- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:507 WP No. 4732 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.4732 OF 2020 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: M B JAGADEESH S/O LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS ACTING SECRETARY MADAGONDANAHALLI MPCS LIMITED, MADAGONDANAHALLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK-561203 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA N.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF CO OPERATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, 6TH FLOOR, 3RD GATE, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPUR-561203. BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:507 WP No. 4732 of 2020 3. MADAGONDANAHALLI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OEPRATIVE SOCIETIES LTD MADAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-561203 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/SECRETARY. 4. MUTHURAYAPPA S/O LAT DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 5. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 6. T.HANUMANTHA RAJU S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 7. LAKSHMAMMA W/O CHENNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R4 TO R7 ARE MEMBERS OF MADAGONDANAHALLI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD MADAGONDANAHALLU VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-561203. 8. N.NAGARAJ EX-PRESIDENT, MADAGONDANAHALLI MILK - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:507 WP No. 4732 of 2020 PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD MADAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-561203. 9. M.R.ANJANEYA S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS EX-DIRECTOR 10. KEMPEGOWDA S/O LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS EX-DIRECTOR 11. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS EX-DIRECTOR. 12. SMT. AMBUJAMMA S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS EX-DIRECTOR. 13. CHUNCHEGOWDA S/O LATE VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS EX-DIRECTOR. 14. CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS EX-DIRECTOR - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:507 WP No. 4732 of 2020 15. JAYARAMAIAH S/O LATE ANJUNAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS EX-DIRECTOR. 16. MUNIBYLAPPA S/O LATE KICHABALAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS EX-DIRECTOR 17. RAMAIAH S/O LATE MUNISHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS NOW PRESIDENT ALL ARE EX-DIRECTORS OF MADAGONDANAHALLI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD, MADAGONDANAHALLU VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-561203. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDHARTH BABU RAO, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. S A KHADRI, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R13, R14, R16; VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2022 NOTICE TO R6 HELD SUFFICIENT; VIDE ORDER DATED 18.12.2023 NOTICE TO R8 & R10 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; R3, R5, R7, R9, R11, R12, R15 & R17 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.1.2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPEAL NO.265/2017 VIDE ANNX-L. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:507 WP No. 4732 of 2020 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER Petitioner has called in question the Order dated 17.01.2020 [Annexure-L] in Appeal No.265/2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru [hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short], whereby, the Order passed by the respondent No.2 - Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies [ARCS] was set aside. 2. Brief facts are: The respondent No.3 is a Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 [KCS Act 1959]. The object of the Society is to procure milk from its Members and supply it to the Milk Union. The respondent Nos.4, 7 and 17 are Members and the respondent Nos.8 to 16 are ex-Directors of the respondent No.3-Society. The petitioner was appointed as a Milk Tester by the third respondent-Madagondanahalli - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:507 WP No. 4732 of 2020 Milk Producers Cooperative Societies Limited [hereinafter referred to as Society] under a Resolution dated 16.04.1987. Due to the resignation of the then Secretary of the Management of the Society passed a Resolution dated 10.12.2011 to promote the petitioner to the post of Chief Executive Officer [Incharge]. Pursuant to the Resolution, the promotion of the petitioner was confirmed as temporary Chief Executive Officer under the Resolution dated 10.04.2012. The respondent No.2-ARCS permitted the petitioner to operate the savings bank account of the Society jointly along with the President. Further, in accordance with the requirements for the Permanent Secretary as per Section 29 G of the KCS Act, 1959 on 04.01.2013, the society passed a Resolution permitting the petitioner to the permanent post of Secretary and accordingly the petitioner was promoted to the post of Secretary and the position of the Milk Tester which was vacant was subsequently filled up by one Sri Keshavamurthy. When the facts stood thus, respondent Nos.4 to 7 and 17 who are Members of the respondent - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:507 WP No. 4732 of 2020 No.3-Society raised a dispute questioning the validity of the Resolution dated 10.04.2012 under Dispute No.1/2012-13. On contest, the dispute was dismissed, holding that the petitioner's promotion was in accordance with law and the society further confirmed the petitioner's promotion to the post of Secretary on 31.12.2017. 3. The respondent Nos.4 to 7 and 17 dissatisfied with the dismissal of the dispute preferred appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal(‘Tribunal’ for short) in Appeal No.265/2017, the Tribunal by the impugned order set aside the order of the respondent No.2 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court in this petition. 4. Heard learned counsels on both sides and perused the material on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Tribunal setting aside the order of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:507 WP No. 4732 of 2020 the respondent No.2-ARCS is contrary to the material on record and arbitrary when the respondent No.2 has already validated the promotion of the petitioner. The Tribunal has failed to consider that the persons who have challenged the order of promotion are not the aggrieved persons and the challenge of promotion by the respondent Nos.4, 7 and 17 is without any locus standi as the promotion does not have direct effect on the said respondents. 6. Counsel for the respondents justifies the order passed by the Tribunal and submits that the same warrants no interference. 7. The questions that fall for consideration before this Court are, [i] Whether the promotion to the post of secretary by a resolution of the Board of Cooperative society can be challenged by the members of the society who are not the aggrieved party? - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:507 WP No. 4732 of 2020 [ii] Whether the order of the Tribunal is in disregard to the petitioner's experience and technical qualification prescribed under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Rules, 1960 [KCS Rules] is justified? [iii] Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference in the present facts and circumstances of this case? 8. Point No.1: Only a person who is directly affected or aggrieved by the decision, i.e., an eligible candidate overlooked for promotion can challenge the resolution. The members-respondent Nos.4 to 7 and 17 have not made any grounds that the decision of promotion of the petitioner affects larger interest of the society or violates any statutory provisions. The said respondents have failed to demonstrate that the decision of the Board is illegal or contrary to the byelaws or statutory provisions. The said proposition has been addressed by the Apex - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:507 WP No. 4732 of 2020 Court in the case of A. Janardhana Vs. Union of India1 held that an aggrieved person, whose rights are directly affected by the decision, has the locus standi to challenge it. Mere membership in an organization does not grant a general right to question administrative decisions unless they affect the member’s personal or legal interests. The Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa2 emphasized that interference in administrative matters by non-aggrieved parties should be avoided unless there is an allegation of illegality, malafide intent, or a breach of statutory rules. Point No.1 is answered accordingly, holding that the members have no locus standi to challenge the promotion when they failed to establish they are the aggrieved party. 9. Point Nos.2and 3: The Tribunal's reasoning to set aside the order of respondent No.2 is by placing reliance on Rule-17 of the KCS Rules which is totally misplaced and invalid for the reason that though the Rules 1 AIR 1983 SC 769 2 (2007) 14 SCC 7 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:507 WP No. 4732 of 2020 specify certain qualification for appointment of the Secretary, the petitioner's promotion is based on his long standing experience of 25 years as Milk Tester and competence, moreover, the promotion of the petitioner is in the year 2012 and Rule-17 of the KCS Rules, 1960 came into effect only in the year 2017 and this Rule cannot be made applicable to the present facts which was totally overlooked by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. The decision of the Society by way of Resolution to promote the petitioner was in line with considering all the necessary qualifications. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal in setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.2 warrants interference, as the Tribunal has totally fell in error in setting aside the order of the respondent No.2 and for the said reasons, the point Nos.2 and 3 are answered accordingly and this Court pass the following: ORDER - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:507 WP No. 4732 of 2020 [a] Writ petition is allowed. [b] The impugned order passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No.265/2017 dated 17.01.2020 [Annexure-L] is hereby set aside. [c] The order passed by the respondent No.2-ARCS stands confirmed. Sd/- (JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA) AN/-