- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13615 WP No. 107331 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 107331 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M) BETWEEN: RUKMANNA, S/O SHANKAR JUNJAWADKAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KHAIRWAD VILLAGE, POST. BEKWAD, TQ. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI - 590001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. F.V. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-ORPORATION, M.S. BUILDING, 6TH FLOOR, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ALI ASGKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560052. 3. THE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSIONER, 3RD FLOOR, TTMC A BLOCK, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027. 4. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THE OFFICE OF DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, 1ST FLOOR, CO-OPERATIVE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, OPPOSITE KHB HERITAGE, JAKKERI HONDA, BELAGAVI - 590001. Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13615 WP No. 107331 of 2025 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT, BELAGAVI - 590001. 6. THE RETURNING OFFICER AND CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KHANAPUR, THE KHANAPUR TALUKA, VAKKALUTANA HUTTUVALI, MARATA SAHAKARI SANGHA, NANDGAD, TQ. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. 7. THE KHANAPUR TALUKA VAKKULATANA HUTTUVALI MARATA SAHAKARI SANGHA, REPRESENTED BY IT’S SECRETARY, NANDGAD, TQ. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. 8. SHRI ARAVIND C. PATIL THE CHAIRMAN OF THE KHANAPUR TALUKA VAKKLUTANA HUTTUVALI \MARATA SAHAKARI SANGHA, NANDGAD, TQ. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1,R2,R4 & R5; SRI. G.V. BHARAMAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R6; SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R7 & R8) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/ DIRECTION RESTRAINING THE 8TH RESPONDENT FROM CONTESTING THE ELECTION TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY SCHEDULED TO BE HELD ON 12-10-2025 AS PER CALENDAR OF EVENTS VIDE ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.6 DATED 11-09-2025 AND AN INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN TERMS OF ANNEXURE F NO.RCS/MKT-2/25/2025-26 DATED 25-09-2024, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13615 WP No. 107331 of 2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed to restrain 8th respondent from contesting the election to the board of 7th respondent/Society, scheduled on 12.10.2025. 2. The petitioner’s contention is that 8th respondent, being a member of 7th respondent/Society, has committed financial irregularities and misappropriation, which have already been recorded pursuant to an enquiry. Thus, 8th respondent is disqualified from contesting the election under Section 29-C of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 19591. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following three contentions: a) The petitioner admittedly has incurred disqualification under Section 29-C of Act of 1959; b) A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.107098/2025 has held the writ petition is maintainable; 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1959’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13615 WP No. 107331 of 2025 c) Since the process of election has not commenced, the petitioner need not approach the authorities under Section 70 of Act of 1959. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.7 and 8, as well as the learned Government Advocate, bring to the notice of this Court the order dated 23.09.2025 passed in W.P.No.107098/2025, filed by the same petitioner seeking almost identical relief. In that petition, the petitioner had sought to restrain 7th respondent from contesting the election to 6th respondent/Society scheduled to be held on 12.10.2025. This Court, vide order dated 23.09.2025, has noticed that the petitioner was seeking disqualification of 7th respondent under Section 29-C of Act of 1959 and reserved the liberty to the petitioner to raise the grievance before the Registrar . 5. As regards the petitioner’s contention that admittedly the petitioner is disqualified under Section 29-C of the Act of 1959, it is to be noticed that there has been no adjudication yet under the said provision. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13615 WP No. 107331 of 2025 6. For identical relief, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.107098/2025. This Court directed the petitioner to file an appropriate complaint before the Registrar. The petitioner instead of approaching the Deputy Registrar, Belagavi, has approached the Additional Registrar, Bengaluru. The Additional Registrar, Bengaluru, in turn, has directed the Deputy Registrar, Belagavi to consider the petitioner's grievance in terms of the order at Annexure F and also the order in W.P. No. 107098/2025. So far, there is no adjudication on the alleged disqualification under Section 29-C of the Act of 1959. This being the position, the contention that the petitioner has already incurred disqualification, has to be out rightly rejected. 7. Second contention that the issue raised in this case is covered in terms of the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in C. Shivalingaiah and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others also does not merit consideration since it is noticed that the Co Ordinate bench of this Court has not dealt with the jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 29-C(8) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13615 WP No. 107331 of 2025 of Act of 1959. Moreover, in the said case, there was no direction as it is noticed in W.P.No.107098/2025. 8. As far as the judgment of the Apex Court in Deoraj Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others2, it is to be noticed that the Court did not deal with the questions relating to the disqualification under Section 29-C of Act of 1959. More so in the light of order in W.P.No.107098/2025, the Deputy Registrar is yet to pass orders. Hence the ratio in the Apex Court's judgment has no application to this petition. 9. The appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and not the remedy under Section 70 at this Juncture. 10. In fact, as per Annexure-F, the Joint Registrar has already directed the Deputy Registrar to consider the petitioner’s grievance in accordance with law. This being the position, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Belagavi who is 4th respondent, shall consider the petitioner’s grievance as 2 (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 697 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13615 WP No. 107331 of 2025 expeditiously as possible, without being influenced by the dismissal of the present writ petition. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim of either party. 12. For the reason stated above, this Court does not find any reason to entertain the Writ Petition. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 11