- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13145 WP No. 7832 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 7832 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. BOLA VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA, BOLA VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 110. REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. 2. BOLA VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA, BOLA VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 110. REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (PETITIONER SOCIETY IS REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KUNDAPURA SUB DIVISION, KUNDAPURA-576 201, UDUPI DISTRICT. 2. SURYAKANTH SHETTY, S/O LATE GOPAL SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, GURUKRUPA NILAYA, BOLA VYAVASAYA SEVA AAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMIHA, BOLA VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 110. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13145 WP No. 7832 of 2025 (BY SRI RAKSHITH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-2 [CP 3727/2025]; SRI YOGESH D NAIK, AGA FOR R-1) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTCILES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO I) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15/03/2024 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO 1 IN DISPUTE NO 905/2023-2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F, II) QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO 81/2024 DATED 01/02/2024 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.03.2024 passed by respondent no.1 in dispute No. 905/2023-2024 produced at Annexure-F. b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 81/2024 dated 01.02.2024 produced as Annexure-H. c) Grant such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and Circumstances of the case including cost of the proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. A vacancy having been created on account of the death of one of the members, a meeting was fixed on 27.03.2023 to co-opt another member as a Director in his place. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13145 WP No. 7832 of 2025 3. The said meeting was attended by thirteen Directors, eleven of whom were elected Directors, two of whom were professional Directors. There being totally fourteen Directors to the said society (twelve elected and two professional), when the resolution relating to coopting Sri Sunder Nalkera as a Director in the place of deceased Sri Gopal was put to vote, six of the elected Directors opposed the resolution. Five of the elected Directors were in favour of the resolution, two professional Directors voted along with the five Directors who were in favour of the resolution. 4. This resolution came to be challenged by respondent No.2 by filing a dispute under Section 70(2) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘KCS’ Act). In the said proceedings an interim order has been granted. The petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.3518/2024, this Court vide order dated 06.02.2024, held that the writ petition is not - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13145 WP No. 7832 of 2025 maintainable and directed the parties to appear before the Authority on 13.02.2024 at 3.00 p.m., and thereafter Authority shall pass appropriate orders. 5. The dispute has been taken up, the ARCS vide his order dated 15.03.2024 allowed the dispute and set aside the resolution. The petitioner/Society took up the same in appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.81/2024 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 01.02.2025. Challenging the said orders, petitioners are before this Court. 6. The submission of Sri Deviprasad Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the professional Directors being authorized to participate in the meeting of the Management Committee of the governing body would be entitled to vote at the said meeting. If they are not allowed to vote, there would be no purpose served by them attending the meeting and in this regard he relies upon bye-law - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13145 WP No. 7832 of 2025 40(2) and 40(3), which has been produced at Annexure-A, page 15 which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “40(2) DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ¥ÀzÀ¤«ÄvÀÛ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÁV ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ªÀÄÄRå 40(2) DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ¥ÀzÀ¤«ÄvÀÛ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÁV ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ªÀÄÄRå 40(2) DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ¥ÀzÀ¤«ÄvÀÛ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÁV ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ªÀÄÄRå 40(2) DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ¥ÀzÀ¤«ÄvÀÛ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÁV ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄ𠤪ÀðºÀuÁ¢üPÁj EªÀjUÉ ¥ÀzÁ¢üPÁj ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀ PÁAiÀÄ𠤪ÀðºÀuÁ¢üPÁj EªÀjUÉ ¥ÀzÁ¢üPÁj ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀ PÁAiÀÄ𠤪ÀðºÀuÁ¢üPÁj EªÀjUÉ ¥ÀzÁ¢üPÁj ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀ PÁAiÀÄ𠤪ÀðºÀuÁ¢üPÁj EªÀjUÉ ¥ÀzÁ¢üPÁj ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀ ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Àà¢üð¸ÀĪÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀgÉ EvÀgÀ ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Àà¢üð¸ÀĪÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀgÉ EvÀgÀ ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Àà¢üð¸ÀĪÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀgÉ EvÀgÀ ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Àà¢üð¸ÀĪÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀgÉ EvÀgÀ ¤tðAiÀÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄvÀzÁ£ÀzÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¤tðAiÀÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄvÀzÁ£ÀzÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¤tðAiÀÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄvÀzÁ£ÀzÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¤tðAiÀÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄvÀzÁ£ÀzÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. 40(3) ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀ ¥Àæw¤¢üUÀ¼À eÉÆvÉUÉ DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ 40(3) ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀ ¥Àæw¤¢üUÀ¼À eÉÆvÉUÉ DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ 40(3) ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀ ¥Àæw¤¢üUÀ¼À eÉÆvÉUÉ DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ 40(3) ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀ ¥Àæw¤¢üUÀ¼À eÉÆvÉUÉ DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ EaѹzÀ°è E§âgÀ£ÀÄß «±ÉõÀ DºÁé¤vÀgÀ£ÁßV ¸ÀºÀªÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ EaѹzÀ°è E§âgÀ£ÀÄß «±ÉõÀ DºÁé¤vÀgÀ£ÁßV ¸ÀºÀªÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ EaѹzÀ°è E§âgÀ£ÀÄß «±ÉõÀ DºÁé¤vÀgÀ£ÁßV ¸ÀºÀªÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ EaѹzÀ°è E§âgÀ£ÀÄß «±ÉõÀ DºÁé¤vÀgÀ£ÁßV ¸ÀºÀªÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÉÃj¹PÉƼÀÀÄzÀÄ. ºÁUÉ DºÁ餹zÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÁåAQAUï ¸ÉÃj¹PÉƼÀÀÄzÀÄ. ºÁUÉ DºÁ餹zÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÁåAQAUï ¸ÉÃj¹PÉƼÀÀÄzÀÄ. ºÁUÉ DºÁ餹zÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÁåAQAUï ¸ÉÃj¹PÉƼÀÀÄzÀÄ. ºÁUÉ DºÁ餹zÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÁåAQAUï ºÀtPÁ¹£ ºÀtPÁ¹£ ºÀtPÁ¹£ ºÀtPÁ¹£À G¢ÝªÉÄ, PÀȶ CxÀªÁ ªÀiÁå£ÉÃeï À G¢ÝªÉÄ, PÀȶ CxÀªÁ ªÀiÁå£ÉÃeï À G¢ÝªÉÄ, PÀȶ CxÀªÁ ªÀiÁå£ÉÃeï À G¢ÝªÉÄ, PÀȶ CxÀªÁ ªÀiÁå£ÉÃeïªÉÄAn£À°è «±ÉõÀ ªÉÄAn£À°è «±ÉõÀ ªÉÄAn£À°è «±ÉõÀ ªÉÄAn£À°è «±ÉõÀ ¥ÀjtÂw ¥ÀqÉzÀªÀgÀÄ DVgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. DzÀgÉ EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¥ÀjtÂw ¥ÀqÉzÀªÀgÀÄ DVgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. DzÀgÉ EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¥ÀjtÂw ¥ÀqÉzÀªÀgÀÄ DVgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. DzÀgÉ EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¥ÀjtÂw ¥ÀqÉzÀªÀgÀÄ DVgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. DzÀgÉ EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¥ÀzÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁUÀ®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ¥ÀzÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁUÀ®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ¥ÀzÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁUÀ®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ¥ÀzÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁUÀ®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀĪÀAw®è ºÁUÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ D PÉÆÃgÀA£À ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀĪÀAw®è ºÁUÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ D PÉÆÃgÀA£À ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀĪÀAw®è ºÁUÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ D PÉÆÃgÀA£À ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀĪÀAw®è ºÁUÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ D PÉÆÃgÀA£À ¨sÁUÀªÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀgÉ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ¨sÁUÀªÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀgÉ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ¨sÁUÀªÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀgÉ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ¨sÁUÀªÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀgÉ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀzÁ£ÀzÀ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀzÁ£ÀzÀ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀzÁ£ÀzÀ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀzÁ£ÀzÀ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. “ 7. By relying on bye-law 40(3), he submits that both the participation and voting being permitted in the meeting, the professional Directors would have right to vote and their vote ought to have been taken into consideration by both ARCS and KAT which has not been done resulting in impugned order being passed. 8. Sri Rakshith Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 firstly would dispute the bye-law contending that there is amendment to the bye-law wherein - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13145 WP No. 7832 of 2025 common bye-laws have been adopted, there is specific embargo on professional Directors voting in any election as per bye-law 41(10) which has been produced at Annexure-R2, page 53 which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference. “¸ÀºÀªÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÉÃj¹PÉÆAqÀ ªÀÈwÛ¥ÀgÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀºÀªÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÉÃj¹PÉÆAqÀ ªÀÈwÛ¥ÀgÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀºÀªÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÉÃj¹PÉÆAqÀ ªÀÈwÛ¥ÀgÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀºÀªÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÉÃj¹PÉÆAqÀ ªÀÈwÛ¥ÀgÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀzÁ£À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀzÁ£À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀzÁ£À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀzÁ£À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è CxÀªÁ ¢gÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è CxÀªÁ ¢gÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è CxÀªÁ ¢gÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è CxÀªÁ ªÀÄAqÀ°AiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ°AiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ°AiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ°AiÀÄ ¥ÀzÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁV ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀgÁUÀ®Ä ¥ÀzÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁV ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀgÁUÀ®Ä ¥ÀzÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁV ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀgÁUÀ®Ä ¥ÀzÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁV ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀgÁUÀ®Ä CºÀðgÁVgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è. CºÀðgÁVgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è. CºÀðgÁVgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è. CºÀðgÁVgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è.” 9. His submission is that in view of amendment to the bye-law and in view of adoption of common bye-laws and in turn common bye-law having an embargo on the professional Directors for voting in the meeting, they could not have voted and their vote not considered for the purpose of co-opting Directors which has been rightly considered by the ARCS & KAT. 10. Heard Sri Deviprasad Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Yogesh D Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13145 WP No. 7832 of 2025 Rakshith Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the materials placed on record. 11. Though there is a dispute as regards the bye-laws which is applicable, Sri Deviprasad Shetty relying on bye-law 40(3) permitting the professional Directors to attend the meeting, Sri Rakshith Kumar relying on bye-law No.41(10) to contend that there is an embargo on the professional Directors to vote at the meeting, even if the submission of Sri Deviprasad Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, a perusal of bye-law 40(3) would indicate that the professional Directors would not have any right to vote at an election of a Director, the presence of the Professional Director would be taken into consideration for calculation of the quorum and there is a provision made for the professional Directors to vote at the meeting. The co-opting of a Director needless to say would be one virtually electing a Director inasmuch as it is on account of death of Sri - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13145 WP No. 7832 of 2025 Gopal who was a Director thus Sri Sunder Nalkera was proposed to be co-opted and by way of resolution which is alleged to have been carried by majority he was co-opted as the fourteenth Director. 12. There being a restriction for the professional Director to vote at the election of the Management Committee the cooption as referred to supra would also amount to an election of a Director for the society. The reason for the embargo is not far to see inasmuch as it is twelve Directors who are democratically elected who would have the right to co-opt a Director. The two professional Directors have been appointed by the Management Committee, not having been democratically elected who ought not to have a right to vote on a resolution for co-opting a Director. 13. This aspect having been considered in that particular perspective by the ARCS and the KAT, the ARCS and KAT have considered all necessary aspects, I do not - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13145 WP No. 7832 of 2025 find any infirmity in the said orders or the reasons as stated by the ARCS and KAT as considered supra. 14. No grounds have been made out, the petition stands dismissed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE MR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14