- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7822 WP No. 103441 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 103441 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. HANAMANTH S/O. KISHTAPPA TULASIGERI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NINGAPUR VILLAGE, TALUKA: MUDHOL, DISTRICT-BAGALKOT. 2. BASAVARAJ S/O. ISHWARAPPA PATIL, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NINGAPUR VILLAGE, TALUKA: MUDHOL, DISTRICT-BAGALKOT. 3. KRISHNA S/O. YALLAPPA HIRENAIK, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NINGAPUR VILLAGE, TALUKA: MUDHOL, DISTRICT-BAGALKOT. 4. SHRIKANTH S/O. APPASAB KENCHARADDI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NINGAPUR VILLAGE, TALUKA: MUDHOL, DISTRICT-BAGALKOT. 5. TAYAVVA W/O. NAGAPPA DESAI, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NINGAPUR VILLAGE, TALUKA: MUDHOL, DISTRICT-BAGALKOT. 6. SURESH S/O. NINGAPPA AVAGANTI @ APPANNAVAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NINGAPUR VILLAGE, TALUKA: MUDHOL, DISTRICT-BAGALKOT. 7. SUBHAS S/O. BASAVANEPPA ULLEGADDI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NINGAPUR VILLAGE, TALUKA: MUDHOL, DISTRICT-BAGALKOT. VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7822 WP No. 103441 of 2025 8. HANAMANTH S/O. YALLAWWA MADAR @ HALAKI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NINGAPUR VILLAGE, TALUKA: MUDHOL, DISTRICT-BAGALKOT. 9. HOLABASU S/O. MALLAPPA PATIL, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NINGAPUR VILLAGE, TALUKA: MUDHOL, DISTRICT-BAGALKOT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SUB DIVISION JAMKHANDI, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT-587313. 2. DOONDAPPA VENKAPPA HUREDDY, MEMBER KRUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYMIT, AGE: ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NINGAPUR VILLAGE, TALUKA MUDHOL, DISTRICT BAGALKOT-587313. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1; SRI. MAHANTESH R. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS BEARING IN PÀæ.¸ÀA:JDgï- 8/J©J£ï/29¹/¹Dgï-02/2024-25 ON THE FILE OF 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22/4/2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 2. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS BEARING IN PÀæ.¸ÀA:JDgï- 8/J©J£ï/29¹/¹Dgï-03/2025-26 ON THE FILE OF 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22/5/2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE- E1, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7822 WP No. 103441 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. Heard learned counsel Sri.Srinivas Naik for the petitioners, learned AGA Smt.Mala B.Bhute for the respondent No.1-State and the learned counsel Sri.Mahantesh R.Patil for the respondent No.2. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings bearing No. PÀæ.¸ÀA:JDgï- 8/J©J£ï/29¹/¹Dgï-02/2024-25 dated 22.04.2025 vide Annexure-E and the proceedings bearing No. PÀæ.¸ÀA:JDgï- 8/J©J£ï/29¹/¹Dgï-03/2025-26 dated 22.05.2025 vide Annexure-E1 on the file of the 1st respondent-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (for short, ‘ARCS’). 3. It is the case of petitioners that due to the disqualification, proceedings were initiated on the basis of the complaint by the respondent No.2. The proceedings were initiated before the 1st respondent, but the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7822 WP No. 103441 of 2025 respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to entertain such proceedings. Hence the petitioner is before this Court. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that several allegations were made by the complainant i.e., the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.1 against the petitioners herein, and a show cause notice came to be issued based on the said complaint to the petitioners. It is the contention of the petitioners that there is absolutely no material for initiation of show cause notice issued. The complaint is also bald and vague and it does not call for any dispute as contemplated under Section 29C of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, ‘the Act’) and the respondent No.1 without appreciating and going through the complaint, has initiated notice under Section 29C of the Act for disqualification of the petitioners, which is not sustainable. Therefore, he contends that when there is no material to rely on the provision of Section 29C of the Act, there is no jurisdiction to the 1st respondent to conduct any - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7822 WP No. 103441 of 2025 proceedings or inquiry as against the petitioners. Therefore the petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent- ARCS. 5. Learned AGA representing the State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 per contra contend that the present petition itself is not maintainable. Based on the complaint filed by respondent No.2, a show cause notice is issued by the 1st respondent under Section 29C of the Act for disqualification, in response to which, the petitioners have already approached and are participating in the proceedings before the 1st respondent. Therefore, it is contended that the 1st respondent is seized of the matter and may take into consideration the grounds urged and the arguments put forth herein before the 1st respondent to contend whether the allegations so made are sustainable or not. In case the contentions of the petitioners are accepted, suitable action or proceedings may be dropped by the respondent No.1. It is not for this - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7822 WP No. 103441 of 2025 Court to deal with the matter as to whether the allegations are true or not. Under the circumstances, they seek dismissal of the petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the respondent-State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 7. It is not in dispute that the matter is seized before the 1st respondent with regard to the petitioners having already participated and appeared against the show cause notice issued by the 1st respondent. The contentions so put forth by the petitioners, and so also urged before the 1st respondent, are yet to be considered. In case the 1st respondent appreciates the contentions of the petitioners, he may pass an order in favour of the petitioners. If not, he may pass adverse orders against the petitioners, which the petitioners are at liberty to question the same before the authorities. Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to accept this petition. The petitioners having already approached the 1st respondent, and as the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7822 WP No. 103441 of 2025 matter is seized before the 1st respondent, they are at liberty to urge all these grounds which are taken up here before the 1st respondent, and the 1st respondent shall provide a proper and reasonable opportunity to put forth their case and pass suitable orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER a. Petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioners to agitate their grievance before the 1st respondent. b. Thereafter, the 1st respondent shall pass suitable orders in accordance with law. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE KGK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18