- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33207 WP No. 15862 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 15862 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: D.R. NAGARAJA S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GUBBIGA, BALEHONNURU HOBLI, NARASIMHARAJAPURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577134. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TALUK AGRICULTURE PRODUCE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD., NARASIMHARAJAPURA TALUK, NARASIMHARAJAPURA, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577134 REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER REGISTERED UNDER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 2. SEETHUR PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATHINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA, NOW RENAMED AS SEETHUR VIVIDODDESHA PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI GRAMEENA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA, SEETHUR, BALEHONNURU HOBLI, NARASIMHARAJAPURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577127 REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER REGISTERED UNDER THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33207 WP No. 15862 of 2025 3. K. M. JAGADHISH S/O MANJAPPAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDENT OF EECHIKERE, SUTTA POST, BALEHONNURU HOBLI, NARASIMHARAJAPURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577134. 4. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.S. GIRISH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 SRI B.H. SHAMANNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4 RESPONDENT NO.1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION DATED 21/04/2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN SUBJECT NO.9 TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D AND THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22/04/2025 MADE TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING PRA.KRUGRAA.PA.SA.SA.NI.SI NO.13/2025-26, TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E BY HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO CONTINUE AS DIRECTOR IN THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TILL THE COMPLETION OF FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ASSUMPTION OF OFFICE BY THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT AND TILL THE NEW COMMITTEE ASSUMES OFFICE AS PER THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RETURNING OFFICER DATED 17/04/2022 TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33207 WP No. 15862 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged a resolution dated 21.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 on subject No.9 and the communication bearing No.¥Áæ.PÀÈ.UÁæ.¸À.¸À.¤.¹Ã.¸ÀASÉå:13/2025- 26 dated 22.04.2025 addressed by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.1. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents not to obstruct him from functioning and discharging his duties as duly elected Director of the Board of Management of the respondent No.1 as per the resolution dated 21.04.2025. 2. The petitioner was one of the elected Directors on the Board of management of the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 was entitled to send one of its Directors as its delegate member to the respondent No.1. Accordingly, at a meeting of the respondent No.2 held on 18.01.2022, the petitioner was nominated as the delegate of respondent No.2 to the respondent No.1. Later, the petitioner ceased to be a Director of the respondent No.2. Therefore, respondent No.2 held proceedings to nominate another sitting Director of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33207 WP No. 15862 of 2025 respondent No.2 as its nominee delegate to the respondent No.1 and accordingly, in terms of the impugned resolution dated 21.04.2025 on subject No.9, the respondent No.3 was nominated. Following the said resolution, a communication dated 22.04.2025 was addressed by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.1 about the nomination of the respondent No.3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said resolution as well as the communication addressed by the respondent No2 to the respondent No.1, has approached this Court in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was entitled to continue as a delegate of the respondent No.2 till the term of office as a member of the respondent No.1 expired. He contends that after the petitioner was nominated as a member of the respondent No.1, he had contested the elections to the Managing Committee of the respondent No.1 and was duly elected and he is, therefore, entitled to continue in the office till the expiry of his term. Thus, he contends that in the interregnum, the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned resolution nominating the respondent No.3 as a delegate of the respondent No.2 in the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33207 WP No. 15862 of 2025 respondent No.1. He, therefore, contends that this action of the respondent No.2 is arbitrary and an act to subvert the rights of the petitioner. 4. The petition is opposed by the learned Additional Government Advocate who submits that the writ petition is not maintainable in the first instance as the petitioner has got an alternative and efficacious remedy before the Registrar under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. He also contends that the petitioner had ceased to be a Director of the respondent No.2 and therefore, the respondent No.2 had passed the impugned resolution nominating its present Director as its delegate in the respondent No.1. He contends that this is in line with Section 18-B of the Act, 1959. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3 also reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the petitioner’s term as a Director of the respondent No.2 has come to an end and therefore, the respondent No.2 was bound to nominate the present Director as its delegate to the respondent No.1. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33207 WP No. 15862 of 2025 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.4 as well as the respective learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 7. The petitioner was the elected Director of the respondent No.2 and was a part of the Managing Committee of the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 was entitled to nominate one of its Directors as a delegate to the respondent No.1 and the term of a delegate was always co-terminus with his term as a Director in the respondent No.2. It is not in dispute that the term of the petitioner in respondent No.2 as a Director came to an end on 19.01.2025. The elections to the post of Director of the respondent No.2 was conducted and result was declared but the petitioner was not elected. Therefore, under Section 18-B of the Act, 1959, the petitioner was not entitled to continue as a member of the respondent No.1. It was under those circumstances that the respondent No.2 was constrained to nominate another present Director as a delegate to the respondent No.1. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate, this was clearly in line with Section 18-B of the Act, 1959 and therefore, no - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33207 WP No. 15862 of 2025 indulgence is warranted with the impugned resolution passed by the respondent No.2 concerning Subject No.9. 8. Though this writ petition is not maintainable before this Court in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner, since the learned counsel for the petitioner persisted that the writ petition is maintainable, this Court unshackled itself to consider the case on merits. After considering the case, this Court is of the view that petitioner was not entitled to continue as delegate of the respondent No.2 in the respondent No.1. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51 Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE