Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28884 (KAR)

SRI G M PRASANNA KUMAR v. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

WP/18628/2024 · 2025-01-31

K S Hemalekha

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4746 WP No. 18628 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 18628 OF 2024 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI G.M. PRASANNA KUMAR S/O MAHALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, GUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK- 572227. TUMKURUR DISTRICT. 2. SRI. K.M. NAGARAJU S/O LATE MAYANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS KOLLALA THANDAGA POST, DABBEGATTA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK-572227 TUMKUR DISTRICT. 3. SRI. D. YOGESH S/O LATE T.S.DANEE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT TAVAREKERE, KASABA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK- 572227. TUMKURU DISTRICT. 4. SRI. HEMACHANDRA.R S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, AREMALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, DABBEGHATTA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUKU, TURUVEKERE TALUK- 572227. TUMKURU DISTRICT Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4746 WP No. 18628 of 2024 5. SRI. VENKATARAMAIAH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS VITTALA DEVARA HALLI, TANDAGA POST, DABBEGATTA HOBLI, TURVEKERE TURUVEKERE TALUK-572227 TUMKURU DISTRICT. 6. SRI. S. PRASANNA KUMAR, S/O SHIVALINGAIAH.S AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE AND POST, DABBEGATTA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK-572227. TUMKURUR DISTRICT 7. SMT. INDRAMMA W/O LAKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, MALLAGATTA VILLAGE ARKERE POST, KASABA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK- 572227. TUMKURUR DISTRICT, 8. SRI. E.SHEKARAIAH S/O LATE ERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, NEERAGUNDA VILLAGE, DABBEGATTA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK-572227. TUMKURUR DISTRICT. THE PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 8 ARE ALL THE DIRECTORS OF TURVEKERE TALUK PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AND AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED, TURUVEKERE-572227. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANANDEESWARA D.R., ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4746 WP No. 18628 of 2024 AND: 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TURUVEKERE TALUK PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AND AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, TURVEKERE TUMKURU DISTRICT-572227 4. THE PRESIDENT TURVEKERE TALUK, PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AND AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, TURVEKERE, TUMKURU DISTRICT- 572227. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 AND R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO CALL FOR THE MEETING FOR NO CONFIDENCE MOTION AS PER THE RULE 14 OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES, 1960. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4746 WP No. 18628 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to call for the meeting for No Confidence Motion as per the Rule 14 of the Karnataka Co- Operative Societies Rules, 1960 (‘the Rules’ for short). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have an absolute majority, i.e., more than 1/3rd of directors have an intention to move a no-confidence motion against respondent No.3 and the same has been intimated to respondent No.2- society for conducting the meeting, as no action has been taken by respondent No.2-society, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Calling the meeting for the ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the particular person is based on the governing rules or byelaws of respondent No.2-society. There is a procedure to be followed for conducting the meeting even assuming that the petitioners have sought a - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4746 WP No. 18628 of 2024 No Confidence Motion, it is for respondent No.2 to take the call and arrange the meeting if the statutory requirements/provisions that govern the process have been complied with. 4. The petition seeking direction to conduct a meeting for No Confidence Motion is not amenable for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/- _______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1