- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33206 WP No. 5264 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 5264 OF 2024 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. DIVYAKALA. B.P. W/O. VENUGOPAL, AGE - 29 YEARS, IN CHARGE SECRETARY, RAMACHANDRA HOSURU M.P.C.S., AND ALSO AT: RAMACHANDRAHOSURU, NANDI HOBLI, JATWARA POST, CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES CHIKKABALLAPURA, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101. 2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES APMC YARD, CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101. 3. SRI. C. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O. CHIKKANARASAPPA, AGE- 75, PRESIDENT, RAMACHANDRA HOSURU MILK PRODUCERS CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD., 4. SRI. R.L. GANGADHAR S/O. LAKSHMAN, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33206 WP No. 5264 of 2024 AGE - 45 YEARS, 5. SRI. G. NARAYANASWAMY S/O. GOPALAPPA, AGE - 55 YEARS, 6. SRI. K. KRISHNAPPA S/O. KEMPANNA, AGE - 55 YEARS, 7. SRI. RAJANNA. N S/O. RAMANNA, AGE - 58 YEARS, 8. SMT. SONNAMMA W/O. LATE BACHAPPA, AGE - 50 YEARS, 9. SRI. THIMMAIAH S/O. VENKATARAYAPPA, AGE - 58 YEARS, 10. SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA S/O. PUTTAPPA, AGE - 43 YEARS, 11. SRI. PAPANNA S/O. MUNIYAPPA, AGE - 45 YEARS, 12. SRI. N. SRINIVAS S/O. SRIRAMAIAH, AGE - 50 YEARS, 13. SMT. Y.M. PRABHA W/O. A. RAJANNA, AGE 40 YEARS, 14. SRI. R.H. MANJUNATH S/O. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGE 45 YEARS, (THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 14 ARE DIRECTORS OF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33206 WP No. 5264 of 2024 RAMACHANDRAHOSURU MPCS, RAMACHANDRAHOSURU VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK-562101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; SRI. CHOWDA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 13 AND 14; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.5, 6, 7, 8 AND 12) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION DATED 07.09.2022 AT ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF RAMACHANDRA HOSURU M.P.C.S AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an endorsement bearing No.¸À¤48/¹¹J/zÁªÁ/¹Dgï dated 07.02.2024 issued by respondent No.2 refusing to accept the dispute raised by the petitioner under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1959'). 2. The petitioner contends that she was eligible to be appointed to the post of Chief Executive Officer of the society - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33206 WP No. 5264 of 2024 under Section 29G of the Act, 1959. When the office of Chief Executive Officer in Ramachandra Hosuru Milk Producers Co- operative Societies fell vacant, she submitted her application to the Managing Committee to consider her name. She claims that the Managing Committee passed a resolution dated 08.01.2020 under Rules 17 and 18 of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Rules, 1960, appointing her as in-charge Chief Executive Officer. She claims that from that day onwards, she has been working without any obstruction or objection by the Managing Committee. She contends that the respondent No.1 along with other Directors illegally passed a resolution dated 07.09.2022 and elected a person named Mr. N. Shashikumar as the Chief Executive Officer. The nomination of Mr. N. Shashikumar as the Chief Executive Officer was challenged by a shareholder in a dispute under Section 70 of the Act, 1959, before the respondent No.2 in Dispute No.3/2022-23. The said dispute was rejected on the ground that the shareholder was not a member of the Managing Committee and therefore, he could not challenge the action of the Managing Committee. Later, the petitioner, who was removed, raised a dispute against the nomination of Mr. N. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33206 WP No. 5264 of 2024 Shashikumar as the Chief Executive Officer, before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 however did not entertain the dispute but issued an endorsement dated 07.02.2024 stating that he had already taken a decision in Dispute No.3/2022-23 and therefore, the dispute of the petitioner cannot be entertained. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the said endorsement. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had raised several contentions in the dispute including the legality of the resolution dated 07.09.2022 and therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent No.2 to have accepted it and consider it in accordance with law. He contends that the earlier dispute raised by a shareholder was not on the ground urged by the petitioner but on other grounds which were not accepted by the respondent No.2. He contends that the dispute earlier raised was decided by the respondent No.2 not on the contentions urged in the dispute but on the ground of maintainability. He therefore, contends that the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 warrants interference. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33206 WP No. 5264 of 2024 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that respondent No.2 had already taken a decision in dispute raised regarding the resolution dated 07.09.2022 and therefore, the respondent No.2 cannot pass any other decision and hence, he issued the impugned endorsement. He therefore, contends that if the petitioner was aggrieved, she could have challenged the endorsement before the Appellate Authority in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 4, 9 to 11, 13 and 14 contends that the petitioner was not a regular Secretary but was appointed on in-charge basis. He also contends that the appointment of the petitioner on in-charge basis was itself doubtful as records were tampered by the earlier Secretary, who incidentally was father of the petitioner. He therefore, contends that the petitioner has no right to challenge the nomination of Mr. N. Shashikumar. He further contends that since the petitioner was only an in-charge Secretary, she cannot have any grievance against the Managing Committee nominating the capable person as a Secretary of the Society. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33206 WP No. 5264 of 2024 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 4, 9 to 11, 13 and 14. 7. The petitioner claimed that she was the in-charge Secretary of the Society and was appointed pursuant to the resolution passed by the Managing Committee dated 08.01.2020. The petitioner was sought to be replaced by the Managing Committee by selecting another Secretary. The Managing Committee held the proceedings and passed a resolution dated 07.09.2022 selecting Mr. N. Shashikumar as the Secretary out of 13 candidates. This resolution was no doubt challenged by a shareholder of the Society in a dispute under Section 70 of the Act, 1959, which was numbered as Dispute No.3/2022-23. The respondent No.2 did not entertain the said dispute on the ground that the shareholder was not entitled to challenge the resolution passed by the Managing Committee and it was only Managing Committee members or members of the Society, who were entitled to challenge it. The petitioner who was sought to be replaced, thereafter challenged the resolution dated 07.09.2022 by raising a dispute under - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33206 WP No. 5264 of 2024 Section 70 of the Act, 1959. The respondent No.2 instead of receiving the dispute and disposing it off in accordance with law, issued an endorsement dated 07.02.2024 indicating that respondent No.2 cannot receive the dispute on the ground that it had earlier decided the similar dispute numbered as Dispute No.3/2022-23. This endorsement is palpably arbitrary as the petitioner is entitled to raise any dispute regarding constitution and management of the Society and it is incumbent upon the respondent No.2 to decide the same in accordance with law. Under the circumstances, the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 deserves interference. 8. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) This writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned endorsement bearing No.¸À¤48/¹¹J/zÁªÁ/¹Dgï dated 07.02.2024 issued by the respondent No.2 is set aside. (iii) The respondent No.2 is directed to accept the dispute raised by the petitioner and dispose it off in accordance with law within a period of three - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33206 WP No. 5264 of 2024 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. (iv) In order to enable the respondent No.2 to expedite the consideration of the dispute, the petitioner shall appear before the respondent No.2 on 09.09.2025 at 11.00 a.m. (v) It is needless to mention that the respondent No.2 shall consider the case after hearing all the parties concerned including Mr. N. Shashikumar as well as the Society. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34