- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 9978 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. VENKATAREDDY S/O N.C. NARAYANAPPA AGED 62 YEARS PRESIDENT 2. RAJANNA S/O MUNISWAMAPPA AGED 60 YEARS 3. RAMANJAPPA N S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED 68 YEARS 4. T.T. ERAPPA S/O THIPANNA AGED 63 YEARS 5. SRINIVASAPPA S/O MOTHAPPA AGED 55 YEARS 6. RATNAMMA W/O SUBBAREDDY AGED 50 YEARS (PETITIONER NO.1 IS THE PRESIDENT AND PETITIONER NO.2 TO 6 ARE THE DIRECTORS OF KYALANOORU RESHME BELEGARARA HAGU RAITHARA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA KYALANOORU VILLAGE Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT) … PETITIONERS (BY SRI: JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI: DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION M.S BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES KOLAR - 563 101 KOLAR DISTRICT 3. KOLAR - CHIKKALABALAPURA DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD PRABHA TALKIES ROAD KOLAR - 563 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 4. KYALANOORU RESHME BELEGARARA HAGU RAITHARA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA KYALANOORU VILLAGE KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 5. MADHUSUDHAN S/O NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS BANK SUPERVISOR KOLAR BRANCH, KOLAR TALUK KOLAR - CHIKKALABALAPURA DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., PRABHA TALKIES ROAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 KOLAR - 563 101 6. C.V PRAKASH S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGE - MAJOR DIRECTOR, KYALANOORU RESHME BELEGARARA HAGU RAITHARA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA KYALANOORU VILLAGE KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101 (RESPONDENT NO. 4 ARE REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT-1959) ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI: SARAVANA .S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R6 SRI: YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & 2 SRI: KALLESHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 (R4 & 5 - SD/-) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION DATED 26.03.2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 SOCIETY PRODUCED AT ANNXEXURE-K AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 14.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CAV ORDER The petitioners being the President and Directors are seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 Resolution dated 26.03.2025 passed by respondent No.4 - Society produced as per Annexure-K and the Communication dated 24.03.2025 issued by respondent No.2 produced as per Annexure-L. 2. Heard Sri Jayakumar S Patil, learned senior advocate for Sri Devi Prasad Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Yogesh D Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri Kalleshappa, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri D R Ravishankar, learned senior advocate for Sri S Saravana, learned counsel for caveator-respondent No.6. Perused the materials on record. 3. Learned senior advocate for the petitioners contended that the election to respondent No.3 - Bank was scheduled to be held on 29.05.2025 and Notification was issued in that regard. Respondent No.4 was required to send delegation on behalf of the Society to participate in the said election and in that regard a meeting was scheduled on 24.03.2025. There was a galata in the meeting and the Secretary was unwell and admitted to the hospital. Therefore, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 the meeting could not be held as notified and the same was postponed without taking any decision. 4. Learned senior advocate contended that some of the Directors appears to have approached respondent No.2 with a request to delegate the powers of Secretary to hold the Board meeting for the purpose of finalising the delegation to be sent to respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 had no authority under law to permit respondent No.5 to conduct the Board meeting and to finalise the person to be sent as delegate to respondent No.3. But however, respondent No.5 was appointed as Supervisor. On the basis of same, respondent No.5 appears to have conducted a meeting on 25.03.2025 and took a decision to appoint respondent No.6 as the delegate to represent the Society in the election that is scheduled to be held on 29.05.2025 by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-L. 5. Learned senior advocate contended that the meeting was originally scheduled by the Secretary on 24.03.2025, but no decision could be taken in the said meeting and the same was postponed. But on 25.03.2025, respondent No.2 passed Annexure-L appointing respondent No.5 as the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 Supervisor to hold the meeting and on the same day, the meeting is said to have been conducted and respondent No.6 was appointed as delegate. There was no such hurry to bypass the authority of Secretary of respondent No.4 - Society. 6. Learned senior advocate contended that the petitioners even though were the President and the Directors of respondent No.4 - Society were not aware of passing of Annexure-L by respondent No.2. Therefore, an application IA.2 of 2025 was filed seeking permission to amend the petition for the purpose of seeking relief in respect of Annexure-L. The said application was allowed and the petitioners were permitted to amend the petition. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.6 had preferred Writ Appeal No.774 of 2025. In the said writ appeal, vide order dated 27.05.2025 the Court permitted respondent No.6 herein to cast his vote as delegate in the election that was held on 28.05.2025. The prayer for vacating the interim order granted in favour of the petitioners was rejected. However, it was directed that the vote that is to be cast by respondent No.6 is to be kept in separate sealed box and the election result of the constituency concerned shall not be declared without the order in the present writ petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 Therefore, learned senior advocate contended that the vote that is cast by respondent No.6 would be subject to the result of the present writ petition. 7. Learned senior advocate contended that Section 29- G of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case to authorize respondent No.2 to appoint respondent No.5 as the Supervisor and to exercise the power of Secretary of respondent No.4 - Society. The first proviso to Section 29-G refers to 'co-operative credit structure' to have an option of getting Chief Executive appointed by requesting the Government or the Registrar as the case may be. Second proviso to Section 29-G permits the Society to appoint the Chief Executive within 3 months. Learned senior advocate further contended that sub section (4) of Section 29- G makes it clear that such Chief Executive who shall be the Chief Administrative Officer of the Society was authorized under this provision for convening the meeting of the general body, the Board of management in consultation with the President or Chair Person. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 8. Learned senior advocate contended that as per Section 2(b-2) of the Act, 'co-operative credit structure' includes a Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies. Respondent No.4 is such a Society and therefore, it is the co- operative credit structure. Respondent No.2 had no authority to delegate the power for the purpose of appointing a Supervisor. Therefore, Annexure-L issued by respondent No.2 appointing respondent No.5 as the Supervisor for respondent No.4 - Society is without any authority. It in fact directly affects the right of the petitioners as the President and Directors of respondent No.4 - Society, while the election for respondent No.3 was scheduled to be held on 29.05.2025. There was no urgency for respondent No.2 to act so swiftly and to appoint respondent No.5, that too, without any authority under the Act or the Rules. Therefore, Annexure-L issued by respondent No.2 and Annexure-K - the proceedings dated 26.03.2025 appointing respondent No.6 as the delegate are required to be quashed. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the petition. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 9. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 opposing the petition submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioners are required to raise a dispute before respondent No.2 to challenge Annexures-L and K under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioners have not exhausted the said remedy and have approached this Court seeking quashing of Annexure-K, which is not permissible under law. 10. Secondly, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the petitioners are not having any locus standi to maintain the petition. He refers to Section 29-G(4)(j) of the Act to contend that it is only the Chief Executive or the Chief Administrative Officer of the Society to sue or to be sued on behalf of the Co-operative Society. The petitioners being the President and Directors lack such authority and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submitted that as per Section 28(2) of the Act, if a meeting was not called in accordance with the requisition, the Registrar - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 or any person authorized shall have the power to call such meeting and the meeting shall be deemed to be a meeting called by the Board. He further submitted that the last date for sending the delegate was on 26.03.2025 and therefore, there was urgency in the matter. Hence, respondent No.2 has rightly passed the order as per Annexure-L on 25.03.2025. 12. Learned Additional Government Advocate places reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Kamaganahalli Milk Producers Womens Cooperative Society Ltd., Rep by its Director Veda S.K. -vs- State of Karnataka Department of Co-Operation, Rep its Principal Secretary and Others1, to contend that the Co-ordinate Bench has categorically held that the Chief Executive Officer can without any further authorization file any proceedings on behalf of the Society. But for the President or the Director filing of such proceedings is required to be accompanied by the Board Resolution authorizing such person to file the suit or the proceedings. He referring to Section 29(G)(4)(j) of the KCS Act, submitted that, it is the exclusive authority of the Chief Executive Officer to sue or be sued on behalf of the Co- 1 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 1791 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 operative Society, since the petitioners are not authorized in any manner to file the writ petition, they lack locus standi to maintain the same. 13. Learned Additional Government Advocate also submitted that Annexure-R4 issued by respondent No.2 appointing respondent No.5 as the Supervisor discloses that respondent No.2 has taken into consideration the failure on the part of Chief Executive of respondent No.4 - Society to convene the meeting to finalise the delegate. Therefore, there is no merit in the claim made by the petitioners and hence, prays for dismissal of the petition. 14. Learned senior advocate for respondent No.6 opposing the petition submitted that respondent No.4 is a Primary Co-operative Society, which is affiliated to respondent No.3 has given a direction to respondent No.4 to conduct a meeting for the purpose of sending the delegate to respondent No.3 within 26.03.2025 before 5:00 p.m. For the purpose of finalising the delegate, the Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.4 had notified the meeting on 20.03.2025 to be held on 24.03.2025 at 11:30 a.m. under the chairmanship of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 petitioner No.1 being the President. Subject No.2 in the Agenda was specifically to finalise and to select the delegate to respondent No.3. Admittedly, on 24.03.2025, the President, the Chief Executive Officer and other Directors have came to the Society for the purpose of attending the meeting. But strangely, the Chief Executive Officer has affixed a notice in the notice board that the meeting is adjourned. No reasons are assigned in the said notice, which is produced by respondent No.6 as Document No.2. Annexure-D produced by the petitioners is the representation by the President - petitioner No.1 herein submitted to the Chief Executive Officer on 24.03.2025 itself, directing him to adjourn or postpone the meeting on the ground that the meeting notice dated 20.03.2025 was not served on all the Directors. Therefore, it is clear that the Chief Executive Officer has acted at the instance of petitioner No.1 and postponed the meeting by notifying in the notice board that the meeting is postponed, without assigning any reason. 15. Learned senior advocate contended that as per Annexure-E, the Chief Executive Officer on the very same day i.e. on 24.03.2025 had written to the Assistant Registrar of Co- - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 operative Societies-respondent No.2 informing the President and other Directors, directed him to postpone the meeting. The reason assigned in the said Communication is that one of the Directors - Sri. T.T. Erappa of Thippanahalli village, was served with the meeting notice through WhatsApp. But it is stated that, he was not intimated about the meeting in accordance with law and therefore, he was directed to postpone the meeting. He contended that the Communication (Annexure-E) further states that the Chief Executive Officer had fell down, lost consciousness and was admitted to Guru Sparsh Hospital at Chinthamani. Since there was raise in his Blood Pressure, he was advised to take treatment and his blood sample showed that he is suffering from Dengue and Diabetes. Accordingly, he was advised to be admitted to the Hospital for 3 or 4 days. 16. Learned senior advocate draws the attention of the Court to Annexure-F1 - the Medical Certificate pertaining to the Chief Executive Officer issued by one Nakshathra Hospital, Devanahalli Town, Bengaluru Rural District, according to which, the Chief Executive Officer - Naveen C., admitted to the Hospital on 24.03.2025 at 3:15 p.m. with the history of fever since 5 days with cough, nausea and general weakness since 4 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 days. According to the medical certificate, the Chief Executive Officer was discharged from the Hospital on 27.03.2025. By referring to this certificate, learned senior advocate contended that Annexure-F1 is quite contrary to the contents of Annexure- E, according to which, the Chief Executive Officer fell unconscious in the Society due to the altercation that was held there and was admitted to Guru Sparsh Hospital, Chinthamani and he was diagnosed with dengue and sugar. No such details are available in Annexure-F1, which clearly discloses that the petitioners in collusion with the Chief Executive Officer of the Society concocted the records with imaginary grounds only for the purpose of postponing the meeting and avoid sending of delegate to respondent No.3. 17. Learned senior advocate contended that in view of this delaying tactics adopted by the President and the Chief Executive Officer of the Society and since they were not willing to conduct the meeting as required under law, the same was brought to the notice of respondent No.2, who in-turn exercising his supervisory authority under the Act, appointed a Supervisor only to call for a meeting for the purpose of finalizing the delegate and to convene the meeting. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 Accordingly, the Supervisor had issued Annexure-G to the President and other members of the Board informing them that the meeting that was to be held on 24.03.2025 was re- scheduled on 26.03.2025 at 11:00 a.m. under the chairmanship of the President who is petitioner No.1 in the petition. 18. On receipt of such meeting notice, petitioner No.1 has submitted Annexure-H raising his objections that no sufficient opportunity is given before conducting the meeting after issuing the notice. Learned senior advocate would submit that it was a special meeting that was convened initially on 24.03.2025 for the purpose of finalizing the delegate and on appointment of the Supervisor, he has only notified the members of the Board about convening the meeting on 26.03.2025 at 11:00 a.m. to enable the Society to nominate the delegate and forward the same before 5:00 p.m. fixed by respondent No.3. 19. Learned senior advocate would submit that Annexure-J is the letter addressed to the President-petitioner No.1 dated 25.03.2025 requesting him to preside over the meeting which was postponed from 24.03.2025 and re- - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 scheduled to be held at 11:00 a.m. on 26.03.2025. Therefore, the Supervisor who was appointed by respondent No.2 except issuing the meeting notice and requesting the President to convene the meeting, has not played any role in appointing the delegate. 20. Learned senior advocate contended that Annexure-K is the proceedings of the meeting, according to which, petitioner No.1 being the President and petitioner No.2 being the Vice-President remained absent. However, out of 13 Directors, 7 Directors were present, and therefore there was quorum for conducting the meeting and one among them was appointed by the members as President to chair the meeting. Accordingly, an unanimous decision was taken to elect respondent No.6 as the delegate to respondent No.3 - Society, authorizing him to cast his vote in the election that is to be held. Since 7 Directors were present and took unanimous decision to elect respondent No.6 as the delegate, it was with a simple majority, the Resolution was passed. The said Resolution - Annexure-K is challenged by the petitioners before this Court, but the same is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the election of the delegate to - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 respondent No.3 was communicated in time and accordingly the election was held to respondent No.3 - Society in which respondent No.6 has cast his vote as ordered in W.A.No.774/2025 in the election that was held on 29.05.2025. However, the vote cast by respondent No.6 was ordered to be kept in a separate sealed box and held that the election result shall not be declared without the order of the Court in this writ petition. 21. Learned senior advocate contended that as per Rule 14(A)(K)(11), if the President or the Chairperson is unable to attend the meeting of the Board, the Vice-President or in his absence any other member of the Board elected by the Directors present at the meeting from among themselves, is authorized to preside over the meeting. Therefore, there is no illegality in the meeting that was held on 28.05.2025 in which respondent No.6 was elected as the delegate to respondent No.4 - society. He places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Daman Singh and Others -vs- State of Punjab and Others2, to contend that once a person becomes a member of a Co-operative Society, he will not have 2 1985 (2) SCC 670 - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 individuality qua the Society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the statute and the bye-laws. He must act and speak through the Society or rather, the Society alone can act and speak for him qua rights or duties of the Society as a body. 22. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Khargram Panchayat Samiti and Another - vs- State of West Bengal and Others3, in support of his contention that when the statute confers any authority, it is necessary to carry on the other incidental or ancillary powers. He contended that when a power is conferred on the statutory authority, such power will also include other incidental or ancillary powers without exercise of which the main power cannot be exercised. Therefore, he contended that, as per Section 29(G) of the KCS Act, the Government or the Registrar will have the authority to appoint the Chief Executive Officer for every Co-operative Society. When the conduct of the petitioners disclose that they were not willing to conduct any meeting for the purpose of electing the delegate as required under law and they wanted to create a checkmate, preventing 3 1987 (3) SCC 82 - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 respondent No.4 Society from participating in the election to be held in respondent No.3, the Registrar will have the power to convene the meeting either himself or through any other person. Exercising such power, the Supervisor was appointed by respondent No.2 only for the purpose of calling the meeting. 23. Learned senior advocate also referred to Section 28(2) of the KCS Act to contend that, if a Special General meeting of a Co-operative Society is not called in accordance with law, the Registrar or any person authorized by him in this behalf shall have the power to call such meeting and that meeting shall be deemed to be a meeting called by the Board. If the same analogy is applied to the Board meeting to be convened by the Chief Executive Officer and if he fails to call for such meeting, respondent No.2 will definitely have the right to appoint the Supervisor for the purpose of calling the meeting. But the meeting was held by the majority of the Directors by electing one amongst them as the Chairperson to preside over the meeting. Since the Resolution was passed with simple majority, the petitioners cannot have any grievance against the same. The Supervisor has not played any role either in conducting the meeting or in passing the Resolution. Therefore, - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 the petitioners cannot have any grievance against the unanimous Resolution that was passed and produced as per Annexure-K. 24. Learned senior advocate contended that the conduct of petitioner No.1, being the President and other petitioners and also the Chief Executive disclose that they were bent upon in not holding a meeting, and not to send the delegate and thereby deny the opportunity to respondent No.4 to have its representative in the election to be held in respondent No.3. The petitioners cannot frustrate the provisions of the Act and the Rules and hold the Society for ransom. Therefore, the petitioners who were not having any bonafides are not entitled for any reliefs. Therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition. 25. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioners have made out any ground to quash the Resolution dated 26.03.2025 passed by respondent No.4-society produced at Annexure-K?" - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 26. The contentions of the parties referred to above disclose that, the Deputy Commissioner being the Returning Officer issued the Notification in Form No.11 under Rule 14(1) of the KCS Act on 13.03.2025 as per Annexure-B, declaring the election is to be held on 28.05.2025. As per the calendar of events, 28.05.2025 was the last date for submission of draft voters' list by respondent No.3. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.3 directed respondent No.4 to send its delegate on or before 26.03.2025 by 5:00 p.m. It is with this background, the Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.4 - Society notified the special meeting on 20.03.2025 to be held on 24.03.2025 at 11:30 a.m., under the chairmanship of petitioner No.1, for the purpose of electing the delegate. Strangely as per Annexure-D, the President himself addresses a letter to the Chief Executive Officer that the meeting was called without following the procedure as contemplated under law and many of the Directors were not served with the notice and - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 therefore, requested to postpone the meeting that was scheduled to be held at 11:30 a.m. on 24.03.2025. Pursuant to the same, the Chief Executive Officer has written to respondent No.2 on the very same day, as per Annexure-E specifically stating that he was present in the Society on 24.03.2025 at 9:45 a.m. for the purpose of convening the meeting at 11:30 a.m. under the chairmanship of the President and he received the objection from the chairman himself. The only objection referred to in Annexure-E is that, one of the Directors by name T.T. Erappa of Thippanahalli Village was served with the notice through WhatsApp and this was according to petitioner No.1, was not in accordance with law. The Chief Executive Officer himself gives an explanation that the said T.T. Erappa is not residing in Thippanahalli and therefore the meeting notice was sent through WhatsApp. The said T.T. Erappa is petitioner No.4 in the present petition. Strangely, he has not made out any ground in the petition that he was not served with the meeting notice through WhatsApp or in other words, he was not informed about the meeting that was scheduled to be held on 24.03.2025 at 11:30 a.m. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 27. Annexure-E further discloses that there was altercation amongst the Directors who were present in the meeting and the President has postponed the meeting notifying the same in the notice board. The copy of the notice affixed in the notice board is produced by respondent No.6, according to which, the meeting that was scheduled to be held on 24.03.2025 was postponed. No reasons are assigned for postponing the matters in the said notice. Annexure-E further states that the Chief Executive had fell unconscious and was admitted to Guru Sparsh Hospital at Chinthamani as he was having high Blood Pressure. He was diagnosed with Dengue and Diabetes, and advised to take treatment for 3 or 4 days. 28. Annexure-F1 is the medical certificate issued by Nakshathra Hospital, Devanahalli Town, Bengaluru Rural District, pertaining to Naveen C., who is the Chief Executive Officer. Strangely, according to this medical certificate, he was admitted to the Hospital on 24.03.2025 at 3:15 p.m., with the history of fever since 5 days with cough, poor oral intake, nausea and general weakness since 4 days. This document does not refer to diagnosing the Chief Executive with Dengue or he falling unconscious and admitting him to Guru Sparsh - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 Hospital at Chintamani. The reason assigned in Annexure-E is quite contrary to the reasons found in Annexure-F1. There is no reasonable explanation for this glaring inconsistency. 29. It is at this stage, the other Directors of respondent No.4 - Society approached respondent No.2 with a request to convene the meeting for the purpose of electing the delegate and he appointed the Supervisor only for the purpose of convening the meeting of respondent No.4 Society. Annexure-G is the meeting notice dated 25.03.2025 issued by the Supervisor scheduling the Board meeting on 26.03.2025 at 11:00 a.m. requesting all the members of the Board to attend the same. 30. It is also pertinent to note that Annexure-H is the letter addressed to the Supervisor by petitioner No.1 as President of respondent No.4 - Society, questioning his authority to call for the meeting on the ground that atleast 7 clear days notice should have been given to call for the board meeting and even under emergency, 3 clear days notice is required to be given. But the meeting notice as per Annexure-G was issued one day prior to the special meeting i.e. convened - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 and hence, it is not in accordance with law. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that there was urgency for respondent No.4 - Society to elect the delegate for the purpose of sending his nomination to respondent No.3, authorizing him to cast his vote in the election. The deadline fixed by respondent No.3 was on 26.03.2025 before 5:00 p.m. Under such circumstances, only on the ground that 7 or 3 clear days notice was not given by the Supervisor, cannot be a ground to hold that the meeting itself is not in accordance with law. Moreover, it is to be noticed that the Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.4 had already called the special meeting on 24.03.2025 by issuing the notice on 20.03.2025 produced as per Annexure-C. The meeting that was scheduled to be held on 26.03.2025 at 11:00 a.m. was the postponed meeting as the meeting on 24.03.2025 could not be held. 31. Annexure-K is the Resolution passed in the special meeting that was held on 26.03.2025 at 11:00 a.m. This Resolution makes it clear that even though the meeting was called under the chairmanship of petitioner No.1, he remained absent. Even the Vice-President i.e. petitioner No.2 herein remained absent. Out of 13 Directors, 7 Directors were present - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 in the meeting which constitutes quorum and selected C.V.Prakash unanimously as the Chairman to conduct the meeting. They have also unanimously passed the Resolution selecting said C.V.Prakash who is respondent No.6 herein as the delegate, authorizing him to cast vote in the election i.e. to be held in respondent No.3. When 7 Directors out of 13, hold the meeting and passed the unanimous Resolution to elect respondent No.6 as the delegate, the same cannot be held to be illegal or against the provisions of law. The conduct of petitioner No.1 and the Chief Executive Officer in postponing the meeting and objecting for holding the meeting on 26.03.2025 giving lame excuses disclose that there was no bonafides in the contentions raised by them. The reasons assigned for postponing the meeting and not calling for the meeting was not justifiable and it do not inspire confidence in the mind of the Court. 32. I find considerable force in the contentions taken by the learned senior advocate for respondent No.6 that when Section 29(G) of the Act authorizes the Registrar to appoint or to remove the Chief Executives, respondent No.2 can definitely exercise his authority to nominate a Supervisor only for the - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 purpose of calling for a meeting of the Society. The authority of respondent No.2 in that regard cannot be questioned. 33. When nomination of the Supervisor for the purpose of calling for a meeting cannot be held to be illegal, the meeting so held cannot be dubbed as illegal. The Supervisor nominated by respondent No.2 has not played any role in passing the Resolution - Annexure-K, which was unanimously passed by majority of Directors. Therefore, the same is not liable to be quashed. 34. On the basis of unanimous Resolution (Annexure-K), respondent No.6 has cast his vote in the election that was held by respondent No.3. I do not see any impediment in considering the said vote for the purpose of declaring the result. In view of the order passed in W.A.No.774/2025, I deem it appropriate to direct the Returning Officer to count the vote cast by respondent No.6 and to declare the election result in accordance with law. 35. In view of the above, I answer the point in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following: - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42930 WP No. 9978 of 2025 ORDER (i) Writ petition is dismissed. (ii) The Returning Officer is directed to count the vote cast by respondent No.6 and to declare the election result in accordance with law. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BGN/MKM CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30