- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53167 RP No. 477 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REVIEW PETITION NO. 477 OF 2025 BETWEEN: KURUBURU RESHME BELEGARARA HAAGU RAITHARA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA, KURUBURU, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS DELEGATE/PRESIDENT. VENKATAREDDY M. S/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGE 77 YEARS (REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONGWITH SRI. DEVIPRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION M.S BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU -560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY, 3RD FLOOR, T.T.M.C. 'A' BLOCK, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ ELECTION OFFICER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR -563101 Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53167 RP No. 477 of 2025 4. RETURNING OFFICER KOLAR-CHIKKABALLAPUR DCC BANK LTD., DCC BANK ROAD, KOLAR-563101. 5. KOLAR-CHIKKABALLAPUR DCC BANK LTD, DCC BANK ROAD, KOLAR-563101. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959 6. KOLAR-CHIKKABALLAPUR DCC BANK LTD, CHINTAMANI BRANCH, OPP. TO POST OFFICE, CHINTAMANI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959 7. SRI. N.NAGIREDDY S/O T. NAREPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, D/O DIRECTOR CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125 CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 20.11.2025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1, 3 AND 4; SRI. A. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; SRI. R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6; SRI. S. SARAVANA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.7) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF CPC READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53167 RP No. 477 of 2025 REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2025 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.14706/2025 BY SETTING ASIDE THE SAME AND RESTORE THE WRIT PETITION ON THE BOARD TO HEAR AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME ON ITS MERIT AND PASS ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER/ DIRECTIONS OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a review of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.14706/2025 and restore the writ petition and hear and dispose off the same on merits. 2. This Court in W.P.No.14706/2025 had held that the petitioner had failed to pay Rs.12,95,55,000/- by 06.05.2025 and therefore, it was ineligible to participate in the elections to the Managing Committee of District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Kolar. It is sought to be contended that the petitioner tried to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- in cash at one of the branches of District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Kolar and that the bank refused to accept it on the ground that it - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53167 RP No. 477 of 2025 exceeded its cash limit. Therefore, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.2,98,64,000/- on 09.05.2025. It is contended that it was in that context, the petitioner was before this Court challenging its disqualification from participating the elections. It is therefore, prayed that the impugned order be reviewed and the writ petition be restored and hear afresh. 3. (i) The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that this Court noticed the above fact but yet did not grant the benefit. He therefore, prayed that the impugned order be reviewed and liberty be granted to the petitioner to re-argue the case. (ii) In the post-lunch session, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by this Court is inherently defective in as much as under Section 20(2)(b)(iv)(b) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, the petitioner was entitled to pay 50% of the outstanding within fifteen days from the date of general meeting or the date of the election. He contends that the elections were held on 28.05.2025, while 50% of the outstanding was paid on 09.05.2025 and hence, the impugned order disqualifying the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53167 RP No. 477 of 2025 petitioner from participating the election is defective and has to be reviewed and revoked. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 submitted that the petitioner was required to deposit 50% of the outstanding as on 31.03.2025 or before 06.05.2025. However, the petitioner admittedly did not deposit the same. He contends that if the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount within the said period, the inevitable should follow namely, the petitioner would be disqualified from participating in the election. He also contended that this Court had considered the above contention and rejected it in terms of the order sought to be reviewed. He also contended that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was entitled to deposit 50% within 15 days was neither urged nor argued in the writ petition as well in this review petition and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim review of the order. 5. The learned counsel for respondent No.7 reiterated the above submissions and submitted that the petitioner was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53167 RP No. 477 of 2025 liable to pay an amount of Rs.33,00,00,000/- and not the Rs.27,00,00,000/- as alleged. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 and the learned counsel for respondent No.7. 7. It is now well settled that the remedy of a review is only to correct errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be treated as an appeal. In the instant case, the first contention urged by the petitioner was dealt with by this Court while disposing of the writ petition. As regards the second contention, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.7, the same was not urged before this Court in the writ petition and it is also not urged in the review petition. In that view of the matter, there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53167 RP No. 477 of 2025 8. Hence, this review petition is dismissed. It is however, open for the petitioner to pursue any other remedy available in law. 9. In view of dismissal of the review petition, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48