- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48416 WP No. 30081 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 30081 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. M. SANJEEVA SHETTY, S/O LATE KORAGAIAH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED 2. DR. PRAKASH SHETTY, S/O LATE H. NARAYANA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 3. SRI. R. RAMAIAH, S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED 4. SRI. M. ANANTHAKRISHNA SHETTY, S/O LATE UGGAPPA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED 5. DR. M.R. CHITRALEKHA, W/O DR. MAHESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED 6. SMT. SUPRABHA .V. RAI, W/O LATE VISHWANATH RAI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 7. DR. T. DAYANANDA CHOUTA, S/O LATE MAHABALA CHOUTA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48416 WP No. 30081 of 2025 8. SRI. D. CHANDRASHEKAR SHETTY, S/O LATE B. HERIYANNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 9. SRI. P. VITTAL SHETTY, S/O LATE SUBBANNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED ALL ARE DIRECTORS OF SRI RAMAKRISHNA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., (SOUTH), MYSORE TRISHUL TOWERS', NO.3, 4TH MAIN ROAD, V V MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 002 &PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.R. RAJGOPAL, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANAND .P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S BUILDING. DR BR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA, NO. 1, ALI ASKER ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052 3. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA, NO.1, ALI ASKER ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052. 4. SRI RAMAKRISHNA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., (SOUTH), MYSORE TRISHUL TOWERS', NO.3, 4TH MAIN ROAD, V V MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 002., REPTED BY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48416 WP No. 30081 of 2025 ITS SECRETARY. RGT UNDER MYSORE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1959 5. SRI. H.A. JEEVANAMITRA, S/O. K.N. ANNAYA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.380, 17TH MAIN, 'B' BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, VIJAYANAGARA, MYSURU - 570 017. 6. SRI. K. VIJAYA KUMAR, S/O. B. KENDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.42, 2ND CROSS, NEAR ISEC GATE, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU - 560 072 &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1-3 SRI. PRADEEP .T., ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI. K. ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & 6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE INTERIM ORDER DTD 25.09.25 PASSED IN APPEAL NO. RCS/DAP/D1/06 TO 14/2025-26 BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA I.E R2 HEREIN, VIDE ANNX-N AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48416 WP No. 30081 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioners being the members of the Board of Sri. Ramakrishna House Building Co-operative Societies Limited (for short 'the Society), have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 25.09.2025 passed in appeal No.RCS/DAP/D1/06 to 14/2025-26 by respondent No.2 produced as per Annexure-N. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, the petitioners being the members of the Board of the Society are aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2 in an appeal pending before it, permitting respondent Nos.5 and 6 to implead themselves as party to the proceedings. 3. It is contended that respondent Nos.5 and 6 being the members of Society, of which, the petitioners are the members of the Board filed a complaint with respondent No.2 making various allegations, including irregularities in allotting sites. It is his contention that as many as 13 allegations were made against the petitioners while filing the complaint. The said complaint was considered by respondent No.3 and the charges were framed against the petitioners in respect of 9 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48416 WP No. 30081 of 2025 such allegations. The proceedings were held by respondent No.3 and the order came to be passed disqualifying the petitioners from being the members of Board. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by respondent No.3, the petitioners have approached respondent No.2 by preferring an appeal. In the said appeal, respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein have filed an application to implead themselves as necessary and proper parties. The said application was allowed by respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Heard Sri. M R Rajagopal, learned senior advocate for Sri. Anand P, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Yogesh D Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri. Pradeep T, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Sri. K Ananda, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6. Perused the materials on record. 5. Learned senior advocate for the petitioners placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir V.s District Collector, Raigad and others1 1 (2012) 4 SCC 407 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48416 WP No. 30081 of 2025 contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered a similar situation regarding disqualification of the members of Board for the remaining tenure. He also placed reliance on the decision on the Division Bench of this Court in Thimmakka V.s State of Karnataka and others2, to contend that the Division Bench has held that in a proceedings for disqualification of the member, the compliant is only for invoking suo-motu jurisdiction of the Director, but the complainant has no locus standi either to defend or to support the proceedings initiated by the Director and therefore, respondent Nos.5 and 6 are not necessary parties. 6. Learned senior advocate also placed reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shri. Laxman Satayappa Shirgavi V.s Smt. Sushila Raosaheb Desai3, wherein it is held that the applicants may have been the complainants, on the basis of which, action was initiated by respondents, but the same would not give any right or locus standi to them to challenge the order passed by the respondent on such complaint. 2 1998(6) Kar.L.J.562 3 WP.No.109230/2017 dated 20.06.2018 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48416 WP No. 30081 of 2025 7. Learned senior advocate also placed reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sri. M V. Ramappa V.s State of Karnataka4, to contend that the Court has again held that in a proceedings where disqualification of the member of the Board, the complainant will not have any independent right to adjudicate the matter. Learned senior advocate contended that the co-ordinate Bench has considered the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Parappa V.s Nandarayappa5, to hold that the proceedings for disqualification can be initiated suo-motu or on a complaint given by a third party, no individual person would have statutory right to invoke such jurisdiction. The Court has also referred to the decision in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra), where the complaint came to be filed by the complainant and held that such complainant will have a remote interest to bring to the notice of the officer concerned about the irregularities, but cannot seek to be a party on the ground of public interest. The Court has also referred to principle of damnum sine injuria and held that the person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission and there may be some harm or 4 WP.No.14326/2019 dated 21.08.2019 5 (1998) 6 KLJ 557 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48416 WP No. 30081 of 2025 loss that may not be wrongful in the eye of law because it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest of the complainant but juridically harm of this description, which may lead to a remote injury. When no personal injury is caused to the complainant or no injury is caused to his right, on the other hand, the petitioners were able to establish by demonstrating that he was also a rival candidate for the election, then, his recourse can only be to invoke Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and not to prosecute the cause. 8. Placing reliance on these decisions, learned senior advocate contended that position of law is very well settled. Respondent No.2 has not taken into consideration any of these decisions and proceeded to allow the application permitting respondent Nos.5 and 6 to be impleaded, which is bad under law. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition and to set aside the order produced as per Annexure-N. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 opposing the petition submitted that the petitioners being the members of the Board in blatant violation of the Rules and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48416 WP No. 30081 of 2025 the bye-laws are acting against the interest of the Society and they are allotting sites to various non resident Indians and later the same is being registered in the names of persons who are close to the petitioners. As many as 13 allegations were made in the complaint, which are very serious in nature, out of the same, respondent No.3 has framed as many as 9 charges. It is the complainant who lead the evidence and produced voluminous documents in proof of his contention. Under such circumstances, respondent Nos.5 and 6 who are the members of Society having interest in the welfare of Society are necessary and proper parties. 10. Learned counsel also submitted that respondent Nos.5 and 6 are the parties in the dispute that was enquired by respondent No.3. But in the appeal preferred before respondent No.2, they were not made as party deliberately to get an order behind their back. Hence, respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed an application to implead themselves. The application was not seriously disputed by the petitioners and accordingly the application was allowed and respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48416 WP No. 30081 of 2025 were impleaded. Hence, the same cannot be found fault with by the petitioners. 11. Learned counsel submits that the matter is still pending before respondent No.2 for adjudication. In the meantime, the order passed on the application is challenged before this Court. 12. Learned counsel contended that the same Bench which passed the order in Shri. Laxman Satayappa Shirgavi (supra), later passed an order in WP.Nos.54384-385/2017 on 01.03.2018 allowing similar application for impleading the complainant. When the said order was questioned by filing a memo for being spoken to, the co-ordinate Bench by referring to the decisions in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra), Parappa (supra) and in S. Srinivas and others V.s State of Karnataka and Others6, passed a detailed order holding that the impleading applicant i.e., complainant is the original complainant and on the basis of his complaint, proceedings were initiated by the respondent authorities to enquire into the irregularities and directorship of the petitioners and to find that 6 WP.No.54844-849/2013 DD 04.03.2014 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48416 WP No. 30081 of 2025 the impleading applicant being the original complaint is to be heard in the matter before passing any order in the writ petition. Therefore, the order impleading the complainant do not call for any interference. Placing reliance on these decisions, learned counsel contended that the Court has passed the order after considering the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court relied on by the learned senior advocate for the petitioners. 13. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in H M Manjunathappa V.s Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore Division and Others7, to contend that even the co-ordinate Bench has referred to the decisions in Kedar Shashikant Deshpnde and others V.s Bhor Municipal Council and others8, Ravi Yashwant Bhoir V.s (supra), Parappa (supra) and, S. Srinivas (supra) and came to the conclusion that a person who has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority will have the right to challenge the same before the competent Court. The Court has also held that the complainant therein has 7 ILR 2018 KAE 661 8 (2011) 2 SCC 654 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48416 WP No. 30081 of 2025 locus standi to contest the matter before the competent authority. Even though he being the nominated Director has lodged the complaint with the Registrar and on the basis of such complaint, proceedings were initiated resulting in submission of the report under Section 65, he continued to be the member of the Society. Therefore, he has right to protect the economic interest of the Society. The Court has distinguished the decision in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra), and S. Srinivas (supra), from the facts of the said case. Placing reliance on these decisions, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 prays for dismissal of the petition. 14. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 supporting the contentions taken by respondent Nos.5 and 6 contended that the charges leveled against the petitioners are serious in nature, voluminous documents were produced to substantiate the contention and the charges were leveled against the petitioners. Under such circumstances, respondent Nos.5 and 6 were the parties before respondent No.3 and they are necessary parties. Accordingly, the application is allowed. There are no merits in the petition - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48416 WP No. 30081 of 2025 filed by the petitioners and therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 15. In light of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Division Bench of this Court as well as the co- ordinate Bench of this Court, it is noticed that various decisions were rendered by various Courts by taking into consideration the nature of allegations and on the background with which the allegations were made. 16. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in H M. Manjunathappa V.s (supra), considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions that are relied on by the learned senior advocate for the petitioners categorically held that when the right of the complainant has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority, he will have a right to challenge the same before the competent Court. In the present case, respondent Nos.5 and 6 are admittedly members of the Society of which the petitioners are the members of the Board. It was respondent Nos.5 and 6 as complainants have filed the complaint making as many as 13 allegations, out of which, respondent No.3 has framed as many - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48416 WP No. 30081 of 2025 as 9 charges. The charges framed against the petitioners herein are serious in nature. The same was considered by respondent No.3 which resulted in disqualification of the petitioners, which was challenged before respondent No.2. Admittedly, before respondent No.3, respondent Nos.5 and 6 were the parties. They led the evidence by producing various documents. None of these facts are disputed by the petitioners, but however, which preferring the appeal the petitioners have not arrayed the complainants as parties. Under such circumstances, the application came to be filed seeking to implead them. The said application was allowed by passing the order as per Annexure- N. The said order is challenged by the petitioners before this Court. 17. The charges framed on the basis of complaint lodged by respondent Nos.5 and 6 as found in Annexure-A are serious in nature. Very minute details are given by the complainants against each of the petitioners herein and narrated the manner in which the irregularities were committed. Respondent No.3 held an enquiry to hold that charges against the petitioners were proved. The said order of - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48416 WP No. 30081 of 2025 respondent No.3 is challenged before respondent No.2 by preferring the appeal. Only at the time of preferring the appeal, the complainants were not made as parties for the reasons best known to the petitioners. There cannot be any dispute that if the irregularities said to have been committed by the petitioners are in fact true, it will definitely affect the existence of Society itself, of which respondent Nos.5 and 6 are the members. Under such circumstances, respondent Nos.5 and 6 who have taken the responsibility of complaining against the petitioners are definitely necessary parties, as otherwise, the proceedings will be held behind their back, keeping them in the dark. It cannot be said that they are not aggrieved by any of the order that may be passed in favour of the petitioners. Such orders may even effect the existence of the Society itself. Under such circumstances, looking to the nature and seriousness of the allegations made against the petitioners and in view of the fact that respondent Nos.5 and 6 are the members of the Society who have filed the complaint before respondent No.3 and initiated the proceedings, they are necessary parties to the proceedings. No prejudice will be caused to the petitioners, if respondent Nos.5 and 6 are made - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48416 WP No. 30081 of 2025 as parties to the proceedings. On the other hand, respondent Nos.5 and 6 can safeguard the interest of the Society as a whole as its members in any of the proceedings. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the contentions taken by the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be dismissed and I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, they are disposed off. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE PNV CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10