- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14211 WP No. 107793 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT PETITION NO. 107793 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M) BETWEEN: 1. CHOWDA S/O. TAMMANNA GOWDA, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC. AGRICUTLURE, R/O. #65, KITTOLLI, KALKAI GRAMA, DODMANE GRAM PANCHAYAT, SIDDAPUR, DODMANE, UTTARA KANANDA-581322. 2. DODDAMANE GROUP GRAMAGALA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LTD., DODDAMANE, DODDAMANE, TALUKA: SIDDAPUR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA, R/BY. ITS C.E.O, DIVAKAR MANJUANTH BHAT, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. CEO OF PETITONER NO. 2 SOCIETY, R/O.# 61, KALLEMAKKI, BILEGOUD GRAMA, SIDDAPURA TOWN, DODMANE, UTTARA KANNADA-581322. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SAURABH SONDUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-590001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.10.24 14:17:17 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14211 WP No. 107793 of 2025 UTTARA KANNADA-583201. 3. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KARWAR-581424. 4. KANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK, SIRSI-581402, R/BY. ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.02 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23/10/2025 AT ANNEXURE-A SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER NO.02 TO CAST ITS VOTE TO THE ELECTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.04 SOCIETY TO BE HELD ON 25/10/2025 THROUGH PETITIONER NO.01 AS ITS DELEGATE. B. WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER NO.02 TO CAST ITS VOTE THROUGH PETITIONER NO.01 AS ITS DELEGATE. C. ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEMS FIT IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE COST OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14211 WP No. 107793 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned AGA representing respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. Petitioner No.1 is the fresh delegate of petitioner No.2/Society, who seek permission to vote in the election to respondent No.4 to be held on 25.10.2025. The factual background is that petitioner No.2/Society had delegated one another person to vote in the said election to be held on 25.10.2025, by a resolution dated 21.10.2025. Later the delegation of such other person was found to be faulty on the ground that he was disqualified from continuing in the Board of any of the Societies for a period of three years as per the disqualification order passed under Section 29-C(h) of the Act. The said order was subject matter of the lis in WP No.107452/2025 and several other matters. There was an interim order staying such disqualification, but this Court in WP No.107452/2025 held that the interim order would only eclipse the order but will not obliterate it. Accordingly, in WP - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14211 WP No. 107793 of 2025 No.107452/2025, the delegation of such other person (Vivek Subhraya Bhat) was held to be invalid. 3. Thereafter, petitioner No.2/Society passed another resolution with 2/3rd majority and decided to delegate the powers to vote in the election to be held on 25.10.2025 to one Chowda Tammanna Gouda i.e. petitioner No.1 herein. The Society also made a representation to the Returning Officer and it is submitted that he issued an endorsement that the voter list has been already prepared and therefore, petitioner No.1 cannot be permitted to vote. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners now contends that the provisions of Section 21(3) provide for changing a delegate and therefore, petitioner No.1 herein be permitted to vote in the election to be held on 25.10.2025 by representing petitioner No. 2/Society. The provisions of Section 21(3) read as below. “[(3) A member once nominated by the board of a Co- operative Society under clause (a) of sub-section (2) to vote on its behalf in any meeting of any other Co- operative Society shall not be changed except by a resolution passed with substantial reasons in a board meeting by a two-third majority of the members present and voting in such meeting. However a Co- operative Society shall not nominate or appoint any - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14211 WP No. 107793 of 2025 member of the board to vote on behalf of it in more than two co-operative societies.]” 5. It is pertinent to note that the change of the delegate is permissible, if there are substantial reasons and such change of delegate also to be endorsed by 2/3rd majority of the members of the Society. Therefore, now the question is whether the petitioner No.1 is to be permitted to vote in the election to be held on 25.10.25. 6. Learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the voters are primarily the Societies and the delegate would only carry out the instructions of the Society in voting. In this regard, he relies on the definition of the delegate as may be found in Section 2(e-1-a) where it is stated as below. “6[(e-1-a) “Delegate” means a member of the Board of a Co-operative society appointed by the Board to represent that Co-operative Society in other co- operative societies;]” 7. Thus, it is his submission that the delegate has to be finalized by the Society after due compliance of all requirements and only then the voter list would be finalized. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner No.2/Society had delegated the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14211 WP No. 107793 of 2025 powers to a disqualified member as a delegate, which was not permissible under law. 8. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that the disqualification not only applies to the person to whom the delegate forms were issued, but also to the Society and therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be countenanced. Further he submits that the calendar of events having been finalized and voter list having been published, it would not be possible for the returning officer to change the delegate by invoking the provisions of Section 21(3) of the Act. 9. On a careful perusal of the above provisions, it is evident that the disqualification of such other person (Vivek Subhraya Bhat) was a known fact to petitioner No.2/Society. Despite such disqualification being within the knowledge of the petitioner No.2/Society, it had delegated the power to vote to such person. Therefore, the role of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be separated to impute the disqualification to such other person i.e., Vivek Subhraya Bhat only. 10. In that view of the matter, the gamut of the present facts presented to this Court do not fall within the substantial - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14211 WP No. 107793 of 2025 reasons as envisaged under Section 21(3) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the petition bereft of any merits and would not sustainable in law. Hence, the petition is dismissed. SD/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SSP CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 1