- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33407 WP No. 25737 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 25737 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. ARAVIND M.A S/O ANNAJI GOWDA AGE- 43 YEARS DIRECTOR (NOW DISQUALIFIED) BHARATH ELECTRONIC EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD., FIRST FLOOR, B.E. COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. BANGALORE - 560 013. 2. GOPINATH B.S S/O SUNDERMURTHY A.N AGE- ABOUT 53 YEARS DIRECTOR (NOW DISQUALIFIED) BHARATH ELECTRONIC EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD., FIRST FLOOR, B.E COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. BANGALORE - 560 013. 3. RAGHU M.N S/O NARAYANAPPA AGE- ABOUT 42 YEARS DIRECTOR (NOW DISQUALIFIED) BHARATH ELECTRONIC EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD., FIRST FLOOR, B.E COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. BANGALORE - 560 013. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAKUMAR S PATIL, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI DEVIPRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33407 WP No. 25737 of 2025 AND: 1. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (H AND M) ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BENGALURU REGION, SAHAKARA SOWDHA, NO.146, 3RD FLOOR, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 8TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003. 3. BHARATH ELECTRONICS HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. 1ST FLOOR, B E CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. JALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 013, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE, (REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D NAIK, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; SRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11-07-2025 PASSED IN DISPUTE NO. JRB/DAVA/29-C/06/2019-20 BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33407 WP No. 25737 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 in Dispute No. JRB/DAVA/29-C/06/2019-20. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the respondent No.1 in Appeal No.Ani(Va&Ee)/D2/DAP/09/2025-26. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioners who were the erstwhile directors of the respondent No.3, were disqualified under Section 29C of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (henceforth referred to as ’the KCS Act, 1959’ for short), in terms of an order dated 21.06.2021, which was challenged in WP.No.19269/2021. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to the respondent No.2 for fresh consideration. Later, the respondent No.2 in terms of an order dated 11.07.2025 again disqualified the petitioners for a period of 5 years under Section 29C(8)(b)(c) and (d) of the KCS Act, 1959. The petitioners thereafter challenged the said order before the respondent No.1 in Appeal No.Ani(Va&Ee)/D2/DAP/09/2025-26. An application for interim - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33407 WP No. 25737 of 2025 stay was filed, which was rejected by the respondent No.1 in terms of an order dated 19.08.2025. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the interim relief, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have a right of appeal against the order passed by the respondent No.2 and therefore, pending consideration of the appeal, the respondent No.1 was bound to favourably consider the application for stay, as the petitioners are already re-elected to the managing committee for the present term. He therefore submits that the rejection of the application for stay would have a cascading effect inasmuch as, the participation of the petitioners in the affairs of the respondent No.3 would be jeopardised. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the respondent No.1 after considering the contentions urged by the petitioners, has rightly rejected the application for stay and no indulgence is warranted, as the petitioners have been disqualified under Section 29C(8)(b)(c) and (d) of the KCS Act, 1959. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33407 WP No. 25737 of 2025 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate also reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the respondent No.1 has carefully considered the contentions urged in the appeal as well as the application for stay and had rightly rejected the application and no interference is warranted. 6. The learned counsel for the proposed respondent No.4 submits that he was the complainant at whose behest proceedings under Section 29C of the KCS Act, 1959, was initiated against the petitioners. He submits that since he is interested in the outcome of this writ petition, he may be permitted to come on record. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and the learned counsel for the proposed respondent No.4. 8. It appears that the respondent No.2 had passed an order disqualifying the petitioners under Section 29C(8)(b)(c) and (d) of the KCS Act, 1959. Being aggrieved by the said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33407 WP No. 25737 of 2025 order, the petitioners appear to have filed an appeal before the respondent No.1, where they sought interim stay of order of disqualification. It also appears that the petitioners were re- elected as the directors of the respondent No.3 for the current term. Therefore, the respondent No.1 ought to have considered the application for stay, as refusal to do so may render the appeal infructuous or result in the petitioners performing their duties as elected directors for the present term. 9. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 in Dispute No.JRB/DAVA/29- C/06/2019-20, which is challenged in appeal before the respondent No.1 in Appeal No. Ani(Va&Ee)/D2/DAP/09/2025-26 is stayed until the appeal before the respondent No.1 is disposed off. In the meanwhile, the petitioners shall not take any major policy decision affecting the finance of the respondent No.3 but may carry on the day to day activities of the board of directors of respondent No.3. The respondent No.1 is directed to dispose off the appeal as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33407 WP No. 25737 of 2025 10. It is made clear that if the petitioners do not cooperate in the disposal of the appeal, the order of stay granted shall stand dissolved and the respondent No.1 shall proceed to dispose off the appeal based on the available material and as directed above and in accordance with law. 11. The application filed, if any, by the proposed respondent No.4 stands disposed off, reserving liberty to him to approach the respondent No.1 and seek impleadment before the respondent No.1 in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12