LAWS(KAR)-2009-1-75

BHARAT CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THE DEPUTY MANAGER (FIN/ESTT) BHARATH HEAVY ELECTRICAL LTD. AND RAJGOPAL

Decided On January 20, 2009
Bharat Credit Co Operative Society Ltd. Appellant
V/S
State Of Karnataka Rep. By Its Secretary, The Deputy Manager (Fin/Estt) Bharath Heavy Electrical Ltd. And Rajgopal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this petition has sought for a direction, directing the second respondent to comply with the attachment order, Annexure -B by deducting the amount from the salary/ allowance of the third respondent and to remit the same to the petitioner until the entire loan is cleared, by enforcing his statutory duty in accordance with the provisions of the Section 34 of the Karnataka Co -operative Societies Act.

(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case are that, the petitioner is a Credit Co -operative Society Limited, represented by its Secretary and the third respondent has availed the hand loan of Rs 25,000/ - from the petitioner's Society and when he has failed to pay the necessary installments regularly, petitioner's society has raised a dispute before the Joint Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, who in turn, has referred the matter to the Arbitrator in Dispute No. JRB:Dis:1078:04 -05. The Arbitrator has passed the award on 24.11.2004 vide Annexure -A. Inspite of passing of the award, the third respondent has not satisfied the said award amount. Therefore, petitioner's society has filed the Execution proceedings before the Assistant Registrar of Co -operative Societies, 1st Circle, Bangalore. In the said Execution petition, the petitioner's society has filed an application for attachment of salary of the third respondent and the competent Authority has issued the order of attachment to attach the salary of the third respondent, at the rate of Rs. 2,000/ - per month and to remit the same to the petitioners society till the loan amount is cleared, vide Annexure -B. Inspite of service of the attachment order on the second respondent, second respondent has not given effect to, to the said attachment order. Therefore, petitioner's society has sent a Segal notice through his counsel on 31.08.2006 vide Annexure -C, to the second respondent, stating to comply with the attachment order as required under Section 34(1) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, and to deduct the amount from the salary of the third respondent and remit the same to the petitioner's society till the loan amount is cleared, failing which appropriate proceedings will be initiated. In spite of that, second respondent has not taken any decision or deducted the amount from the salary of the third respondent and remitted the same to the petitioner's society as per attachment order. In view of inaction on the part of the second respondent, petitioner was constrained to redress his grievance before this Court by presenting this writ petition, seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra.

(3.) AFTER careful perusal of the material available on record, it emerges that, the Assistant Registrar of Co -operative Societies, I Circle, Bangalore, has passed the order of attachment, attaching the salary of the third respondent, at the rate of Rs 2,000/ - per month vide Annexure -B. The second respondent, being the statutory authority has not given effect to. to the said order. Therefore, petitioner's society has issued legal notice through his counsel, as early as on 31.08. 2006, vide Annexure -C. requesting the second respondent to attach the salary of the third respondent and remit the same to the petitioner's society as per the attachment order. But the same has not been complied with by the second respondent so far. Second respondent being the statutory authority, is bound to exercise his powers as envisaged under Sub Section 2 of Section 34 of the Karnataka Co -operative Societies Act and give effect to, to the attachment order passed by the competent authority. Keeping the request of the petitioner in abeyance and not taking any decision within a reasonable time is not at all justifiable.