- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33906 WP No. 25272 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 25272 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. ARUN ROSHAN DSOUZA S/O THOMAS DSOUZA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT PANNADKA HOUSE, KALLIGE VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. - 574219. 2. CHANDRASHEKARA BANGERA, S/O JATHI POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT BAYILA HOUSE, VEERAKAMBA VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. - 574222. 3. CHANDRASHASA KARCHERA S/O LATE B.M.RAMU AGE - 67 YEARS R/O VITLA KODI MANE, SAJEEPAMOOD POST AND VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK - 5742222. 4. SUNDARA POOJARY S/O UMANA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT VITTLAKODI HOUSE, SAJIPAMUDA VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. - 574231. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33906 WP No. 25272 of 2025 5. VIJAYANANDA S/O KRISHNAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NURTHADY HOUSE, DEVASYA PADUR VILLAGE, ALLIPADE POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. - 574211. 6. LATHA W/O RAGHUNATHA SAPALYA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NATTI HOUSE, NARIKOMBU POST AND VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. - 574231. 7. LINGAPPA POOJARY S/O KORAGAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT KELAGINA HALAI HOUSE, KUKKIPADY VILLAGE, MAVINAKATTE POST. BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. - 574237. 8. RAJESH KUMAR S/O BHARATH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT BALEKALLU HOUSE, MANILA VILLAGE, MURUVA POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. -574243. 9. SANJEEVA POOJARY K S/O LATE THIMAPPA POOJARY AGE- 60 YEARS KUCHHUGUDDE MANE SAJEEPAMOOD POST AND VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK - 574243. 10. SMT LOLAKSHI W/O HARISH CHANDRA RAI AGE- 56 YEARS R/O KAMLADADDA MANE KAVALAPADURU VILLEGE KARINJA POST, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33906 WP No. 25272 of 2025 BANTWAL TALUK - 574243. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ROHITH B.J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES MYSURU DIVISION PUBLIC BUILDING, NEW SAYYAJI ROAD. MYSURU - 570001. 3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, DAKSHINA DISTRICT, MANGALORE - 575001. 4. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES MANGALORE SUB DIVISION MANGALORE - 575001. 5. PRIMARY COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD BANTWAL TALUK D.K - 574243. REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR (RESPONDENT NO.4 SOCIETY IS REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.N.SUKUMAR JAIN ,ADVOCATE FOR C/R5; SRI.HARISHA.A.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN A NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO 3 DATED 27/05/2025 IN NO. DRP/S11/29 (C)/04/2024-25 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE G AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33906 WP No. 25272 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged an order bearing No.DRP:S11:29(C):04:2024-25 dated 27.05.2025 passed by the respondent No.3, by which they were disqualified under Section 29C of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (henceforth referred to as ‘the KCS Act, 1959’ for short). The petitioners have also challenged the correctness of an order bearing No.DRP:RS:V:A31(1):2025-26 dated 28.05.2025 passed by the respondent No.3 appointing the respondent No.4 as special officer. They have also challenged an order bearing No.DRP:NONDANI:AA-28A(5):1:2025-26 dated 04.08.2025 appointing the respondent No.4 as the administrator of the respondent No.5. They have challenged the order dated 06.08.2025 passed in Appeal No.JRM/DAP/03/2025-26 passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting an application filed by them for interim stay of the order of disqualification. 2. (i) The petitioners claim that they are the members of the managing committee of the respondent No.5 and were duly elected for a period of 5 years on 01.10.2020. They - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33906 WP No. 25272 of 2025 claimed that due to an interim order passed by this Court in WP No.1590/2020, the elections of the president and vice president was held on 19.02.2022 and the board of directors was constituted on 19.02.2022. They contend that as per Section 29A(2) of the KCS Act, 1959, the term of the body commences from the date when the majority of the elected members assumes office. Therefore, they contend that their term began from 19.02.2022. (ii) They contend that on 21.03.2025 a show-cause notice was issued by the respondent No.4 as to why action should not be initiated against the petitioners for appointing staff in violation of Rules 17 and 18 of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Rules, 1960 (henceforth referred to as ‘Rules, 1960’ for short) and why they should not be disqualified under Section 29(c)(8)(c)(d) of the KCS Act, 1959. The petitioners were thereafter disqualified in terms of an order dated 27.05.2025 and the respondent No.4 was appointed as a special officer in terms of an order dated 28.05.2025 and an administrator was appointed on 04.08.2025. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33906 WP No. 25272 of 2025 (iii) The petitioners challenged their disqualification before the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.JRM/DAP/03/2025-26. They also sought for an interim relief of staying the order of disqualification. The respondent No.2 in terms of an order dated 06.08.2025, rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that when a substantial question as to whether the disqualification of the petitioners was in accordance with law or not was presented before the respondent No.2, he could not have rejected the application filed by the petitioners for stay of the disqualification. He contends that the non-consideration of the application for stay have deprived the petitioners of participating in the democratic process of administering the respondent No.5 and therefore prays that the order passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the application filed by the petitioners be set aside and the order of disqualification of the petitioners be stayed until disposal of the appeal by the respondent No.2. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33906 WP No. 25272 of 2025 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondent Nos.1 to 4, submitted that after the order of disqualification was passed, a special officer was appointed and an administrator is now appointed to elect a new board of management and that proceedings were taken out under Rule 13D of the Rules 1960 and further proceedings which involves finalizing the list of eligible and ineligible voters are underway. He therefore submits that at this stage, if the order passed by the respondent No.2 is set aside and the disqualification of the petitioners is stayed, there is every likelihood of the petitioners throwing a spanner into the works undertaken by the respondent No.2. He therefore submits that no indulgence is warranted in this writ petition. 5. The petitioners are visited with an order of disqualification under Section 29C of the KCS Act, 1959, for alleged violation of Rules 17 and 18 of the Rules 1960. The petitioners have challenged the said order in a statutory appeal before the respondent No.2 and have filed an application for stay of the order of disqualification. Now that it is stated that the respondent No.4 is appointed as a special officer and the respondent No.3 is appointed as an administrator of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33906 WP No. 25272 of 2025 respondent No.5, in view of the disqualification of the petitioners, it is appropriate to protect the interest of not only the petitioners but also the respondent Nos.3 and 4 so that the process of electing a new board of management is undertaken at the earliest. 6. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed-in-part. ii) The impugned order passed by the respondent No.2, dated 06.08.2025 in Appeal No.JRM/DAP/03/2025-26 is set aside. iii) The order of disqualification of the petitioners dated 27.05.2025 passed by the respondent No.3 in bearing No.DRP:S11:29(C):04:2024-25 is stayed till the disposal of the appeal before the respondent No.2. This shall however not affect the respondent No.4 from taking further steps to finalize the list of eligible and ineligible voters. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33906 WP No. 25272 of 2025 iv) The respondent No.2 is directed to dispose off the appeal as early as possible at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. v) It is made clear that this arrangement is only till the disposal of the appeal before the respondent No.2. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21