- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39113 WP No. 28463 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 28463 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. H.M.KRISHNA S/O. SRI. MARIYAPPA, AGE: 37 YEARS, R/AT. HOSAHOLALU VILLAGE, K R PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571426 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVINDRA PRASAD B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION, PANDAVAPURA-571434. 2. THE HOSAHOLALU PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY K.R. PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571426 REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (REGISTERED UNDER KCS ACT, 1959) 3. SRI. J.M. ABHISHEK S/O. LATE DASEGOWDA, AGE: 35 YEARS, R/AT GOVINDEGOWDANAKOPPALU VILLAGE, K.R. PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571426 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGSH D. NAIK, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39113 WP No. 28463 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.08.2025 PASSED IN DISPUTE NO.SANI40/DDS/10/2025-26 BY 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-G CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS/REJECT THE DISPUTE PETITION FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-G1 TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the respondent No.1 in dispute No.SaNi40/DDS/10/2025-26 and has consequently prayed to reject the dispute raised by the respondent No.3. 2. The petitioner and other persons contested the elections to the post of director of respondent No.2 which was held on 29.12.2024. The respondent No.3 was one of the unsuccessful candidates. The petitioner had contested for the post of director which was reserved for 'Scheduled Tribe'. The petitioner claimed that he belonged to 'Scheduled Tribe' and had filed appropriate nomination form enclosing therewith his caste certificate. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 raised a dispute before the respondent No.1 alleging that the petitioner did not belonged to 'Scheduled Tribe' but belonged to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39113 WP No. 28463 of 2025 'Backward Class' namely, 'Gangamatha'. Along with the dispute, an application under Section 71(3) of Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959 was filed to suspend the petitioner from the post of director and to pass an order restraining him from participating in the meeting of election to the post of president and vice-president. 3. The respondent No.1 after considering the material placed before him by the respondent No.3 which indicated that the father and brother of the petitioner belonged to 'Gangamatha' caste, held that the dispute raised by the respondent No.3 merits consideration and hence, restrained the petitioner from participating in the meeting of election to the post of president and vice-president of respondent No.2 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.3 had earlier filed an election petition No.1/2025 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R.Pete challenging the election to the post of president of respondent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39113 WP No. 28463 of 2025 No.2, where respondent No.3 claimed that the petitioner belonged to schedule caste and not scheduled tribe. He contends that the respondent No.3 did not produce any material to justify his claim that the petitioner did not belong to scheduled tribe and that his father belonged to 'Gangamatha'. He therefore contends that respondent No.1 could not have assumed that the petitioner did not belong to scheduled tribe and therefore, he could not have restrained the petitioner from participating in the meeting to the election of president and vice-president of respondent No.2. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has secured the file before the respondent No.1. He submits that a perusal of the file discloses that the respondent No.3 had furnished a photocopy of the caste certificate of the father of the petitioner which showed that he belonged to 'Gangamatha' and not ‘scheduled tribe’. He further submits that school registration certificate of one Mr.Parmesh is also found in record, though there is no reference to the said person in the dispute raised by the respondent No.3. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39113 WP No. 28463 of 2025 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate therefore contends that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is just and proper, as he had only restrained the petitioner from attending the meeting of the respondent No.2 to elect president and vice-president of respondent No.2. 8. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional government advocate for the respondent No.1. 9. The election petition filed by the respondent No.3 in E.P.No.1/2025 challenging the election of petitioner as Director of a co-operative society before the Civil Court was not maintainable in view of Section 70 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and definitely was not maintainable under Karnataka Panchyat Raj Act, 1993. Therefore, the petitioner shall file an appropriate application before the District Court in E.P.No.1/2025 to close the proceedings. As regards, the impugned order, the dispute raised by the respondent No.3 before the respondent No.1 shows that the respondent No.3 had placed on record photocopy of the caste certificate of the father of the petitioner which indicated that he belonged to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39113 WP No. 28463 of 2025 backward community. This is the basis for respondent No.1 to restrain the petitioner from participating in the meeting of the respondent No.2 to elect the President and Vice President of the society. 10. The claim of the petitioner that there was no basis for the respondent No.1 to pass the impugned order, is therefore not justified. Therefore, there is no error in the respondent No.1 exercising jurisdiction to restrain the petitioner from participating in the meeting of respondent No.2. 11. Before parting, it is relevant to note that the petitioner claimed that he belonged to ‘scheduled tribe’. The question whether the petitioner belonged to ‘scheduled tribe’ or not, cannot be gone into by the respondent No.1. However, he is bound to refer the dispute to the District Caste Verification Committee under Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment Etc,) Act, 1990 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1990' for short). The respondent No.1 thereafter take a call about the caste of the petitioner. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39113 WP No. 28463 of 2025 case of The State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Ravindra Swamy and Anr. - W.A.No.200065/2022. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed off on the following terms: (i) The impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is upheld. Consequently, challenge to the said order in this writ petition is rejected. (ii) The respondent No.1 shall forward the caste certificate of the petitioner to the District Caste Verification Committee who shall consider the case of the petitioner as to whether he belongs to scheduled tribe or not? (iii) The District Caste Verification Committee shall decide the said question, as early as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of request from the respondent No.1. (iv) The respondent No.1 shall thereafter take a decision and dispose off the dispute raised by respondent No.3. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15