- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36146 WP No. 13125 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 13125 OF 2021 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. D.C. CHOWDAIAH S/O CHOWDAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS DEVIPURA GRAMA MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571430 2. YOGASHREE D.C. W/O KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS DEVIPURA GRAMA MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571430 3. K.M. GURUSWAMY S/O MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS KAGEPURA GRAMA MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571430 4. DORESWAMY T.C. S/O CHIKKAPUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS TALGVADI GRAMA MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571430 5. SURESH S/O GUNDASHETTY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS TALGVADI GRAMA MALAVALLI TALUK Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36146 WP No. 13125 of 2021 MANDYA DISTRICT-571430 6. CHELUME GOWDA S/O HANNUMAIAYA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS TALGVADI GRAMA MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571430 7. NINGAMMA W/O. LINGAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS TALGVADI GRAMA MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571430 8. PAVITRA S/O CHOWDAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS TALGVADI GRAMA MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571430 9. B. SURESH S/O BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS DEVIPURA GRAMA MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571430 10. BASAVARAJU S/O CHIKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS TALGVADI GRAMA MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571430 11. VENKATESH S/O RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS KAGEPURA GRAMA MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571430 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36146 WP No. 13125 of 2021 12. HANUMANTHU S/O HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS TALGVADI GRAMA MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571430 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VARUN JAYAKUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571401. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES MANDYA SUB-DIVISION 1ST CROSS, SUBASH NAGAR, MANDYA-571401. 4. TALGVADI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES TALGVADI GRAMA MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571430. 5. THE CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MALAVALLI TALUK, MALVALLI-571430. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.R.KHAMROZ KHAN, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 AND 5; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36146 WP No. 13125 of 2021 BY RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 12.03.2021 BEARING NO.AR.39/SEC.64/QSE/01/2020-21 VIDE ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court challenging an order passed by the respondent No.3 bearing No.AR.39./Sec 64/QSE/01/2020-21 dated 12.03.2001 under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1959' for short). 2. The petitioners claim that they were elected to the board of directors of respondent No.4 during the year 2020. The respondent No.3 addressed a letter dated 11.01.2021 to the respondent No.2 alleging discrepancies while auditing the accounts of respondent No.4 and recommended for appointment of a special officers under Section 30(1) of Act, 1959. The respondent No.2 replied vide letter dated 19.01.2021 stating that the charges/allegations made against the respondent No.4, pertained to the year 2017-2018 and related to the earlier board of management and therefore, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36146 WP No. 13125 of 2021 said discrepancies cannot be held against the petitioners. He however informed the respondent No.3 that he may supersede the board under Section 29-C3(c) of the Act, 1959 for not placing the annual audit report before the general body. The respondent No.3 proceeded ahead and passed the impugned order under Section 64 of the Act, 1959 and appointed an enquiry officer namely, the respondent No.5. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the said order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not concerned with the allegations made and therefore, the appointment of enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry into allegations which related to the year 2017 -2018 serves no purpose. Besides this, he contends that the respondent No.2 had specifically instructed the respondent No.3 that such an enquiry is not warranted, as it related to the year 2017-2018. The respondent No.3 went ahead to appoint an enquiry officer. He therefore contends that the impugned order appointing the enquiry officer is liable to be set at nought. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36146 WP No. 13125 of 2021 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that the respondent No.3 has exercised his statutory suo moto power under Section 64 of the Act, 1959, since he was of the opinion that the allegations made against the previous board of management was serious and warranted an enquiry. He therefore, contends that unless the out come of the enquiry is known, the petitioners cannot challenge the mere appointment of an enquiry officer. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5. 6. Under Section 64 of the Act, 1959, the respondent No.3 is vested with a suo moto power to conduct an enquiry into the working and functioning of a Cooperative Society. The impugned order appointing the respondent No.5 shows that the respondent No.3 had independently applied his mind to the allegations made and held that the allegations required an enquiry. The power of the authority to conduct a suo moto enquiry is now well settled in view of the judgment of a full - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36146 WP No. 13125 of 2021 bench of this Court in the case of Bangalore Grain Merchants Association Vs. The District Registrar for Societies and Another - 2001 (1) KCCR 292. Therefore, the impugned order appointing the respondent No.5 does not afford any right to the petitioners to challenge the same. It also does not impinge upon the rights of the petitioners to continue as the directors of board of management of respondent No.4. In that view of the matter, the writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43