- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51843 WP No. 21406 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 21406 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: THE MUNDURU MAHILA MILK PRODUCER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, MUNDURU VILLAGE, K.R NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU-571602. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETORY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT 1969 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDESH T.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES HUNASURU SUB-DIVISION, HUNASURU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105. 3. B.K MANJULA W/O M.N KUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS MILK TESTER, MAHILA MILK PRODUCER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, MUNDURU, K.R NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU - 571 602. Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51843 WP No. 21406 of 2025 4. THE PRESIDENT MAHILA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, MUNDURU, K.R NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU - 571 602. 5. SMT. SARALA W/O RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT MUNDURU VILLAGE SALIGRAMA HOBLI, K.R NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU - 571 602 6. SMT. RANI W/O PRAKASHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT MUNDURU VILLAGE SALIGRAMA HOBLI, K.R NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU - 571 602 7. SMT NAGAMMA W/O LATE GIRINAIKA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT MUNDURU VILLAGE SALIGRAMA HOBLI, K.R NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU-571602 8. PREMA W/O RAJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT MUNDURU VILLAGE K.R NAGARA TALUK, SALIGRAMA HOBLI, MYSURU - 571 602 9. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O MALLESWAMYGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT MUNDURU VILLAGE, SALIGRAMA HOBLI, K.R NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU - 571 602 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51843 WP No. 21406 of 2025 10. SMT YASHODA W/O LAKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT MUNDURU VILLAGE, SALIGRAMA HOBLI, K.R NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU - 571 602 11. SMT VEDAVATHI W/O SHANKAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, DIRECTOR, WOMEN'S MILK PRODUCER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, MUNDURU, K.R NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU- 571602 12. SMT. YASHODAMMA W/O THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, DIRECTOR, WOMEN'S MILK PRODUCER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, MUNDURU, K.R NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU - 571 602 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 V/O DT. 19/9/25, NOTICE TO R5-R12 ARE D/W R4 - SD/-) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.04.2025 IN APPEAL NO.175/2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNEXURE- P. AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51843 WP No. 21406 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the KAT') produced as per Annexure-P and the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by respondent No.2 produced as per Annexure-M. 2. Heard Sri. Sandesh T.B., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri. A.V. Gangadharappa, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Society that, one Mamatha was working as Secretary, and there were some allegations made against her. Therefore, by keeping her under suspension, an enquiry was initiated. The Enquiry Report came to be passed as per Annexure-B exonerating her from all the charges. Therefore, the petitioner Society passed the Resolution dated 13.06.2016 revoking the order of suspension passed against her. She was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51843 WP No. 21406 of 2025 also permitted to deal with financial matters of the Society as per Annexure-D. Respondent No.3 who was appointed as an in- charge Secretary on suspension of Mamatha, was directed to relegate to the original post as Milk Tester. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.3 has raised the dispute before respondent No.2 challenging the Resolutions dated 13.06.2016 and 19.06.2016. 4. Respondent No.2 passed the order as per Annexure-M allowing the dispute that was raised by respondent No.3 and setting aside the Resolutions dated 13.06.2016 and 19.06.2016 relegating respondent No.3 to her original post as Milk Tester. The said order was challenged by the Society before KAT. The said appeal came to be dismissed as per Annexure-P and the same is challenged before this Court. 5. It is the contention of respondent No.3 while raising the dispute before respondent No.2 that, she was appointed as regular Secretary of the Society as per Resolution dated 30.08.2014 and therefore, she could not be relegated to the post as Milk Tester. The same was accepted by respondent No.2 as well as by the KAT. Now it is the contention of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51843 WP No. 21406 of 2025 petitioner Society that, Resolution dated 30.08.2014 is a concocted document and therefore the original Resolution was not produced by respondent No.3 either before respondent No.2 or before KAT. 6. The cross-examination of respondent No.3 held before respondent No.2 is produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Nowhere in the cross-examination, there is a suggestion to the witness that Resolution dated 30.08.2014 is a concocted Resolution and that she has withheld the original Resolution with her, taking advantage of her position as CEO of the Society. Interestingly, no such grounds were urged even before the KAT. Therefore, it is clear that it is for the first time, the contention is raised before this Court to contend that Resolution dated 30.08.2014 is a concocted or created Resolution. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.3 could have produced the original Resolution before respondent No.2 and that respondent No.3 had deliberately withheld the original Resolution without handing it over to the Society. Unfortunately, even such ground is not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51843 WP No. 21406 of 2025 made out either before respondent No.2 or before KAT and there is not even a suggestion to respondent No.3 herein while she was being cross-examined before respondent No.2. 8. It is also to be noted that Mamatha who was reinstated to her service as per Resolution dated 19.06.2016, has never challenged the order of respondent No.2 before KAT in her individual capacity. She has also not challenged the order of KAT before this Court. Interestingly, she is also not arraigned as one of the respondents in her individual capacity. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that there are no merits in the contentions taken by the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has filed the memo dated 19.09.2025 reporting that respondent Nos.4 to 12 are no longer members of the managing committee of the petitioner Society. It has given the names of 8 persons who are the present members of the managing committee. They are not impleaded in the present petition. 10. In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51843 WP No. 21406 of 2025 ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6