- 1 - WA No.100008 of 2025 C/W WA No.100009 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT APPEAL NO.100008 OF 2025 C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.100009 OF 2025 IN WA NO.100008 OF 2025 BETWEEN: PRAKASH RAMACHANDRA HEGDE AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KUDEGOD, DODMANE, TQ: SIDDAPURA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581329. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES OFFICE OF REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NO.1, ASKAR ALI ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 2. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KARWAR, DISTRICT UTTARA KANANDA-581329. 3. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF ARCS, SIRSI (UTTARA KANNADA)-581329. R - 2 - WA No.100008 of 2025 C/W WA No.100009 of 2025 4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE DODMANE GROUP VILLAGE SEVA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY DODMANE, SIDDAPUR TALUK, U.K. DISTRICT-581329. 5. VIVEK SUBRAYA BHAT AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, DIRECTOR DODMANE GROUP VILLAGE SEVA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, SIDDAPUR TALUK, U.K.DISTRICT-581329. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.J.M.GANGADHAR., AAG FOR SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH; SRI. A.P.HEGDE JANMANE AND SRI. VIJAY MALALI., ADVOCATES FOR C/R5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961 PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2024 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.107291/2024(CS-RES), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN WA NO.100009 OF 2025 BETWEEN: PRAKASH RAMACHANDRA HEGDE AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KUDEGOD, DODMANE, TQ: SIDDAPURA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581329. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES OFFICE OF REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NO.1, ASKAR ALI ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. - 3 - WA No.100008 of 2025 C/W WA No.100009 of 2025 2. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KARWAR, DISTRICT UTTARA KANANDA-581329. 3. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF ARCS, SIRSI (UTTARA KANNADA)-581329. 4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE DODMANE GROUP VILLAGE SEVA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY DODMANE, SIDDAPUR TALUK, U.K. DISTRICT-581329. 5. SUBRAYA S/O. NARAYAN BHAT AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, PRESIDENT DODMANE GROUP VILLAGE SEVA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, SIDDAPUR TALUK, U.K.DISTRICT-581329. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.J.M.GANGADHAR., AAG FOR SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH; SRI. A.P.HEGDE JANMANE AND SRI. VIJAY MALALI., ADVOCATES FOR C/R5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961 PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2024 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.107287/2024(CS-RES), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 23.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 4 - WA No.100008 of 2025 C/W WA No.100009 of 2025 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) In the captioned appeals, the appellant is assailing the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.107291/2024 C/w W.P.No.107287/2024. 2. The appellant has filed these two petitions challenging the interim order passed by respondent No.2, who, according to the appellant, is the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (ARCS), Kumta. It is contended that respondent No.2 has been placed as in-charge of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (DRCS) by respondent No.1 and is only empowered to discharge administrative functions. Therefore, it is the appellant’s case that respondent No.2 lacks the statutory competence to act as an Appellate Authority under the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, "the KCS Act"). 3. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are as follows: - 5 - WA No.100008 of 2025 C/W WA No.100009 of 2025 At the instance of the appellant, respondent No.3 passed an order disqualifying respondent No.5. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.5 preferred an appeal before respondent No.2. Despite being only an in-charge DRCS, respondent No.2 entertained the appeal and granted an interim order. This interim order was challenged by the appellant by filing writ petitions in W.P. No.107291/2024 and W.P. No.107287/2024. 4. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant raised a preliminary objection that respondent No.2, being only an in-charge officer, is not empowered to exercise statutory appellate powers. The appellant submitted that the appointment of an in-charge officer is merely an administrative arrangement and does not confer statutory authority. The appellant relied on Section 106(1)(d-2) of the KCS Act, which provides for an appeal against an order of disqualification, and argued that under sub-section (2) of Section 106, such an appeal lies before the jurisdictional DRCS, who must be duly appointed under law. - 6 - WA No.100008 of 2025 C/W WA No.100009 of 2025 5. In support of this contention, the appellant relied on the judgment of a Single Bench of this Court in B.N. Dhotrad v. The Board of Directors/cum- Appellate Authority and Others1, to argue that proceedings before respondent No.2, are without jurisdiction. The appellant further submitted that, under sub-section (2) of Section 2-A of the KCS Act, only an officer appointed by the State Government can exercise statutory powers as an Appellate Authority. Since no such appointment was made in the present case, and respondent No.2 is only an in-charge subordinate officer, he cannot adjudicate upon an order passed by an equivalent authority. The appellant also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Chand Aggarwal v. Batala Engineering Co. Ltd2. 6. While the learned Single Judge acknowledged the decision in B.N. Dhotrad, reliance was instead placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gopalji 1 ILR 2006 KAR 3163 2 AIR 1969 SC 483 - 7 - WA No.100008 of 2025 C/W WA No.100009 of 2025 Khanna v. Allahabad Bank and Others3, which was followed by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in A. Savariar v. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission4, and also on the co-ordinate bench decision in Sugunapri vs. District Collector (Inspector of Panchayats), Cuddalore District and Another5. Based on these authorities, the learned Single Judge held that respondent No.2, though an in-charge officer, was competent to decide the statutory appeal, notwithstanding his temporary appointment. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed. 7. These intra-court appeals are filed challenging the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.107291/2024 and W.P. No.107287/2024. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal and vehemently contended that the common order of the learned Single 3 (1996)3 SCC 538 4 2009(73) AIC 681 5 2010 (4) CTC 701 - 8 - WA No.100008 of 2025 C/W WA No.100009 of 2025 Judge is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Chand Aggarwal (supra). 9. Referring to Chapter I-A of the KCS Act, the appellant submitted that the authorities and appellate forums are constituted only in exercise of powers conferred under the said chapter. Thus, unless an officer is appointed by the State Government in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 2-A of the Act, he cannot exercise statutory appellate powers. The appellant argued that respondent No.2 was appointed by the Registrar and not by the State Government, and such an appointment cannot be equated to one made by the State under the KCS Act. It was further submitted that a subordinate officer holding in-charge position cannot decide appeals arising from orders passed by an equivalent officer. Heavy reliance was once again placed on the decision in B.N. Dhotrad (supra), and it was submitted that the learned Single Judge had misinterpreted the ruling in Gopalji Khanna (supra), which had, in fact, referred to and followed Hari Chand Aggarwal (supra). In that case, it - 9 - WA No.100008 of 2025 C/W WA No.100009 of 2025 was clearly held that the Deputy Commissioner and Additional District Magistrate are distinct authorities, and the Additional District Magistrate cannot exercise the powers of the Deputy Commissioner, even by way of delegation. 10. In response, the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State referred to Rules 32 and 68 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules and argued that respondent No.2, though appointed as an in-charge officer, is legally empowered to discharge the functions of the DRCS, including the exercise of statutory appellate authority. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, and the counsel for respondent No.5. We have also carefully considered the rival submissions and the authorities relied upon by both sides. - 10 - WA No.100008 of 2025 C/W WA No.100009 of 2025 12. The following points would arise for consideration: i) Whether respondent No.2, who is in the cadre of ARCS being placed as an in-charge of DRCS, can exercise statutory powers of an Appellate Authority provided under Section 106(1)(d-2) of the KCS Act, 1959 ? ii) What order? FINDINGS ON POINT No.(i):- 13. The Single Bench of this Court in B.N. Dhotrad (supra) dealt with an identical issue, specifically examining whether an officer holding only an in-charge position could exercise substantive statutory powers. In that case, the Court unequivocally held that a person appointed merely to be "in-charge" of the duties of a post cannot exercise the statutory or substantive powers attached to that post. Referring to Rules 32 and 68 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, the Bench clarified that such in-charge officers are authorized only to carry out day-to-day administrative duties and cannot perform - 11 - WA No.100008 of 2025 C/W WA No.100009 of 2025 functions that are statutory in nature or require a formal appointment. 14. Although the learned Single Judge adverted to the above judgment, reliance was primarily placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gopalji Khanna v. Allahabad Bank and Others (supra) and the Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in Sugunapri v. District Collector (Inspector of Panchayats), Cuddalore District and Another (supra). On the basis of those authorities, the learned Single Judge concluded that respondent No.2, despite being only an in-charge Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, was competent to adjudicate the statutory appeal. However, it is pertinent to note that the Supreme Court in Gopalji Khanna (supra) itself referred to the authoritative ruling in Hari Chand Aggarwal v. Batala Engineering Co. Ltd.(supra), which takes a contrary view on the powers of in-charge officers. - 12 - WA No.100008 of 2025 C/W WA No.100009 of 2025 15. Before proceeding further, it is essential to examine sub-section (2) of Section 2-A of the KCS Act, which reads as follows: “The State Government may appoint [as many Additional Registrars of Co-operative Societies,] Joint Registrars of Co-operative Societies, Deputy Registrars of Co-operative Societies [State Representatives, and Assistant Registrars of Co-operative Societies either as officiating or otherwise] as it thinks fit for the purpose of assisting the Registrar.” 16. It is equally relevant to reproduce the provision under Section 106(1)(d-2) of the KCS Act, which provides the right of appeal against an order of the Registrar made under Section 29C. The relevant portion reads: “106. Appeals to other authorities.– (1) [Subject to the provisions of section 108A, an appeal shall lie under this section] against,– (d-2) an order of the Registrar under Section 29C.” 17. A combined reading of these provisions makes it evident that only an officer appointed by the State Government under sub-section (2) of Section 2-A is legally empowered to exercise the powers of an Appellate Authority. An in-charge officer, who merely performs the - 13 - WA No.100008 of 2025 C/W WA No.100009 of 2025 duties of the post without a formal appointment, lacks the legal authority to assume such powers. Appointment, whether permanent or temporary (officiating), involves actual vesting of the post and the functions attached to it. In contrast, an in-charge arrangement merely enables a person to manage the office temporarily and does not confer the authority to discharge statutory or quasi-judicial functions. 18. In the present case, respondent No.2, who is substantively the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (ARCS), is functioning as an in-charge DRCS. In line with the principles laid down by the Single Bench in B.N. Dhotrad (supra), respondent No.2 cannot exercise the appellate powers conferred upon a duly appointed DRCS. He is, at best, permitted to discharge routine administrative duties. Allowing an in-charge officer to exercise appellate jurisdiction not only violates the statutory scheme but also has the potential to adversely affect the substantive rights of parties. - 14 - WA No.100008 of 2025 C/W WA No.100009 of 2025 19. The Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Chand Aggarwal (supra) addressed a similar issue concerning the authority of an Additional District Magistrate acting as in-charge. The Court categorically held that the term “District Magistrate” in Section 29(1) of the Defence of India Act, 1962, could not be interpreted to include an Additional District Magistrate. It was further held that unless a person is formally appointed under Section 10(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he cannot exercise the powers vested in the post of District Magistrate. The Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case laid down that there is a clear distinction between a temporary or stop-gap arrangement and a formal, legal appointment. The Court clarified that an in- charge or acting incumbent does not acquire the legal authority to take decisions or perform duties that statutorily require a regular and valid appointment. The ruling emphasized that administrative convenience cannot override statutory requirements and that the doctrine of - 15 - WA No.100008 of 2025 C/W WA No.100009 of 2025 necessity cannot be used to justify continued exercise of power by in-charge officers. 20. In Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar v. Union of India6, the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that statutory and substantive powers attached to a public post cannot be exercised by a person who is not duly and substantively appointed to that post. The Court reiterated the fundamental principle that mere designation as “in-charge” or holding a post in an officiating or temporary capacity does not confer the legal authority to exercise functions that are statutorily reserved for a regular appointee. This judgment underscores the constitutional importance of adherence to the CS procedure of appointment prescribed by law, especially where statutory powers are to be exercised. 21. The legal position enunciated by the Single judge of this Court in B.N. Dhotrad (supra) is both categorical and authoritative, holding that an officer 6 AIR 1991 SC 1145 - 16 - WA No.100008 of 2025 C/W WA No.100009 of 2025 merely placed "in-charge" of a post cannot exercise the substantive or statutory powers associated with that office. The Single judge, upon a close analysis of Rules 32 and 68 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, emphasized that the role of an in-charge officer is limited to discharging routine administrative functions and does not confer upon such an officer the authority to undertake acts which require a formal and substantive appointment. This principle finds strong resonance in the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar (supra), wherein it was unequivocally held that mere temporary or stop-gap arrangements cannot vest in an officer the statutory powers that are inherently linked to a substantive post. The Supreme Court underscored the constitutional necessity of regular appointments for the valid exercise of such powers. Similarly, the Full Bench in Hari Chand Aggarwal(supra) reiterated that statutory powers must flow from a valid and regular source of authority, and that in-charge or acting incumbents cannot legally perform acts - 17 - WA No.100008 of 2025 C/W WA No.100009 of 2025 that are the prerogative of a duly appointed officer. Furthermore, reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the authoritative treatise “Services under the State” by Justice Rama Jois, and the Division Bench ruling in M. Maridevi v. State of Mysore7, further fortifies the settled legal principle that in-charge arrangements are inherently transitional and cannot substitute the legal prerequisites of formal appointment, especially when exercise of statutory authority is in question. 22. This decision reinforces the principle that an in- charge officer, even if he is a senior functionary, cannot exercise substantive statutory powers unless duly appointed. 23. Though the learned Single Judge cited Gopalji Khanna (supra), the deeper import of Hari Chand Aggarwal (supra), which was expressly referred to therein, was not meaningfully considered. The Single Judge has erred in placing reliance on Gopalji 7 1968 SCC ONLINE KAR 244 - 18 - WA No.100008 of 2025 C/W WA No.100009 of 2025 Khanna(supra), a decision which primarily dealt with the issue of service benefits and internal administrative functioning rather than the exercise of statutory powers by an in-charge officer. Importantly, Gopalji Khanna(supra) did not involve a direct challenge to the legality of an officer’s exercise of statutory powers without a substantive appointment. Thus, the factual matrix and legal issue in Gopalji Khanna (supra) are distinguishable and do not override or dilute the ratio decidendi of Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar (supra) or Hari Chand Aggarwal(supra). Therefore, reliance on Gopalji Khanna(supra) is misplaced and contrary to the binding precedent set by the Apex Court. 24. It is well established under Article 141 of the Constitution that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India. Consequently, the ratio laid down in Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar(supra) and Hari Chand Aggarwal(supra) , being decisions of the Supreme Court (including a Full Bench in the latter), constitute binding - 19 - WA No.100008 of 2025 C/W WA No.100009 of 2025 precedent. This Court is, therefore, bound to apply the law as declared in these cases rather than relying on a factually and legally inapposite decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex court in Gopalji Khanna(supra). 25. Upon a meticulous examination of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Chand Aggarwal (supra) and the Single Bench in B.N. Dhotrad(supra) , we are of the firm view that an in- charge officer cannot exercise the substantive powers attached to a statutory post. In the instant case, respondent No.2, though functioning as in-charge DRCS, lacks the requisite appointment under Section 2-A(2) of the KCS Act and is, therefore, legally incompetent to exercise appellate powers under Section 106(1)(d-2) of the Act. Consequently, the interim order passed by respondent No.2 is without jurisdiction, and the learned Single Judge’s order upholding the same is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered in the ‘negative’. - 20 - WA No.100008 of 2025 C/W WA No.100009 of 2025 FINDING ON POINT NO.(ii) 26. For the forgoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeals are allowed. ii) The order dated 06.12.2024 passed in W.P.No.107291/2024 C/w W.P.No.107287/ 2024 is set-aside. iii) The appeals preferred before respondent No.2, who is merely holding the post in an in-charge capacity is held to be not maintainable in light of law laid in down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar v. Union of India reported in AIR 1991 SCC 1236 and in full bench in Hari Chand Aggarwal(supra) as well as the settled law reiterated by Single Judge of this Court in B.N. Dhotrad (supra). iv) Consequently orders dated 27.11.2024 passed by Deputy Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Karwar bearing Nos.DRN/F/DDS/APPEAL/ 13/2024-25 and - 21 - WA No.100008 of 2025 C/W WA No.100009 of 2025 DRN/F/DDS/APPEAL/14/2024-25 are hereby set aside. v) However, liberty is reserved to respondent No.5 to prefer an appeal, if so advised, before the competent Appellate authority in accordance with law. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE AM/- Ct:vh