Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 35777 (KAR)

SRI. C. RAVINDRA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/36166/2024 · 2025-02-04

K S Hemalekha

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5043 WP No. 36166 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 36166 OF 2024 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. C. RAVINDRA, S/O. LATE CHIKKANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT KAPPASOGE VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 314. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MADHU E K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MYSORE DIVISION, MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 001. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5043 WP No. 36166 of 2024 4. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, NALLITALAPURA PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, AND CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 314. 5. THE NALLITALAPURA PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, CHANDRAVADI VILLAGE, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSURE DISTRICT - 570 001. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, REGISTER UNDER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT. 6. SRI. H. M. KENDAGANNAPPA S/O. LATE C. MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 314. 7. SRI. KUSEGOWDA S/O. LATE DODDAKEMPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT RAJOOR VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 314. 8. SRI. VEERABHADRAPPA S/O. LATE KENDAGANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5043 WP No. 36166 of 2024 NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 314. 9. SMT. MALLIGAMMA, W/O. LATE BHUJANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 314. 10. SRI. CHIKKAVENKATASHETTY S/O. VENKATASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT IBAJALA VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 314. 11. SRI. HANUMESH, S/O. HANUMASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT BASAPURA VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 314. 12. SMT. SUDHAMANI, W/O. MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT KADABURU VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 314. 13. SRI. RAMADASAIAH, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5043 WP No. 36166 of 2024 S/O. LATE HUCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT KATURU VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 314. 14. SRI. SHIVAIAH, S/O. LATE CHIKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/AT NALLITALAPURA VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 314. 15. SRI. K. RAJU, S/O. LATE KARI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/AT HUCHAGANAIGA VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 314. 16. SRI. THIMMANAYAKA S/O. MARINAYAKA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/AT KAPPASOGE VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 314. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SIDHARTH BABU RAO., AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 05.04.2024 PASSED BY - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5043 WP No. 36166 of 2024 THE HONBLE KARNATAKA APPELLANT TRIBUNAL AT ANNX-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. The respondent No.6 approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) in Appeal No. 75/2024, challenging the order passed by the respondent No.3, wherein the impugned order stayed the operation and execution of the order passed by the respondent No.1 in dispute raised by the petitioner. 4. The nine Directors of the Board of the society had sought for removal of the President-petitioner herein through "No Confidence Motion" as stipulated under Section 29H of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (KCS) - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5043 WP No. 36166 of 2024 1959 and the same was informed to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (ARCS), pursuant to which the ARCS appointed one K. Prabhakar as Co-operative Development Officer to conduct meeting of No Confidence Motion against the petitioner. The No Confidence Motion was success against the petitioner. Subsequently, calendar of events announcing the election and on 15.02.2023, respondent No.6 was elected unanimously as President of the society. 5. The petitioner raised a dispute challenging the No Confidence Motion and the ARCS allowed the dispute. Aggrieved thereby the respondent No.6 filed an appeal before the Tribunal along with IA seeking stay of the order passed by the ARCS. The petitioner filed objections to the application. The Tribunal on hearing both sides passed an order staying the operation of the order passed by the ARCS. 6. Perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-A indicates that the Tribunal on hearing and considering the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5043 WP No. 36166 of 2024 material on record and having found a prima facie case stayed the impugned order. Pursuant to the 'No Confidence Motion' issued against the petitioner who was the President, elections were held and the respondent No.6 was elected as President unanimously. If the order of the ARCS is not stayed pending the appeal before the Tribunal irreparable loss would be caused to respondent No.6. The Tribunal which is the appellate authority is empowered to pass interim order, whether the No Confidence Motion meeting is in violation of the rules or not, is yet to be adjudicated before the Tribunal and in the circumstance impugned order of stay passed by the Tribunal on hearing both sides does not warrant any interference. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1