E.S. Venkataramiah, J.
1. On a reference made by Bhimiah, J. the above petition has come up before us for disposal.
2. The 1st petitioner is the Navalgund Taluk Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Annigeri, District Dharwar. Petitioners 2 to 10 were the members of the Committee of Management of 1st petitioner-Society. On the basis of certain allegations relating to the mismanagement of the affairs of the 1st petitioner-Society by its Committee of Management, a show cause notice was issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Belgaum under Section 30(1) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to the petitioners, to show cause as to why action should not be taken to remove the Committee of Management of petitioner No. 1 Society, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The said notice contained the particulars of 22 charges which were based on the allegations made against the Committee of Management.
3. In reply to the said notice, the Chairman of petitioner No. 1-Socieiy, submitted an explanation on 3-5-1975 on behalf of the Committee of Management. After taking into consideration the material available from the records and the reply given on behalf of the Committee of Management the Joint Registrar came to the conclusion that the Committee of Management had acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Society and beyond its powers and that the irregularities committed by the Committee of Management were of grave and serious character. He therefore made an order dated 27-9-1975 removing the Committee of Management for a period of one year from the date of the order at the first instance and appointing the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Dharwar as the Administrator of the 1st petitioner-Society, during the period of supersession, in exercise of his powers under Section 30(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order of the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Belgaum, the 1st petitioner filed an appeal before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 106 of the Act. That appeal was dismissed. Thereafter the petitioners filed the above writ petition questioning the correctness of the orders passed by the Registrar and the Joint Registrar.
4. Two contentions are urged by Sri K. A. Swamy learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of this writ petition.
(1) The order passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies was vitiated as no opportunity to make oral representation had been given to the petitioners; and
(2) that the order in question had been passed on account of the influence brought to bear upon the Joint Registrar by the Minister for Co-operation.
5. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the State Government denying the allegations made in the petition against the Minister concerned. In view of the counter-affidavit Sri K. A. Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioners, does not press the second ground. The only ground which survives for our consideration is whether the order passed by the Joint Registrar is vitiated because no opportunity was given to the petitioners to make oral representation. Section 30(1) of the Act reads as follows:
'(1) If, in the opinion of the Registrar, the committee of any co-operative society persistently makes default or is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it by this Act or the rules or the bye-laws or commits any act which is prejudicial to the interests of the society or its members, or is otherwise not functioning properly, the Registrar may, after giving the committee an opportunity to state its objections, if any, by order in writing, remove the committee, and
(a) appoint a new committee consisting of one or more members of the society in its place, or
(b) appoint one or more Administrators who need not be members of the Society to manage the affairs of the society for such period or periods not exceeding two years as may be specified by order of the Registrar; and after the period of two years, the Registrar may in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (2) by order extend such period from time to time, so that the aggregate period does not exceed four years.'
It is seen from Section 30(1) of the Act that the Legislature has provided for an opportunity to be given to the Committee against which action is taken to state its objections if any. There is however no express provision requiring the Registrar or any other Officer exorcising the powers of the Registrar under Section 30(1), to hear the members of the Committee of Management in person before passing final orders under Section 30(1) of the Act.
6. It is not disputed that in the instant case, the petitioners were called upon to state their objections if any in writing to the charges mentioned in the notice within the specified period and that they had availed of that opportunity by filing a statement of objections before the Joint Registrar. It is no doubt true that in cases of this nature when action is being taken against a Committee of Management under Section 30(1) of the Act, reasonable opportunity should be given to the persons against whom action is being taken to put forward their case before the authority concerned. Except in proceedings in courts, a mere denial of opportunity of making an oral representation, without more, will not vitiate the proceedings, as there is no rule which requires that in all cases an opportunity by way of personal hearing should be afforded. An opportunity to state their objections in writing is sufficient compliance with the rules of natural justice; vide State of Assam v. Gauhati Municipal Board : 2SCR732 and Union of India v. Jyothi Prakash Mitter : (1971)ILLJ256SC . Since, in the instant case, an opportunity to make a written representation has been given, we do not find that there has been violation of principles of natural justice.
In the result, this petition fails, and it is dismissed. No costs.
7. Petition dismissed.