- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9572 WP No. 30255 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 30255 OF 2024 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI C VISHWANATH S/O CHANNABASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. SMT. CHANNAJAMMA W/O BASAVANAYAK AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 3. SRI. V S VISHWAS S/O SIDDANAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 4. SRI. V N SRIKANTASWAMY S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 5. SRI. VRUSHABENDRA S/O SHIVAMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 6. SRI. MUDDAPPA @ MAHESH S/O SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 7. SRI. GANGADHARA SWAMY S/O SHANTHAMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 8. SMT. GAVIYAMMANI W/O PUTTAVERAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 9. SMT. BASAMANNAMMA W/O P DEVAPPA Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9572 WP No. 30255 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ALL ARE ELECTED DIRECTORS OF BOMMALAPURA PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATHINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA BOMMALAPURA-571111 GUNDLEPETE TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAI PRAKASH REDDY M.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, MS BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES CHAMARAJANAGARA SUB DIVISION, CHAMARAJANAGARA CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571313 3. BOMMALAPURA PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATHINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA BOMMALAPURA-571111 GUNDLEPETE TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK., AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. A.C. BALARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT QUASHING THE ORDERS DATED 16.10.2024 IN NO. KR.SAN.AR- 42/KALAM29C/03/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C/04/2024- 25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C/06/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR- 42/KALAM29C/04/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C/07/2024- 25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C/08/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR- 42/KALAM29C/05/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C/10/2024- - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9572 WP No. 30255 of 2024 25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C/09/2024-25 VIDE ANNX-H TO H8 PASSED BY R-2 AND ETC. THIS WRIT 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: i. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the orders dated 16.10.2024 in NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/ KALAM29C /03/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/ KALAM29C /04/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/ KALAM29C /06/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/ KALAM29C /04/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/ KALAM29C /07/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42 /KALAM29C /08/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/ KALAM29C /05/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/ KALAM29C /10/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/ KALAM29C /09/2024-25 vide Annexures H to H8 passed by Respondent No.2. ii. Pass such other orders as may be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice and equity. 2. The petitioners were members of the Managing Committee of respondent No.3-Society elected on 22.12.2023. In pursuance of the instruction issued by the NABARD, the petitioners had appointed one Sri.Mahadevappa S/o Sri.Shivabasappa as a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9572 WP No. 30255 of 2024 Computer Engineer in pursuance of the resolution passed on 31.1.2024 at a consolidated salary of Rs.2,000/- per month. There being a complaint which had been lodged against the petitioners for violation of the bye-laws on the ground that the procedure for appointment of any personnel or the Society has not been followed and furthermore that the person who had been appointed was not qualified as also was above the age upper age limit being 40 years of age. 3. Proceedings were taken up, individual notices came to be issued under Section 29 (C) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 on 03.09.2024. Enquiry was held, reply having been submitted by the petitioners that the appointment was only in the interest of Society and for digitizing and computerizing the Society was not accepted and orders were passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 16.10.2024, disqualifying the petitioner. It is challenging the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9572 WP No. 30255 of 2024 same, that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 4. When the matter had come up before this Court on 12.11.2024, the said orders were stayed and the said interim order has been continued. 5. Sri. Sri.Jai Prakash Reddy.M., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that; 5.1. There is no benefit which the petitioners have derived from the said appointment inasmuch as it is on the instructions of NABARD that the computer operator was appointed at a monthly consolidated salary of Rs.2,000/-. 5.2. There is no allegation made against the petitioners that they have derived any financial benefit or otherwise. The only allegation made against them is that they had appointed a person who was overage and was not completely qualified. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9572 WP No. 30255 of 2024 5.3. The petitioners bona fide believed the said person to be qualified and were not aware of the age limit and as such appointed him. 5.4. He submits that this aspect when submitted to the respondent No.2 has not been considered. If at all, the appointment could have been cancelled disqualification could not have resulted in pursuance of show cause notice issued under Section 29(C). 6. Both learned AGA and the counsel appearing for the Society would however support the order of the respondent No.2 by contending that there is a violation of the applicable Rules inasmuch as the appointment procedure has not been followed and a person who is more than 40 years age had been appointed and as such, they submit that the above petition is required to be dismissed. 7. Heard Sri.Jai Prakash Reddy.M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Yogesh D.Naik., learned AGA appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9572 WP No. 30255 of 2024 and Sri.A.C.Balaraj., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. Perused papers. 8. The order passed under Section 29(C) is appealable under Section 106 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. But, however, the above petition has been pending before this Court for some time now and relegating the petitioner to the appellate remedy at this stage, in my considered opinion would not be in the interest of justice. 9. Moreso, when the facts indicate that an appointment had been made by the petitioner as a computer operator at consolidated salary of Rs.2,000/- per month, as regards which there is no financial irregularity which has been alleged against the petitioner, as regards the qualification of the said person. The Assistant Register ought to have taken those factors into account and verified whether the person had been qualified or not. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9572 WP No. 30255 of 2024 10. Be that as it may, the person appointed by the petitioner was overaged as on the date of the appointment and could not have been appointed. 11. In that view of the matter, it could have also been for the Assistant Registrar to have cancelled the appointment and matter proceeded with by reprimanding the petitioners and instructing them to follow the applicable law. 12. Taking into consideration, the peculiarity of the facts where there is no allegation of financial irregularity but the procedure not having been followed by the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that a Special Officer have already been appointed the term likely to come to an end in the near future, it would be required for elections to be held. 13. The actions on part of the petitioners in this particular situation, in my considered opinion would not require the application of the rigor of Sub-clause (C) of Section 29 disqualifying them. As such, I pass the following; - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9572 WP No. 30255 of 2024 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. A certiorari is issued, the order dated 16.10.2024 at NO.KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C /03/2024-25, NO.KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C /04/2024-25, NO.KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C /06/2024-25, NO.KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C /04/2024-25, NO.KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C /07/2024-25, NO.KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C /08/2024-25, NO.KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C /05/2024-25, NO.KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C /10/2024-25, NO.KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C /09/2024-25 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexures-H to H8 are quashed. iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to hold fresh elections to respondent No.3-Society at the earliest. iv. Needless to say, the petitioners would be entitled to contest in the said election. v. In view of disposal of the main petition, pending IA's does not survive for consideration. Hence, IA stands disposed of. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21