- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5918 WP No. 18166 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20442 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.18166 OF 2024 (CS-EL/M) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.20442 OF 2024 (CS-RES) IN W.P. No. 18166/2024 BETWEEN: 1. H.R. SANATH KUMAR S/O. RANGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, HULIKERE ARSIKERE, HASSAN-573119. 2. SHANKARALINGAPPA S/O SHIVANANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NARAMANAHALLI, ARSIKERE, HASSAN-573119. 3. SHAMBULINGAMURTHI S/O. PARAMESHWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, MARASHATTIHALLI, ARSIKERE, HASSAN-573119. 4. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O. MALLESH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, GUDENAHALLI, ARSIKERE, HASSAN-573119. 5. MADANAYAK S/O. RANGANAYAK AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5918 WP No. 18166 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20442 of 2024 KENKERE, ARSIKERE, HASSAN-573119. 6. JAYANNA S/O. KEMPATHIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ARSIKERE, HASSAN-573119. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI SAILESH S. KATAREY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, MULTI STORIED BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ALI ASKER ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR. 3. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, HASSAN SUB-DIVISION, HASSAN-573119. REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. 4. B. KRISHNE GOWDA S/O BASAVEGWODA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS BAYREGOWDANAHALLI, ARSIKERE, HASSAN-573119. 5. JAYALINGANNA S/O. MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, HULIKERE, ARSIKERE, HASSAN-573119. 6. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, MARAMMANAHALLI, ARSIKERE, HASSAN-573119. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5918 WP No. 18166 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20442 of 2024 7. NAJAPPA S/O. KARISIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, KENKERE, ARSIKERE, HASSAN-573119. 8. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. BASAVE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, MARASHATTIHALLI, ARSIKERE, HASSAN-573119. 9. PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL PATTINA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY PRESIDENT, CHINDENAHALLI, ARSIKERE, HASSAN-573119. (REG. UNDER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT, 1959) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI SUHAS S., ADVOCATE FOR R-4 TO R-8; R-9 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A TO A5 DATED 31.05.2024 NO.SANI28/DISPUTE/29C/06/2023-24; QUASH ANNEXURE-B BEARING NO.CN28/MANAGEMENT/AKSN/31(1)/01/ 2024-25 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 10.06.2024; DIRECTION OR ORDER PERMITTING THE PETITIONERS TO CONTEST ANY ENSUING ELECTIONS TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 9TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY. IN W.P. NO.20442/2024 BETWEEN: SRI THILAK M.C. S/O CHANDRASHEKARIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT MARASHETTY HALLIKOPPALU VILLAGE, ULLEKERE POST, GANDASI HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573119. … PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHAMAD TAHIR A., ADVOCATE) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5918 WP No. 18166 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20442 of 2024 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, HASSAN, SUB-DIVISION, HASSAN-573201. 3. THE PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY CHINDENAHALLI, ARSIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, 1959 REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER. 4. SR CHANDAN H.R. S/O. LATE RAMESH H.N. AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT HIRIYALU, CHIKKAYARAGANALU POST, GANDASI HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN-573119. (AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 30.07.2024) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI SHARATH S. GOWDA, FOR C/R-4; R-3 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.SANI28/ADALITA/CR- 10/2023-24 DATED 11.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-M; DIRECT R-2 AND 3 NOT TO REMOVE THE PETITIONER AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE R-3 SOCIETY. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5918 WP No. 18166 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20442 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Both the writ petitions are taken up together as the similar questions are involved and they are inter connected. 2. In W.P. No.18166/2024 the petitioners seek for the following prayers: a. To issue a Writ, Direction or Order, quashing Annexure A to A5, dated 31.05.2024 No.SANI28/DISPUTE/29C/06/2023-24. b. To issue a Writ, Direction or Order, quashing Annexure B bearing No.CN28/MANAGEMENT/AKSN/31(1)/01/2024-25 passed by the 3rd respondent on 10.06.2024. c. To issue a writ, direction or order permitting the petitioners to contest any ensuing elections to the board of directors of the 9th respondent society. d. For costs and such other relief that this Hon’ble Court deems fit, in the interest of Justice and Equity. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5918 WP No. 18166 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20442 of 2024 3. In W.P. No.20442/2024 the petitioner seeks for the following prayers: a. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned communication bearing No.SANI28/ADALITA/CR-10/2023-24 dated 11.07.2024 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure – M, in the interest of justice and equity. b. Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 and 3 not to remove the petitioner as CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER of the respondent No.3 society, in the interest of justice and equity. c. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem necessary in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both petitions, learned AGA for the State, Sri Sharath S Gowda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 in W.P. No.20442/2024, Sri Suhas S, learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 8 in W.P. No.18166/2024 and perused the material on record. 5. The petitioners in WP No.18166/2024 are the disqualified directors of the society and petitioner-Thilak in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5918 WP No. 18166 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20442 of 2024 WP No.20442/2024 was appointed as the Chief Executive Officer, have challenged the order of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society (for short ‘ARCS’), who disqualified the directors under section 29-C(8)(d) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (‘Act” for short) and further appointed a special officer while directing the appointment of Chandan as Chief Executive Officer. 6. Brief facts are that the Society is a primary agricultural co-operative society arrayed as respondent No.9 in W.P.No.18166/2024 and respondent No.3 in W.P.No.20442/2024 (for short ‘the society’). Upon the death of H.N.Ramesh, the Chief Executive Officer / Secretary on 04.06.2023, the Board of the Society consisting of the petitioners and respondents 4 to 8 in W.P.No.18166/2024 resolved in a board meeting on 18.07.2023 to promote Thilak.M.C. (petitioner in W.P.No.20442/2024). The board members at that point of time, were 12 members inclusive of the Supervisor and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5918 WP No. 18166 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20442 of 2024 out of 12 Board members, 9 signed and resolved to appoint Thilak M.C. as the Acting Chief Executive Officer. In the interregnum, the son of the earlier Chief Executive Officer, Ramesh sought appointment on compassionate ground and considering his qualification and experience, Chandan H.R. – respondent No.4 in W.P.No.20442/2024 was appointed as a Accounts Assistant on 20.10.2023. The Board unanimously confirmed Thilak M.C. as a Chief Executive Officer in the board meeting on 19.02.2024. The respondent Nos.4 to 8 in W.P.No.18166/2024 were part of the board meeting did not descent to the appointment of Thilak M.C. as a Chief Executive Officer. However, on 21.02.2024, a complaint was lodged challenging the resolution passed by the Board on 19.02.2024 stating that the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer was without newspaper publication inviting applications. The ARCS issued an order dated 19.02.2024 appointing Thilak M.C. as the Chief Executive Officer of the Society. Subsequently, the ARCS also issued an order on 10.06.2024 appointing Special Officer to the Society, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5918 WP No. 18166 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20442 of 2024 pursuant to which the ARCS addressed a letter to the Special Officer stating that the appointment of Thilak M.C. in W.P.No.18166/2024 was in violation of the Rules and thereby directed the Special Officer to make an appointment of the Chief Executive Officer of the Society. The ARCS on 11.07.2024, issued a communication to the Special Officer suggesting that Chandan H.R. S/o H.R. Ramesh be appointed as Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.3-Society on compassionate grounds. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.05.2024 disqualifying the Directors under Section 29-C (8) (d) and the communication by ARCS to the Special Officer appointing of Chandan H.R. as the Chief Executive Officer is challenged in these writ petitions. 7. It is the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioners that : (i) The ARCS failed to notice that the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer - Thilak M.C. was done under a resolution by all the board members who were present in - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5918 WP No. 18166 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20442 of 2024 the board meeting and Thilak M.C. was first appointed as an Acting Chief Executive Officer and later confirmed his appointment as Chief Executive Officer. (ii) Thilak M.C. was unanimously appointed as Assistant Secretary / computer operator way back in the year 2021 after following the recruitment procedure. (iii) The appointment of Thilak M.C. was by a resolution of the board of the society. The respondent Nos.4 to 8 in W.P.No.18166/2024 did not object when all the board members unanimously resolved to appoint Thilak M.C. as a Chief Executive Officer. When such being the fact, the ARCS ought to have proceeded against the committee instead of the individual member and the disqualification under 29-C(8)(d) of the Act is arbitrary and not justified. (iv) That the ARCS under the Act does not have any power whatsoever to recommend someone to be appointed as Chief Executive Officer of the Society and the power of appointment of Chief Executive Officer only vests with the board of the society and recommending the name - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:5918 WP No. 18166 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20442 of 2024 by the ARCS to appoint a particular person as Chief Executive Officer is one without authority. (v) There was no violation of Rules 17 and 18 of the Karnataka Co-operative Society Rules, 1960 (for short ‘the Rules), as the Rules do not govern the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer. (vi) The ARCS initially having approved the resolution appointing Thilak M.C as a Chief Executive Officer and subsequently withdrawing its approval is one without legal justification. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 justifies the communication dated 11.07.2024 issued by the ARCS vide Annexure-M and submits that the recruitment process was not followed as per Rule 18 of the Rules. Therefore, the individual members who are party to a wrong decision of the committee cannot escape pleading collective responsibility and thus, ARCS was justified in taking recourse of - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:5918 WP No. 18166 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20442 of 2024 initiating action under Section 29-C (8)(d) of the Act. It is submitted that the present petition invoking writ jurisdiction is not maintainable, as there is an alternative efficacious remedy provided under the Act and the petition has to be dismissed on the said ground. 9. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that availability of alternative remedy would not operate as a bar when the petitioner seeks enforcement of any fundamental right, where there is a violation of principles of natural justice or when the order of the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the writ petition is maintainable inspite of availability of alternative remedy as in the instant case, the authority – ARCS had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and communication and the act of the authority warrants interference by this court. 10. Having heard the learned counsels on both sides the questions that falls for consideration is; - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:5918 WP No. 18166 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20442 of 2024 1. Whether the appointment of Chief Executive Officer by the Board of directors would entitle the petitioners / directors for disqualification under Section 29-C(8)(d)? 2. Whether in the present facts and circumstances, writ jurisdiction could be invoked inspite of alternative efficacious remedy? Both the points are taken up together in order to avoid repetition of facts. 11. The undisputed facts are that upon the death of one H.R. Ramesh, the society through the Board passed a resolution appointing Thilak M.C. as in-charge Chief Executive Officer of the society and the ARCS issued an order in the said aspect. Later, the ARCS addressed a letter to the society to appoint the Chie Executive Officer of the society, accordingly, the petitioners along with the directors passed a resolution appointing Thilak M.C. as Chief Executive Officer of the society in furtherance in which, the ARCS issued an order appointing Thilak M.C. as a Chief Executive Officer. When this being the state of - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:5918 WP No. 18166 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20442 of 2024 affairs, the ARCS passed another order appointing the Special Officer to the society and addressed a letter to respondent No.3 stating that the appointment of the petitioner-Thilak M.C. was in violation of Rules and directed the Special Officer to make appointment of the Chief Executive Officer to the society in accordance with law and also recommended Chandan H.R. to be appointed as a Chief Executive Officer of the society. 12. On the complaint received by respondent Nos.4 to 8 in WP No.18166/2024, ARCS called upon the entire board for enquiry and by the impugned order disqualified the petitioners under Section 29-C(8)(d) of the Act. The order of disqualification against the petitioners is for appointing Thilak M.C. as Chief Executive Officer. The appointment of Thilak M.C. is by a resolution which is approved by the ARCS. Section 30 (1) of the Act provides for supersession or suspension of board of management of a society, a specific provision incorporated in the Act for taking action against he committee of the management of - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:5918 WP No. 18166 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20442 of 2024 a society for its acts of commission and / or omission specified in the section. 13. The expression ‘board’ is defined in Section 2 (b) of the Act, which means the board of directors or the governing body of a co-operative society, by whatever name called, to which the direction and control of the management of the affairs of the society is entrusted to. 14. Section 31 of the Act gives power to the Registrar to appoint a Special Officer replacing an elected board of a society when it is of the opinion that the society is not functioning in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules or bye-laws. Section 29-C of the Act provides that if a person /member of a society becomes subject to one or more of the disqualification specified in the section, he would be disqualified for the membership of the board. 15. Section 29-C(8)(d) of the Act specifies that any member of a board of a society during the term of his office is not discharging his duties satisfactorily, the Registrar may either on report made to him or otherwise - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:5918 WP No. 18166 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20442 of 2024 by order remove such members and in cases falling under clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-Section (8) to Section 29, disqualify him from holding any office in the co- operative society for such period not exceeding five years, as may be specified in such order, provided that no order shall be made unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard, is given to the person against whom the order is made. The plain reading of Section 29-C (8)(d) of the Act relates to a disqualification of a member/person of the board and it refers to an individual member who is subjected to anyone or more of the disqualification specified in Section 29-C of the Act. Section 30 of the Act as stated supra, authorizes the registrar to supersede or suspend the board, if in the opinion of the registrar the management/board is not performing the duties as per the Act or bye-laws. Section 29-C of the Act pertains to the specific acts committed by the member of a board of a society during the term of his office in contravention of the Act, Rules or bye-laws and which are prejudicial to the interest of the society. The impugned order does not - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:5918 WP No. 18166 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20442 of 2024 indicate what specific act was committed by a member of the board to enable disqualification of membership, when the act was collective act of all the board members by passing a resolution appointing Thilak M.C. as a Chief Executive Officer. 16. However, in the instant case there is no material that the directors acted beyond their authority in appointing Thilak M.C. as Chief Executive Officer as the appointment made through a unanimous resolution does not constitute misconduct or violation of the Act. The ARCS exceeded its jurisdiction by disqualifying the directors without any valid reasons. 17. The Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others1 (Whirlpool Corporation) has held at para Nos.14, 15 and 19 as under: “14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in 1 (1998) 8 SCC1. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:5918 WP No. 18166 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20442 of 2024 nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for “any other purpose”. 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:5918 WP No. 18166 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20442 of 2024 x x x 19. Another Constitution Bench decision in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO, Companies Distt. I laid down: “Though the writ of prohibition or certiorari will not issue against an executive authority, the High Courts have power to issue in a fit case an order prohibiting an executive authority from acting without jurisdiction. Where such action of an executive authority acting without jurisdiction subjects or is likely to subject a person to lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment, the High Courts will issue appropriate orders or directions to prevent such consequences. Writ of certiorari and prohibition can issue against the Income Tax Officer acting without jurisdiction under Section 34, Income Tax Act.” 18. The impugned order passed by the ARCS disqualifying the petitioners under Section 29-C (8)(d) of the Act is without a specific act committed by the member of the board of the society, as the act done is by all the board members unanimously resolving to appoint Thilak M.C. as a Chief Executive Officer and this would not be covered under any of the act as indicated under Section - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:5918 WP No. 18166 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20442 of 2024 29-C of the Act. The order of the ARCS invoking Section 29-C of the Act and recommending the name of the particular person to be appointed as a Chief Executive Officer is one without jurisdiction and accordingly the points framed for consideration are answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER (a) The writ petitions are allowed. (b) The impugned order at Annexure ‘A’ series dated 31.05.2024 and the order at Annexure ‘B’ dated 10.06.2024 disqualifying the Directors under Section29-C(8)(d) of the Act are hereby quashed. (c) The impugned order of communication dated 11.07.2024 in W.P. No.20442/2024 stands quashed. (d) The ARCS is directed to refrain from interfering in the internal administration of the - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:5918 WP No. 18166 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20442 of 2024 society beyond the Powers conferred under the Act. (e) The Special Officer appointed by the ARCS shall cease to hold office forthwith and the Board of directors shall resume its functions in accordance with law. Sd/- ________________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24