appeal before the Registrar has virtually become infructuous, since the order impugned in the appeal has spent itself, the writ petition was dismissed, reserving the liberty to the petitioner to ventilate his grievance and to seek appropriate reliefs.

After the disposal of W.P. No. 9253/2013 on 15.03.2013, the term of the Special Officer having been extended on 23.03.2013, in the pending appeal, application seeking amendment having been filed, the 2nd respondent without consideration of the event which has taken place after disposal of W.P. No. 9253/2013, has mechanically passed the order, as at Annexure-A1 on 14.06.2013. The term of the Special Officer having been extended on 23.03.2013 and the same having been challenged by filing an application for amendment, the 2nd respondent has acted arbitrarily in rejecting the application for amendment, vide order at Annexure-A1 on 14.06.2013.

The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to allow either party to amend his pleading in such a manner and on such term as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice on the basis of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court. The technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the proceedings before the Courts and the Tribunals in the matter of administration of justice between the parties. Normally, the amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The proposed amendment before the 2nd respondent was questioning the extension of term of the Special Officer and the cause of action to the appeal being a continuing cause of action even for the proposed amendment, which, without any consideration and without even taking into account of subsequent event after passing of the order in the writ petition, the application has been mechanically rejected vide order at Annexure-A1.

The dismissal of the appeal as having become infructuous on 21.06.2013, vide Annexure-A2 is wholly arbitrary and illegal. Had the term of the Special Officer not been extended on 23.03.2013 for further period, the 2nd respondent would have been justified in passing the orders, as at Annexure-A2. Since the term of the Special Officer was extended on 23.03.2013 (Annexure-T1), the application filed for amendment of the appeal ought to have been allowed and the appeal considered in accordance with law. The orders, as at Annexures-A1 and A2 are arbitrary and illegal and cannot be sustained. The term of the Special Officer has again been extended on 07.06.2013, vide Annexure-T3. i.e., upto 30.09.2013. In the circumstances, the grievance as against the appointment of the Special Officer to the 7th respondent-Society requires adjudication by the 2nd respondent-Appellate Authority.

In the result, writ petition is allowed and the orders passed by the 2nd respondent, as at Annexures-A1 and A2 are quashed. Application filed for amendment by the petitioner questioning the extension of the term of the Special Officer on 23.03.2013, vide Annexure-T1 is allowed. Since the term of the Special Officer has again been extended on 07.06.2013 till 30.09.2013 vide order at Anenxure-T3, in order to minimize the litigation and to expedite the hearing and disposal of the appeal, the petitioner is hereby permitted to amend the appeal pending before the 2nd respondent by questioning the order dated 07.06.2013, i.e., further extending the term of the Special Officer up to 30.09.2013.

Respondents 6 and 7 are permitted to file additional statement of objections, if any, to the appeal as amended, pending before the 2nd respondent, within a period of three weeks from today.

Both the parties are directed to appear before the 2nd respondent on 03.08.2013 and receive further orders in appeal No. RCS/DAP/D1/9/2012-13. The 2nd respondent is directed to decide the appeal by granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The 2nd respondent is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously and before 16th September 2013.

Contentions of both the parties with regard to the merit or otherwise of the appeal, are left open for consideration.

No Costs.