- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34335 WP No. 4478 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 4478 OF 2020 (GM-KSR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. A.G.SHIVASHANKARAPPA S/O KARIPILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. SRI. MUNEGOWDA S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 3. SRI M. SUDHAKAR S/O VENKATARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 4. SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O V. ANNAIAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 5. Y.A. SARVESHA S/O R. ASHWATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 6. SRI. H. NAGARAJAPPA S/O HUGAPPA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS 7. M. MALIKARJUNA S/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 8. SRI. V. MANJUNATH S/O VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34335 WP No. 4478 of 2020 9. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O AJAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 10. SRI. RAMACHANDRA S/O ERANNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 11. SRI. DHARMAPRAKASH S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 12. SRI. K.M. VENKATASWAMY GOWDA S/O T. MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 13. SMT. YASHODAMMA W/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS ALL ARE ELECTED MEMBERS OF DR. RADHAKRISHNA VIDYABHIVRUDI SAMSTHE (R) DIMBA CIRCLE, DIMBACHAMANAHALLI, SHILANGERE POST, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563101 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S., PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAI PRAKASH REDDY M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 2. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563101 3. DR. RADHAKRISHNA VIDYABHIVRUDI SAMSTHE (R) DIMBA CIRCLE, DIMBACHAMANAHALLI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34335 WP No. 4478 of 2020 SHILANGERE POST, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563 101 BY ITS SECRETARY 4. K.V.SHANKARAPPA S/O VENKATARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O NO.886, 1ST MAIN ROAD, KOTE, KOLAR. 5. VIVEK D.R. S/O D.V.RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O DIMBACHAMANAHALLI, SHILLANGERE POST, KOLAR TALUK-563 101 6. M.VINOD KUMAR S/O G. MADAN LAL AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O AMMORPET, KOLAR 7. N.RAJANNA S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O DODDAHASANALA, K N S POST, KOLAR TALUK-563 101 8. RENUKA PRASAD R S/O RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O KOLARAMMA LAYOUT, KOLAR-563101 9. VENKATRAMAN S/O NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O NO.886, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, KOTE, KOLAR-563101. 10. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O T.NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O KORAGANDAHALLI, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34335 WP No. 4478 of 2020 MADHUVATHI POST, KOLAR TALUK. 11. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O DIMBACHAMANAHALI, SHILLANGERE POST, KOLAR TALUK-563101 12. NARASIMAIAH S/O NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O NO.1076, ADJACENT TO AGRO CENTRE, TEAKAL ROAD, KOLAR. 13. P.S.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O V.SOMAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O PAREHOSAHALLI, KAMADENUHALLI POST, KOLAR TALUK. 14. BYREGOWDA S/O T.V.GOPALAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O NO.121, RAGHAVENDRANILAYA, BEHIND NSR HOSPITAL KOLAR-563 101 15. SURESH N. S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, T/O URIGILI VILLAGE, SUGUTURU POST, KOLAR TALUK. 16. RAMACHANDRAPPA D.V. S/O VENKARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER, BANGARAPETE, KOLAR DIST. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34335 WP No. 4478 of 2020 17. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O RAMACHANDRAPPA D.V. AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, HEAD MISTRESS DR.RADHAKRISHNA VIDYABHIVRUDI SAMSTHE (R) DIMBA CIRCLE, DIMBAJAMANAHALLI, SHILANGERE POST, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVASA KUMAR M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; SRI. B.N.UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.3 AND RESPONDENT NO.11; SRI. M.B.CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.4, 6, 8 TO 10, 12, 16 AND 17; VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2020, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.7 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; NOTICE ON RESPONDENT NOS.5, 13, 14 AND 15 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2020 IN NO.189/1989-90 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have filed this petition challenging the correctness of an order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 in Case No.189/1989-90. They have also - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34335 WP No. 4478 of 2020 sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to approve the list of elected directors of the respondent No.3 as per the list submitted by them on 21.09.2019. 2. (i) Though the facts as stated in the writ petition are long drawn, it can be summed up as follows: The petitioners being the erstwhile directors of the respondent No.3 had submitted their annual returns and the list of office bearers to the respondent No.2 on 07.10.2017 for the years 2010-2017 and 2017-2018 respectively. Later, the respondent No.4 claiming to be the president of the respondent No.3, submitted a list of office bearers for the years 2019 and the audited accounts of the year 2018 on 11.09.2019. The respondent No.4 claimed to be the President, in view of a purported letter submitted by the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 that they had resigned as President and Secretary of the board and that the petitioner Nos.2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 were expelled directors of respondent No.3. (ii) The petitioners then filed a list of office bearers up to the year 2020 on 11.09.2019. Therefore, a dispute resulted - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34335 WP No. 4478 of 2020 between two factions claiming to be the directors of the respondent No.3, one which was headed by the petitioners and the another which was headed by respondent Nos.4 to 17. In view of the disputes, the respondent No.2 passed an order dated 01.10.2019 staying the list of managing committee members submitted by the respondent No.4. It appears that in the meanwhile, MLA of Kolar constituency as well as MLA of Malur constituency submitted letters to the respondent No.2 requesting him to vacate the order of stay and accept the list of managing committee submitted by the respondent No.4. Following this, an order dated 31.01.2020 was passed by the respondent No.2 accepting the list submitted by the respondent No.4 on the ground that the petitioners had failed to produce any documents in support of their claim that they were lawfully elected. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that impugned order is not justified but on the other hand, is illegal and improper in as much as: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34335 WP No. 4478 of 2020 (i) The respondent No.2 who passed the impugned order was an in-charge officer who was not entrusted with the power to pass orders under Rule 25 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules, 1960'); (ii) That the petitioners had submitted objections dated 19.10.2019 stating that the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 had not resigned from the respondent No.4 and that the claim of the respondent No.4 that the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 had resigned was concocted and fabricated. (iii) That in a suit filed in O.S.No.465/2009, the petitioner No.1 was shown to be the president of the respondent No.3 and he was represented by the respondent No.4 and that the said status continued till the suit was disposed off in the year 2020. He thus contends that the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 had not resigned from the directorship of the respondent No.3 and therefore, the respondent No.2 must have gone into the question whether the petitioners were lawfully elected directors of respondent No.3. He also submits that the other - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34335 WP No. 4478 of 2020 petitioners who were the directors of the respondent No.3 could not have been expelled from the respondent No.3 without following due process of law. He therefore contends that the respondent No.2 abdicated his responsibility in not conducting an enquiry under Rules 25 of the Act, 1960 but on the contrary he un-lawfully accepted the list submitted by the respondent No.4. (iv) That the respondent No.2 on one hand stated that the term of the managing committee of the respondent No.3 had come to an end and therefore, the order of stay granted on 01.10.2019 had become infructous. The learned senior counsel contends that the respondent No.2 did not stop at that but went ahead and accepted the list submitted by the respondent No.4. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order is fraught with illegalities and therefore, is liable to be quashed. 5. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.3 and 11 who have filed statement of objections - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34335 WP No. 4478 of 2020 contending that the respondent No.2 was right in holding that the question whether the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 had resigned from the post of president and secretary of the respondent No.3 and the question whether other petitioners were lawfully expelled from the respondent No.3 are matters that have to be considered by the Civil Court and not by the respondent No.2. In support of this contention they have relied upon the decision of a Coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Sri. Jagadguru Basavaraj Pattadarya and other Vs. The State of Karntaka - W.P.No.64520/2011. 6. The learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the dispute is essentially between two rival directors claiming one-upmanship over the respondent No.3. He contends that the power of the respondent No.2 was only to enquire regarding the valid submission of the documents and nothing beyond that. He contends that the respondent No.2 could not have enquired into the question whether the resignation submitted by the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 was just and proper. He therefore, contends that the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34335 WP No. 4478 of 2020 respondent No.2 was right in directing the petitioners to approach the Civil Court. 7. It is relevant to note that the petitioner No.3 who claimed to be the secretary of respondent No.3 filed a memo dated 29.07.2024 withdrawing the writ petition thereby giving up his challenge of the impugned order. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for caveator respondent Nos.3 and 11 and respondent Nos.4, 6, 8 to 10, 12, 16 and 17. 9. As stated above, the dispute is between the petitioners and the respondent Nos.4 to 16 over who is the lawfully elected directors/office bearers of managing committee of respondent No.3. The petitioners had indeed filed their returns upto the year 2017 and also filed a list of managing committee upto the year 2017. It is alleged by respondent No.4 that the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 had resigned from the directorship of respondent No.3 and that the other petitioners - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34335 WP No. 4478 of 2020 were expelled from the respondent No.3. Following this, the rival faction comprising the respondent Nos.4 to 16 submitted their list of managing committee members along with audited accounts up to the year 2019 on 11.09.2019. 10. The petitioners opposed the acceptance of the list submitted by respondent No.4 on the ground that they did not resign from the directorship of respondent No.3 and that the other petitioners were not expelled as claimed by the rival faction namely, the respondent Nos.4 to 16. The respondent No.2 initially granted an order of stay of acceptance of the list submitted by the respondent No.4 and thereafter called upon the petitioners to furnish the documents. In support of their claim that they were lawfully elected and that they had not resigned from the managing committee of the respondent No.3. It appears that the petitioners did not produce any documents. 11. Be that as it may, the question whether the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 had resigned from the respondent No.3 and the question whether the other petitioners were lawfully expelled from the respondent No.3 could definitely not be gone into by the respondent No.2 under Rule 25 of the Rules, 1960. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34335 WP No. 4478 of 2020 12. Besides this, the petitioners did not produce any documents to show that they had validly called for a general body meeting, where at, they were elected for the subsequent term namely, 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. Therefore, the respondent No.2 was at that moment justified in holding that the petitioners ought to approach the Civil Court to establish that they had not resigned from the directorship of the respondent No.3 and other petitioners were not lawfully expelled from the respondent No.3. 13. The respondent No.2 was also justified in a way in passing the impugned order, since the petitioner No.3 had withdrawn the writ petition on 29.07.2024, giving credence to the claim of the respondent Nos.4 to 16 that the petitioner No.3 had resigned from the respondent No.3. However, the questions whether petitioner Nos.1 and 3 had resigned and whether other petitioners were expelled are to be espoused before the Civil Court. In that view of the matter, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners was to approach the Civil Court and not to compel the respondent No.2 to conduct - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34335 WP No. 4478 of 2020 an enquiry into the correctness of the list submitted by the respondent No.4. 14. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the question whether an in-charg2e officer was entitled to pass an order under Rule 25 of the Rules, 1960. 15. This Court has also not gone into the question whether the list submitted by the respondent No.4 was in accordance with law. This Court has left this issue to be decided upon by the Civil Court in the event the petitioners file an appropriate suit in accordance with law. 16. The writ petition stands disposed off on the above terms. 17. In view of disposal of main petition, interlocutory applications if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand rejected. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22