- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 207718 OF 2017 (S-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 207719 OF 2017 (S-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 207720 OF 2017 (S-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 204887 OF 2019 (CS-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 204888 OF 2019 (CS-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 204889 OF 2019 (CS-RES) IN W.P.NO.207718/2017: BETWEEN: SRI. N.B.MARATHE, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, SON OF LATE SRI.BASAVANTH RAO MARATHE, DIRECTOR, K.M.F. (NOW RETIRED FROM SERVICE) R/O NO.9-587/6E/1, NEW SANTOSH COLONY, ALAND ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.S. NAIK AND SRI. PRAKASH S. MAISALGI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KALABURAGI DIVISION, VENKATESH COLONY, LINGASUR ROAD, RAICHUR-584101. 4. THE DY. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIEIS AND ENQUIRY OFFICER UNDER SECTION 64 OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES' ACT, BIDAR-UDAGIRI ROAD NEAR TALUKA PANCHAYAT OFFICE BIDAR-585401. 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KALABURAGI, BIDAR AND YADGIR DISTRICTS, CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LIMITED HUMNABAD ROAD, KALABURAGI-585104 6. SUGUR (K) MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT MR. HANAMANTHRAO UPPIN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT SUGUR VILLAGE, CHITTAPUR TALUKA, KALABURAGI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4; SRI. MRC RAVI AND SRI. KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT NO.5; SRI. R.J. BHUSARE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT PERTAINING TO ANNEXURES - M AND N AND QUASH THE (1) ENQUIRY REPORT UNDER SECTION 64 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS OF THE K.C.S.ACT, 1959 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEARING REFERENCE NO.NIL DATED NIL, THE ATTESTED/TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-M IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ORDER BEARING REFERENCE NO.¸ÀA¤gÁ/«-8/PÀ®A-64/PÉJAE/2017-18 DATED 26.09.2017, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, THE ATTESTED/TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-N AND ETC. IN W.P.NO.207719/2017: BETWEEN: SRI. LAKSHMINARASAPPA AGE: 63 YEARS S/O LATE SRI. RANGASWAMY, R/O NO.65, 2ND CROSS, MATHURA LAYOUT, G.K.V.K.POST, BENGALURU ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.S. NAIK AND SRI. PRAKASH S. MAISALGI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KALABURAGI DIVISION, VENKATESHA COLONY, LINGASUR ROAD, RAICHUR-584101. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS 4. THE DY. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ENQUIRY OFFICER UNDER SECTION 64 OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES' ACT, BIDAR-UDAGIRI ROAD NEAR TALUKA PANCHAYAT OFFICE BIDAR-585401. 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KALABURAGI, BIDAR AND YADGIR DISTRICTS, CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES, UNION LIMITED HUMNABAD ROAD, KALABURAGI-585104 6. SUGUR (K) MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT MR. HANAMANTHRAO UPPIN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT SUGUR VILLAGE, CHITTAPUR TALUKA, KALABURAGI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR R.TENGLI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4; SRI. MRC RAVI AND SRI. KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT NO.5; SRI. R.J. BHUSARE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT PERTAINING TO ANNEXURES - M AND N AND QUASH THE (1) ENQUIRY REPORT UNDER SECTION 64 OF THE K.C.S.ACT, 1959 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEARING REFERENCE NO.NIL DATED NIL, THE ATTESTED/TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-M IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND THE ORDER BEARING - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS REFERENCE NO.¸ÀA¤gÁ/«-8/PÀ®A-64/PÉJAE/2017-18 DATED 26.09.2017, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, THE ATTESTED/TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-N IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC. IN W.P.NO.207720/2017: BETWEEN: DR. BUKKA MALLIKARJUN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, SON OF SRI. CHENNAPPA R/O NO.C, 2ND FLOOR, SRI NIKETAN RESIDENCY, RUDSET ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, DHARWAD. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.S. NAIK AND SRI. PRAKASH S. MAISALGI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KALABURAGI DIVISION, VENKATESH COLONY, LINGASUR ROAD, RAICHUR-584101. 4. THE DY. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ENQUIRY OFFICER UNDER SECTION 64 OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES' ACT, BIDAR-UDAGIRI ROAD - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS NEAR TALUKA PANCHAYAT OFFICE BIDAR-585401. 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KALABURAGI, BIDAR AND YADGIR DISTRICTS, CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES, UNION LIMITED HUMANABAD ROAD, KALABURAGI-585104 6. SUGUR (K) MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT MR. HANAMANTHRAO UPPIN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT SUGUR VILLAGE, CHITTAPUR TALUKA, KALABURAGI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR R.TENGLI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4; SRI. MRC RAVI AND SRI. KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT NO.5; SRI. R.J. BHUSARE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT PERTAINING TO ANNEXURES - M AND N AND QUASH THE (1) ENQUIRY REPORT UNDER SECTION 64 OF THE K.C.S.ACT, 1959 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEARING REFERENCE NO.NIL DATED NIL, THE ATTESTED/TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-M IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND THE ORDER BEARING REFERENCE NO.¸ÀA¤gÁ/«-8/PÀ®A-64/PÉJAE/2017-18 DATED 26.09.2017, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, THE ATTESTED/TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-N IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS IN W.P.NO.204887/2019: BETWEEN: 1. BANDEPPA BIRADAR S/O CHANNAPPA AGE: 58 YEARS, EXTENSION OFFICER GRADE-2, GUMUL KMF, H.NO.25-947, SHIVANAGARA COLONY, NEAR BY BYPASS ROAD, HUMNABAD-585330 BIDAR DIST. 2. K.NAGAPPA S/O D.KALAPPA AGE 59 YEARS, ASSISTANT MANAGER (P) GUMUL KMF, C/O SRI.BANDEPPA C.BIRADAR H.NO.25-947, SHIVANAGARA COLONY, NEARBY BYPASS ROAD, HUMNABAD-585330. BIDAR DIST. 3. DR. MANOHAR KULKARNI S/O VAIJINATHA RAO KULKARNI AGE 58 YEARS, DEPUTY MANAGER (AH/AI) GUMUL KMF, PRESENTLY R/AT 1-891/95/2B/07, DEVI KRUPA, MAKA LAYOUT, SUNDARAM GARDEN, KALABURAGI-585102. 4. S.V.KULKARNI S/O VENKATRAO AGE 65 YEARS, RETD. ACCOUNTS ASSISTANT GRADE-2, GUMUL KMF, H.NO.11-1752, VIDYANAGAR COLONY, KALABURAGI-585103. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS 5. R.R.KULKARNI S/O RAMACHANDRA RAO AGE 59 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, GUMUL KMF, H.NO.11-421/8/A, NEARBY TOWER, SAMATHA COLONY, BRAHMHAPURA, KALABURAGI-585103. 6. G.RAMAREDDY S/O NARASAREDDY AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: RETD. EXTENSION OFFICER, GRADE-1, GUMUL, H.NO.2909/44/4, JAGRUTHI NAGARA, JAGRUTHI COLONY, RING ROAD, KALABURAGI-585101. 7. BANDURAO S/O KISHNRAO KULKARNI AGE 71 YEARS, PRESIDENT PRATAPURA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., PRATAPURA, TALUK BASAVAKALYAN, DIST: BIDAR. 8. CHANDRAKANTH S/O RAMARAO JADHAV AGE: 54 YEARS, SECRETARY, PRATAPURA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., PRATAPURA, TALUK BASAVAKALYAN DIST:BIDAR. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. J. AUGUSTIN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT. OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY GOVT. OF KARNATAKA ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES KALABURAGI DIVISION, VENKATESH COLONY, LINGASUGUR ROAD, RAICHUR-584101. 4. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ENQUIRY OFFICER UNDER SECTION 64 OF THE CO-OP. SOCIEITIES ACT, BIDAR-UDAGIRI ROAD, NEAR TALUK PANCHAYAT OFFICE, BIDAR-585401. 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KALABURAGI, BIDAR AND YADGIRI DISTRICTS CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LTD., HUMNABAD ROAD, KALABURAGI-585104. 6. SUGUR (K) MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REPT. BY ITS PRESIDENT MR. HANAMANTRAO UPPIN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT SUGUR VILLAGE, CHITTAPUR TALUKA, DISTRICT KALABURAGI. (R6 IS PROPOSED IMPLEADING RESPONDENT) (AMENDED AS PER THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE COURT) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR R.TENGLI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4; SRI. SHIVAKUMAR KALLOOR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5; SRI. R.J. BHUSARE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6) - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER SECTION 64 OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACTS, 1959 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED NIL AS PER ANNEXURE-T AND CONSEQUENT ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ORDER NO. NO.¸ÀA¤gÁ/«-8/PÀ®A-64/PÉJAE/2017- 18 DATED 26.09.2017 AS PER THE ANNEXURE-V. IN W.P.NO.204888/2019: BETWEEN: 1. BANDEPPA BIRADAR S/O CHANNAPPA AGE: 58 YEARS, EXTENSION OFFICER GRADE-2, GUMUL KMF, H.NO.25-947, SHIVANAGARA COLONY, NEAR BY BYPASS ROAD, HUMNABAD-585330 BIDAR DIST. 2. K.NAGAPPA S/O D.KALAPPA AGE: 59 YEARS, ASSISTANT MANAGER (P) GUMUL KMF, C/O SRI.BANDEPPA C.BIRADAR H.NO.25-947, SHIVANAGARA COLONY, NEARBY BYPASS ROAD, HUMNABAD-585330. DIST: BIDAR 3. DR. MANOHAR KULKARNI S/O VAIJINATHA RAO KULKARNI AGE: 58 YEARS, DEPUTY MANAGER (AH/AI) GUMUL KMF, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.1-891/95/2B/07, DEVI KRUPA, MAKA LAYOUT, SUNDARAM GARDEN, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS KALABURAGI-585102. 4. S.V. KULKARNI S/O VENKATRAO, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: RETD.ACCOUNTS ASSISTANT GRADE-2, GUMUL KMF, H.NO.11-1752, VIDYANAGAR COLONY, KALABURAGI-585103 5. R.R.KULKARNI S/O RAMACHANDRA RAO, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, GUMUL KMF, H.NO.11-421/8/A, NEARBY TOWER, SAMATHA COLONY, BRAHMAPURA, KALABURAGI-585103 6. G.RAMAREDDY S/O NARASAREDDY AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: RETD. EXTENSION OFFICER, GRADE-1, GUMUL, H.NO.2909/44/4, JAGRUTHI NAGARA, JAGRUTHI COLONY, RING ROAD, KALABURAGI-585101. 7. V.S.SREENIVAS RAO S/O A.S.VENKAT RAO, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: EXTENSION OFFICER GUMUL, R/AT C/O SHRIDHAR RAO, H.NO.3-38, SHRINGERI, SARASWATHI GODAM, GAJIPURA MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI-585101. 8. SMT. VIMALA BAI W/O RAMESHA AGE: 45 YEARS, PREVIOUS PRESIDENT, UMMAPURA WOMEN MILK PRODUCERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., UMMAPURA, TALUK BASAVAKALYAN, DIST: BIDAR-586101. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS 9. MALLIKARJUNA S/O CHANDRAKANTH PATIL, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: SECRETARY, UMMAPURA WOMEN MILK PRODUCERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., UMMAPURA, TALUK BASAVAKALYAN, DIST: BIDAR-586101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. J. AUGUSTIN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT. OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY GOVT. OF KARNATAKA ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES KALABURAGI DIVISION, VENKATESH COLONY, LINGASUGUR ROAD, RAICHUR-584101. 4. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ENQUIRY OFFICER UNDER SECTION 64 OF THE CO-OP. SOCIETIES ACT, BIDAR-UDAGIRI ROAD, NEAR TALUK PANCHAYAT OFFICE, BIDAR-585401. 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KALABURAGI, BIDAR AND YADGIRI DISTRICTS CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LTD., HUMNABAD ROAD, KALABURAGI-585104. 6. SUGUR (K) MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS REPT. BY ITS PRESIDENT MR. HANAMANTRAO UPPIN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT SUGUR VILLAGE, CHITTAPUR TALUKA, DISTRICT KALABURAGI. (R6 IS PROPOSED IMPLEADING RESPONDENT) (AMENDED AS PER THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE COURT AS PER THE ORDER) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR R.TENGLI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4; SRI. SHIVAKUMAR KALLOOR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5; SRI. R.J.BHUSARE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER SECTION 64 OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACTS 1959 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED NIL AS PER ANNEXURE-T AND CONSEQUENT ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ORDER NO.¸ÀA¤gÁ/«-8/PÀ®A-64/PÉJAE/2017-18 DATED 26.09.2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-V. IN W.P.NO.204889/2019: BETWEEN: 1. BANDEPPA BIRADAR S/O CHANNAPPA AGE: 58 YEARS, EXTENSION OFFICER GRADE-2, GUMUL KMF, H.NO.25-947, SHIVANAGARA COLONY, NEAR BY BYPASS ROAD, HUMNABAD-585330 BIDAR DIST. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS 2. K.NAGAPPA S/O D.KALAPPA AGE: 59 YEARS, ASSISTANT MANAGER (P) GUMUL KMF, C/O SRI.BANDEPPA C.BIRADAR H.NO.25-947, SHIVANAGARA COLONY, NEARBY BYPASS ROAD, HUMNABAD-585330. DIST: BIDAR 3. DR. MANOHAR KULKARNI S/O VAIJINATHA RAO KULKARNI AGE: 58 YEARS, DEPUTY MANAGER (AH/AI) GUMUL KMF, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.1-891/95/2B/07, DEVI KRUPA, MAKA LAYOUT, SUNDARAM GARDEN, KALABURAGI-585102. 4. S.V. KULKARNI S/O VENKATRAO, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: RETD.ACCOUNTS ASSISTANT GRADE-2, GUMUL KMF, H.NO.11-1752, VIDYANAGAR COLONY, KALABURAGI-585103 5. R.R.KULKARNI S/O RAMACHANDRA RAO, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, GUMUL KMF, H.NO.11-421/8/A, NEARBY TOWER, SAMATHA COLONY, BRAHMAPURA, KALABURAGI-585103 6. G.RAMAREDDY S/O NARASAREDDY AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: RETD. EXTENSION OFFICER, GRADE-1, GUMUL, - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS H.NO.2909/44/4, JAGRUTHI NAGARA, JAGRUTHI COLONY, RING ROAD, KALABURAGI-585101. 7. V.S.SREENIVAS RAO S/O A.S.VENKAT RAO, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: EXTENSION OFFICER GUMUL, R/AT C/O SHRIDHAR RAO, H.NO.3-38, SHRINGERI, SARASWATHI GODAM, GAJIPURA MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI-585101. 8. SMT. VIMALABAI W/O RAMESHA AGE: 45 YEARS, PREVIOUS PRESIDENT, UMMAPURA WOMEN MILK PRODUCERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., UMMAPURA, TALUK BASAVAKALYAN, DIST: BIDAR-586101. 9. MALLIKARJUNA S/O CHANDRAKANTH PATIL, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: SECRETARY, UMMAPURA WOMEN MILK PRODUCERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., UMMAPURA, TALUK BASAVAKALYAN, DIST: BIDAR-586101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. J. AUGUSTIN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT. OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY GOVT. OF KARNATAKA ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES KALABURAGI DIVISION, VENKATESH COLONY, LINGASUGUR ROAD, RAICHUR-584101. 4. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ENQUIRY OFFICER UNDER SECTION 64 OF THE CO-OP. SOCIETIES ACT, BIDAR-UDAGIRI ROAD, NEAR TALUK PANCHAYAT OFFICE, BIDAR-585401. 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KALABURAGI, BIDAR AND YADGIRI DISTRICTS CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LTD., HUMNABAD ROAD, KALABURAGI-585104. 6. SUGUR (K) MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REPT. BY ITS PRESIDENT MR. HANAMANTRAO UPPIN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT SUGUR VILLAGE, CHITTAPUR TALUKA, DISTRICT KALABURAGI. (R6 IS PROPOSED IMPLEADING RESPONDENT) (AMENDED AS PER THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE COURT AS PER THE ORDER) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR R.TENGLI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4; SRI. SHIVAKUMAR KALLOOR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5; SRI. R.J.BHUSARE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS ORDER UNDER SECTION 64 OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACTS, 1959 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED NIL AS PER ANNEXURE-T AND CONSEQUENT ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ORDER NO.¸ÀA¤gÁ/«-8/PÀ®A-64/PÉJAE/2017-18 DATED 26.09.2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-V. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ) W.P.Nos.207718/2017, 207719/2017 and 207720/2017 are filed by the erstwhile employees of the respondent No.5 against whom proceedings were initiated, which culminated in an order passed under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1959'). The petitioners in these writ petitions challenged the said order dated 26.09.2017 bearing No.¸ÀA¤gÁ/«-8/PÀ®A- 64/PÉJAE/2017-18 passed by respondent No.3. They have also prayed that the enquiry report submitted by the respondent No.4 be also quashed. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS 2. WP Nos.204887/2019, 204888/2019 and 204889/2019 are filed by the employees and retired employees of the respondent No.6 challenging the report of an enquiry under Section 64 of the Act, 1959 and the consequent order bearing No.¸ÀA¤gÁ/«-8/PÀ®A-64/PÉJAE/2017-18 dated 26.09.2017 passed by the respondent No.3. 3. The petitioners in WP Nos.207718/2017, 207719/2017 and 207720/2017 shall henceforth be referred to as "employees" of Sugur Milk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd., (henceforth referred to as ‘Sugur Society’). Similarly, the petitioners in WP Nos.204887/2019, 204888/2019 and 204889/2019 are also the employees of Sugur Society. 4. (i) The petitioners contend that the petitioner in W.P.Nos.207718/2017 was the Managing Director of the respondent No.5, while petitioner in W.P.No.207719/2019 was the General Manager of Ice Cream Plant, a unit of the respondent No.5 from March 2017 and was at the relevant point of time, a Joint Director during the year 2013. The petitioner in W.P.No.207720/2017 was the Joint Director of respondent No.5 with effect from 30.11.2010 and at the time of - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS filing the writ petition, he was the Managing Director of Raichur, Bellary and Koppal Districts Milk Producers' Co- operative Societies, with effect from 13.10.2017. They all contend that the State Government vide order dated 14.05.2013, granted approval for increase of the incentives paid to the Dairy Farmers of the State who were supplying milk to the societies, from Rs.2/- per litre of milk to Rs.4/- per litre with immediate effect. The Government Order granted the following benefits:- i) The Scheme of payment of support price/incentive of Rs.4/- per litre of milk to all the Dairy Farmers in the entire State who are supplying milk to the Milk Producers' Societies, is brought into force. ii) The incentive amount will be released through the thirteen District Milk Unions. iii) The scheme of payment of incentive amount will be extended to all those who supply milk to the Society, even if they are not the members of the Cooperative Societies. iv) The Dairy farmers who are supplying milk to private dairies are kept out of this Scheme. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS v) This plan will be in force from the date of issue of this order and will be in force until further orders. vi) For the implementation of this Plan/Project, Managing Committees are formed as indicated in the Annexure to this order at the State, District and Taluk levels. vii) As per the enclosed annexure, wherever possible, ways and means have been formulated for depositing this incentive amount directly to the Bank accounts of the Women member of the family of the Dairy Farmers. viii) The Plan/Project will be reviewed again, after completion of one year. ix) The orders issued from time to time by the Government in respect of this Plan/Project have to be followed without fail. (ii) The petitioners contend that three Committees were formed one at the State level, other at the District level and the third at the Taluk level for effective implementation of the scheme. The petitioner in W.P.No.207718/2017 was the Member Secretary of the District Level Committee, while the petitioner in W.P.No.207719/2017 was the Member Secretary - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS of the District Level Committee and the petitioner in W.P.No.207720/2017 was also the Member Secretary of the District Level Committee. The respondent No.4 in all these petitions was a member of the District Level Project Implementation Supervision Committee. The Deputy Director of Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries of the concerned District is the Chairman of the Committee. They all contend that one Sri. Hanumantha Rao Uppina of Chittapura Taluk, submitted a written complaint to the Managing Director of the Karnataka Milk Federation Limited at Bengaluru, alleging misappropriation of a sum of Rs.1,94,06,058/-, which was the incentive funds payable to the farmers in the Hulasuru B.M.C. of Basavakalyan Taluk. Likewise, the President of Kannalli Milk Producers Co-operative Society Limited submitted a complaint to the Hon’ble Chief Minister alleging misappropriation of incentive funds to the tune of Rs.3,00,00,000/- in Hulasuru B.M.C. of Basavakalyan Taluk. They all contend that after receipt of the complaint/s, the Additional Registrar of Co- operative Societies addressed communication to the respondent No.3 on 20.04.2016 and 21.04.2016 and directed him to initiate suitable legal action, if required. The petitioners contend - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS that upon the directions of the Additional Registrar of Co- operative Societies, respondent No.3 issued an order dated 29.06.2016, appointing the respondent No.4 to conduct an enquiry under Section 64 of the Act, 1959. The petitioners contend that the complainant who lodged the complaint, did not specify the period during which the incident had allegedly happened nor the respondent No.3 in his order dated 29.06.2016 did not mention regarding the period during which the incident happened. Nonetheless, the respondent No.3 proceeded to frame as many as five charges. (iii) Respondent No.4 issued a notice of enquiry dated 06.07.2016 and called upon the petitioners to appear for an enquiry and also to submit statement, if any. The petitioners appeared before the respondent No.4 and submitted the detailed reply denying the allegations leveled against them. They also furnished additional information on 12.09.2016 and 17.10.2016. They claimed that the charges against them were extremely vague and no material particulars were furnished to them to enable them to effectively reply to the charge. They also contended that the charges must have specifically indicted - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS the petitioners based on the tenure that they spent in the respondent No.6. They also claimed that the mechanism for payment of incentive price to the farmers was foolproof and therefore, there was no scope for any let-ups or misappropriation or misuse. They also contended that there was no allegation of either excess payment or non-payment by the respondent No.5 and also contended that the enquiry undertaken by the respondent No.3 was without jurisdiction, as there was no complaint or any report from any competent authorities as prescribed under Section 64 of the Act, 1959. (iv) They all contend that the enquiry officer submitted a report unmindful of the contentions of the petitioners and accused the petitioners of having misappropriated the incentive price that was payable to the farmers in Karnataka by procuring milk from outside the State. The enquiry officer specifically indicated the amount claimed by the petitioners from the State Government and the amount paid to the societies and the amount that was assessed to be misappropriated by the petitioners. They also contend that the respondent No.3 without appreciating the defence of the - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS petitioners as well as the process adopted by the petitioners, mechanically accepted the report submitted by the respondent No.4 and issued an order under Section 68 of the Act, 1959 for recovery of the alleged loss. The petitioners have therefore, challenged the order passed by the respondent No.3 as well as the report submitted by the respondent No.4 indicting them. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.207718/2017, 207719/2017 and 207720/2017 has raised the following contentions:- (i) That the respondent No.1 - State Government had granted approval for increasing the incentive price paid to the Dairy Farmers in terms of its order dated 14.05.2013 and had constituted State, District and Taluk Level Committees for implementation of the scheme. (ii) He contends that the enquiry officer of the District Level Committee has not submitted any report to the Commissioner of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Sciences that there is no deficiency in the implementation of the scheme. - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS (iii) He contends that if there was any misappropriation of the incentive released by the State Government then, the Committee would have definitely reported the same to the Commissioner. (iv) He also contends that the scheme envisages that it is a responsibility of the Secretary of the Milk Producers’ Society for maintenance of accounts and records. The petitioners are not the Secretaries of the Society but they are higher officials in the hierarchy and therefore, they cannot be accused of misappropriating the incentive price payable to the farmers. (v) He contended that an enquiry under Section 64 of the Act, 1959, could be initiated on the application of a Co-operative Society to which the society concerned is affiliated or by a majority of the members of the committee of society or not less than 1/3rd of the total number of members of the society. Therefore, he contends that the complaints lodged by people other than the above three cannot - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS be taken cognizance of and the complainants have no locus - standi to lodge a complaint under Section 64(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act, 1959. (vi) He also contends that the enquiry ordered by the respondent No.3, cannot be akin to an enquiry under Section 64(1) of the Act of 1959, as it is not a suo moto enquiry undertaken by the respondent No.2. (vii) He contends that assuming that the enquiry is one ordered by respondent No.3 representing the respondent No.2 on his own motion, the respondent No.4 who conducted the enquiry was incompetent to conduct such an enquiry. Therefore, he contends that the respondent No.3 could not have acted upon the enquiry report submitted by the respondent No.4. (viii) He further contends that the respondent No.4 is a Member of the District Level Project Implementation Supervision Committee constituted by the State Government in terms of the order dated 14.05.2013 - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS and therefore, he could not have conducted an enquiry under Section 64 of the Act of 1959 and hence, the report submitted by respondent No.4, is thoroughly biased and cannot be the basis of any order to compel the recovery of the amount determined under Section 68 of the Act of 1959. (ix) He also contends that the complainants did not give any particulars of the amount misappropriated and they did not appear before the enquiry officer to justify the allegations that there was misappropriation. Therefore, he contends the enquiry officer's report is vague, one sided and unreliable. (x) He next contended that the accounts of the respondent No.5 was duly audited and the audit reports were duly accepted by the Board of Directors of the Society in the Annual General Body Meeting during the relevant years and therefore, the enquiry report is without any basis and without reference to the audit reports, which were accepted. - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS (xi) He also contended that the State Government had not completely stopped the policy of procuring milk from the villages of border States and this was done to ensure that there is adequate supply of milk. Thus, he contends that the petitioners cannot be held guilty of any misappropriation of the funds. Therefore, he contends that on all grounds, the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent No.3 and the report submitted by the respondent No.4 are liable to be set at naught. (xii) Besides this, he also contended that adequate opportunity was not provided to the petitioners before the enquiry officer to cross-examine the complainants. Hence, the enquiry report is half baked and cannot be the basis of any order under Section 68 of the Act of 1959. He also contended that the respondent No.3 did not conduct the proceedings of the enquiry by following the principles of natural justice but was slipshod enquiry throwing all rules of departmental enquiry to the wind. - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.204887/2019, 204888/2019 and 204889/2019 referred to the scheme formulated by the State Government and the features of the scheme. He adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.207718/2017, 207719/2017 and 207720/2017 and contended that the petitioners (retired employees) have not been paid the pensionary benefits till date and hence, prays that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 be set at naught. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that the State Government had issued notification dated 06.12.2016 in supersession of previous notifications and conferred powers on the officer specified therein in Column No.2 in respect of the Co-operative Societies specified in Column No.4, the powers of the Registrar of Co- operative Societies under the provisions of the Act, 1959 and the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960. He contended that based on the complaint received by the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Industry and - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS Dairy), he directed the respondent No.3 to conduct an enquiry and initiate suitable legal proceedings against the concerned officers and the Board of Directors of the respective Milk Unions, who are responsible. He contends that the respondent No.3 ordered for a preliminary enquiry and thereafter, initiated suo moto proceedings under Section 64 of the Act, 1959. It is contended that before doing so, the respondent No.3 had framed charges and adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioners to submit their reply. He contends that in view of the Government Order referred above, the powers to conduct an enquiry was delegated to the respondent No.3 and therefore, the claim of the petitioners that the respondent No.3 did not have the jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry is baseless. It is contended that the jurisdictional Registrar is endowed with the duty to protect the interest of the farmers and also to protect the taxpayers’ money and monitor the utilization of the Government funds, which has to be given to the beneficiary by crediting it into their respective bank accounts. However, in the instant case, instead of crediting it into the farmers bank account, the concerned officers, President and Secretary of the Society have avoided crediting into the farmers account. - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS Therefore, it was felt necessary to conduct an enquiry into the affairs of the society. He also contended that the respondent No.5 was collecting milk from unregistered societies namely, Pratapur (B), Ummapur (B) and Mantal (B), which were not registered under the Act, 1959 and therefore, the same was in violation of Section 28(a)(1) of the Act, 1959 and Rule 14AK (7) of the Rules, 1960. It is also contended that the enquiry revealed that the above three societies had claimed that no milk was procured from the (B) Center but the petitioners had given instructions to open a bank account by giving a fictitious name and through this bank account, the Government incentives were transferred from the milk union. Later, the concerned President and Secretary, on the instructions of the Extension Officer of the Milk Union, drew the money and handed it over to Sri. Rajendra Mulaj, who is a milk agent from Maharashtra. It is contended that this was evident from the records. It is also contended that the enquiry revealed various other lapses, which all pointed out to the fact that the petitioners had attempted to misuse the funds that were meant for the farmers of the State. - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS 8. Learned counsel for the private respondent also invited the attention of the Court to the report of the enquiry officer and submitted that the enquiry officer has unraveled various mistakes committed by the petitioners, which clearly went to establish that these were done with the sole intention to misuse and misappropriate the funds meant for incentives to the State farmers. He therefore, contends that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 directing recovery of the amount misappropriated, is based on credible evidence that was unearthed during the course of enquiry. He contended that the respondent No.3 is entitled to exercise power under suo moto based upon any information that was received by him. The information could be in the form of complaints received from any person and there is no bar against the respondent No.3 exercising his discretion to initiate suo moto enquiry. He also contends that before the private respondent submitted a complaint, there was a preliminary enquiry conducted by the Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Limited, which found that the petitioners were complicit in misappropriating the funds that were meant to be distributed amongst the farmers in the State. He contends that no action - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS was initiated on the preliminary report and therefore, the private respondents were compelled to lodge a complaint, which was escalated by the respondent No.2, who referred the matter to the respondent No.3 for suitable enquiry and report. He also contended that an order passed under Section 64 of the Act, 1959, is amenable to an appeal under Section 106 of the Act, 1959. He therefore, contends that the petitioners have hurriedly approached this Court under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the petitions are not maintainable. 9. In reply to the contentions of the learned counsel for the private respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Milk Federation was not produced at the enquiry or even before the respondent No.2 and is being produced before this Court for the first time. Therefore, he contends that the petitioners cannot be taken off guard. In so far as the contention that the impugned order is appealable before the appropriate authority under Section 106 of the Act, 1959, he contends that the enquiry was a farce and the respondent No.3 - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS had conducted an enquiry, which was in stark violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 64 of the Act, 1959. Therefore, he contends that the impugned order could be challenged under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the same is done in violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 64 of the Act, 1959. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has also filed statement of objections contending that the scheme was primarily to be meant for the farmers in Karnataka and therefore, the petitioners could not have abused their position by trying to procure milk from the villages of border States through an agent. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 contends that this action on the part of the petitioners was clearly violative of the scheme and a deprival of the benefit to the farmers of the State of Karnataka. Besides this, he contends that the petitioners have brought in fictitious societies to part with the funds meant for the farmers in the State of Karnataka and these facts have been clearly unearthed by the respondent No.4 in his report and the respondent No.3 has - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS rightly taken steps to conduct an enquiry under Section 64 of the Act, 1959. 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate as well as the learned counsel for the private respondent and learned counsel for respondent No.5. 12. In order to appreciate the threshold contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.207718/2017, 207719/2017 and 207720/2017, it is appropriate to advert to Section 64 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act and the same is extracted below:- "64. Inquiry by Registrar.- (1) The Registrar may, of his own motion, by himself or by a person authorized by him, by order in writing, hold an inquiry into any matter specified in the order touching the constitution, working and financial condition of a co- operative society. (2) An inquiry of the nature referred to in sub- section (1) shall be held on the application of,— (a) a co-operative society to which the society concerned is affiliated; - 36 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS (b) a majority of the members of the board of the society; or (c) not less than one-third of the total number of members of the society. (2-A) An inquiry under sub-section (1) shall be completed within a period of twelve months which may, however be extended by the Registrar for the reasons to be recorded in writing, for a further period of six months Provided that the State Government shall, on a report made by the Registrar, shall have power to extend the period for holding the enquiry beyond eighteen months if it is satisfied that, there are genuine grounds for the extension. (3) The Registrar, or the person authorized by him under sub-section (1) shall, for the purposes of an inquiry under this section have the following powers, namely:— (a) he shall, at all times, have free access to the books of accounts, documents, securities, cash and other properties belonging to or in the custody of the society and may summon any person in possession or responsible for the custody of any such books, accounts, documents, securities, cash or other properties to produce the same at any public office, at - 37 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof; (b) the Inquiry Officer may also summon any officer of a financing bank or a credit agency as the case may be or any person having any kind of business relationship with the society or any person who is connected with the functioning of and who has knowledge about the affairs of the society to produce any records or documents, if any, related to the transactions with and working of the society and furnish such information and the explanations, at the registered office or branch of the society or at any public office at the headquarters of the society, as the Inquiry Officer may require for the purpose of the inquiry. (c)(i) he may, notwithstanding any rule or bye- law specifying the period of notice for a general meeting of the society, require the office bearers of the society to call a general meeting at such time and place at the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof and to determine such matters as may be directed by him, and where the office bearers of the society refuse or fail to call such a meeting he shall have power to call it himself; (ii) any meeting called under clause (i) shall have the powers of the general meeting called under - 38 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS the bye-laws of the society and its proceeding shall be regulated by such bye-laws except that no quorum shall be necessary for such meeting. (4) When an inquiry is made under this section, the Registrar shall send a copy of the inquiry report and communicate the result of the inquiry to the society and to the co-operative society, if any, to which that society is affiliated and also to the Director of Co-operative Audit. (4-A) On receipt of the inquiry report and the result of the inquiry from the Registrar, it shall be the responsibility of the board to initiate immediate necessary action for rectification of deficits, if any, therein and place the report before the annual general meeting or a special general meeting convened for the purpose at the earliest. Provided that the general body of the co- operative society shall not be competent to pass a resolution negativing the findings of the inquiry. (5) If the result of the inquiry held under sub- section (1) discloses any defects in the working of the society, the society shall within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of the inquiry report and communication of the result of the inquiry explain to the Registrar the defects or the irregularities pointed out in the inquiry and take steps to rectify the defects - 39 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS and remedy the irregularities and report to the Registrar the action taken by it thereon. The Registrar may also make an order directing the society or its office-bearers to take such action, as may be specified in the order to remedy the defects within the time specified therein." 13. The opening words of Section 64 of the Act, 1959, provides that the Registrar may on his own motion, hold an enquiry either by himself or through a person authorized by him into any matter specified in the order touching upon the constitution, working and financial condition of a co-operative society. 14. Section 64(2) of the Act, 1959 provides that enquiry of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) shall be held on the application of a co-operative society to which society concerned is affiliated, a majority of the members of the board of society or not less than 1/3rd of the total number of members of the society. 15. In the instant case, the complaint was filed by a President of Kannalli Milk Producers Co-operative Society. No doubt, the enquiry initiated by the respondent No.3 is not at - 40 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS the behest of the entities mentioned in Section 64(2) of the Act, 1959. However, the complaint lodged by the President of Kannalli Milk Producers Co-operative Society and the complaint lodged by Hanumantha Rao Uppina of Chittapura Taluk before the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State were escalated, which resulted in a directive to the respondent No.3 to conduct an enquiry in accordance with law. The respondent No.3 appears to have applied his mind before considering an enquiry necessary into the affairs of the respondent No.5. In similar circumstances, the question whether the Registrar of a society is entitled to exercise suo motu power based on the information received by him, the Full Bench of this Court in Bangalore Grain Merchants Association vs. District Registrar for Societies, Bangalore and another [2001 (1) KCCR 292] had held that the Registrar is entitled to exercise suo motu power based on information. However, such exercise should be independent and should not be driven by any other consideration. In the case on hand, the respondent No.3 has considered the need for an enquiry in view of the allegations made against the respondent No.5 about conspiring with middlemen to procure milk from villages in the border States of - 41 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS Karnataka and thereby, depriving the farmers of Karnataka from the incentive declared by the State Government. Respondent No.3, prior to exercising his power under Section 64(1) of the Act, 1959 has carefully looked into the allegations and has rightly concluded that the enquiry is needed into the affairs of respondent No.5. Therefore, the exercise of power by the respondent No.3 can be traced to Section 64(1) of the Act, 1959. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.207718/2017, 207719/2017 and 207720/2017 that the respondent No.3 did not have the power to institute an enquiry, is liable to be rejected. 16. In so far as the contention that the respondent No.3 was also one of the members of District Level Implementation Committee to implement the policy of the State Government and that he could not have instituted an enquiry under Section 64 of the Act of 1959, it is necessary to note that the respondent No.3 did not exercise power as the member of the District Implementation Committee but as a statutory authority under Section 64 of the Act of 1959. Consequently, the - 42 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS contention that the respondent No.3 could not have exercised the power, also is liable to be rejected. 17. In so far as contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.204887/2019, 204888/2019 and 204889/2019 that there were resolutions authorizing the respondent No.5 to procure milk from the villages in the border States, those resolutions were prior to the State Government issuing notification dated 31.01.2013. Once the State Government had issued a notification granting approval for increase of price as incentives to the farmers in the State, the respondent No.5 could not fall back upon its earlier policy to procure milk from the villages in the border States so as to meet the deficit in the supply of milk. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the policy, which was in force in the respondent No.5, was continued even after the Government Order dated 31.01.2013, cannot be accepted. The conduct of the respondent No.5 in procuring milk in the names of three entities, which did not exist and the conduct of respondent No.5 in procuring milk at its chilling unit directly through an agent without involving any - 43 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1553 WP No. 207718 of 2017 C/W WP No. 207719 of 2017 WP No. 207720 of 2017 AND 3 OTHERS Milk Producers' Society and thereby parting with the incentives amount with the agent, was indeed a mockery of the system, which was meant to grant financial benefit to the farmers in the State Government. Therefore, the respondent No.3 was justified in instituting an enquiry and also in accepting the report submitted by the enquiry officer that all the petitioners were complicit in enabling the procurement of milk from the villages in the border States through an agent and through non-existing entities. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 directing the recovery of the incentive amounts is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 18. Hence, all these petitions are dismissed. 19. In view of dismissal of these petitions, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE THM - para 1 to 11 PMR - para 12 to end