- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33760 WP No. 24396 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 24396 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. POONACHA P.M. S/O MEDAPPA P.P., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT KAKOOR POST, KUMTOOR, KODAGU - 571217. 2. KARIAPPA M.T. S/O. LATE M.A. THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT PONNAMPET TALUK, KODAGU 571217. 3. SANDEEP K.N. S/O. LATE NAGARAJ K.N., AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT. SRIMANGALA VILLAGE, KUMTOOR, KODAGU - 571217. 4. M.K. UDAYA KUMAR S/O. LATE KARIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT. KURCHI, KODAGU-571217. 5. M.M. MUTHAPPA, S/O. M.B. MUTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT KAKURU POST, KUMTOOR, SRIMANGALA, VIRAJPET, KODAGU-571217. 6. USHA K.H. W/O. HARISH K.M., Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33760 WP No. 24396 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT. KAKOOR POST, KUMTOOR, SRIMANGALA, VIRAJPET, KODAGU-571217. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SHWETHA NAYAK N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE, REP BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001. 2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571201. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, UNION BUILDING, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT-571201 4. SRIMANGALA PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., SRIMANGALA, PONNAMPET, KODAGU-571217 REP BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. [REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959] 5. THE SPECIAL OFFICER, NO.2800, PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., SRIMANGALA, PONNAMPET TALUK, KODAGU. REPRESENTED BY, THE CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571218. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33760 WP No. 24396 of 2025 [REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959] …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 13.06.2025 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL OFFICER, SRIMANGALA PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CREDIT CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., i.e., RESPONDENT NO.5 IN KRA.SAM:SA.A.A/VPE/SPECIAL OFFICER/01/2025-26 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. 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 petitioners have challenged an endorsement bearing No.¸À.C.C/«¥ÉÃ/«±ÉõÁ¢üPÁj/01/2025-26 dated 13.06.2025 issued by respondent No.5. The petitioners have also sought for a direction to the respondent No.5 to consider their representation dated 28.04.2025. 2. The petitioners are Directors of respondent No.4 and were elected at an election held on 11.01.2025. The results of the election were declared on 28.01.2025 and elected - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33760 WP No. 24396 of 2025 Board assumed office. The Board comprised of 13 members. On 04.04.2025, 7 out of 13 Directors tendered their resignations which were accepted by the Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.4 - Society on 19.04.2025. Thereafter, a representation dated 28.04.2025 was submitted by the petitioners requesting the authorities to conduct election only for the seven casual vacancies. However, the respondent No.5 issued an endorsement dated 13.06.2025 stating that elections cannot be held only for seven casual vacancies and that the elections have to be held to the entire Board. Being aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were lawfully elected at the election held on 11.01.2025 and in view of the resignation of seven elected Directors, the petitioners have lost opportunity to serve on the Board of respondent No.4. She therefore, contends that the impugned endorsement is liable to be quashed and petitioners be permitted to continue as Directors of respondent No.4. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Special Officer is appointed to the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33760 WP No. 24396 of 2025 respondent No.4 since there was no quorum and in view of section 31(5) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (henceforth referred to as 'Act of 1959'), the Special Officer is bound to arrange for the constitution of new Board for the co- operative society. He referred to the definition of the Board as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act of 1959 and contends that the Board means the board of Directors or governing body of a co-operative society. He also referred to Section 29E of the Act of 1959 and contends that whenever there is a casual vacancy either by death, resignation, removal or otherwise and remaining term of office is more than half of its original term, then the same has to be filled up by conducting election. He therefore, contends that the petitioners' request to continue as elected Directors of respondent No.4 is not sustainable. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the official respondents. 6. It is not in dispute that out of 13 Directors of respondent No.4, who constituted the Board, 7 Directors have resigned. The elections were admittedly held on 11.01.2025 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33760 WP No. 24396 of 2025 and the petitioners were declared elected on 28.01.2025. The term of the Directors of respondent No.4 is five years from the date of election. 7 out of 13 Directors have resigned on 04.04.2025. Therefore, there was no quorum for the Managing Committee of respondent No.4 to function. In that circumstance, power is exercised under Section 31 of the Act of 1959 by appointing a Special Officer to perform functions of the Board. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate, under Section 31(5) of the Act of 1959, the Special Officer is bound to conduct election to elect new Board, which includes not only those Directors, who had resigned but also other six Directors who had continued. In that view of the matter, the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.5 is just and proper and no interference is warranted with the same. 7. Hence, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18