- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9231 WP No. 7160 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 7160 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: SRI J R VIVEKANANDA PRESIDENT, JANAPANAHALLI MILK PRODUCERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, JANAPANAHALLI, KOLAR TALUK DISTRICT - 563 101. AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRIKANTH M P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ALI-ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BENGALURU REGION, NO.146, 3RD FLOOR, SAHAKARA SOUDHA, 8TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU 560 003. 4. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR Of CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9231 WP No. 7160 of 2025 5. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPURA. 6. KOLARA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK UNION LIMITED (KOMUL), NATIONAL HIGHWAY -75, HUTHURU POST, KOLAR – 563102 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 7 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK UNION LIMITED, YALUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI CROSS, DODDAMARANALI POST, CHIKKABALLAPUR – 562103 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR REGISTERED UNDER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R5, SRI. DEVIPRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R6 & R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.JRB/HA. OKKUTA/CR63/2018-19 DATED 20.09.2023 (WRONGLY TYPED AS 20.09.2022) ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-N. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICE BEARERS OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-L.GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE ORDER BEARING NO.JRB/HA. OKKUTA/CR63/2018-19 DATED 20.09.2023 (WRONGLY TYPED AS 20.09.2022) ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-N, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9231 WP No. 7160 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “a) Quash the order bearing No.JRB/Ha. Okkuta/CR63/2018-19 dated 20.09.2023 L (wrongly typed as 20.09.2022) issued by the 3rd Respondent vide Annexure-N in respect of Petitioner Concerned. b) Direct the Respondents No.1 to 3 to take further action against the office bearers of the 6th Respondent for not complying with the directions issued as per the order dated 23.02.2023 vide Annexure-L. Bearing No - IRB/Ha.Okkuta-CR63/2018- 19 c) Pass any such order of consequential relief or any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice and equity.” 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: Respondent No.6 in spite of the order passed on 08.08.2020 appointed the enquiry officer with regard to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9231 WP No. 7160 of 2025 holding of enquiry under Section 65 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act of 1959’), the concerned officer submitted the report and the same was forwarded on 07.09.2021 to respondent No.6, claimed to have conveyed a general body meeting on 27.10.2021, whereby without disclosing the initiation of proceedings under Section 65 of the Act Stated to have obtained the approval for the amount, which was made more than budget allocated and the amount spent without there being prior approval of the competent authority. An enquiry was held under Section 64 of the Act of 1959. In pursuance of the enquiry so initiated, a notice was issued by respondent No.5 calling respondent No.6 to produce the documents pertaining to the three allegations, which have been made against respondent No.6-Milk Union. The allegation included the irregularities committed regarding Megha diary project, particularly pertaining to the boiler purchase, civil contract works etc. The report was submitted under Section 65 of the Act of 1959 and the report was forwarded to respondent No.3. By relying on both the proceedings of the Annual - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9231 WP No. 7160 of 2025 General Meeting dated 27.10.2021 and Emergent Managing Committee meeting held on 06.08.2021 by making a representation dated 08.11.2021, respondent No.6 requested the findings against respondent No.6 association be dropped. On 06.11.2021, another meeting of managing committee of respondent No.6 was conducted and the committee granted the post facto approval illegally regarding the spending of an amount of Rs.1,38,43,38,650/- on the plea that the same is bonafide spending by respondent No.6. It is contented that the compliance reports said to have been submitted by respondent No.6 cannot be accepted. There is a violation of Act, Rules, by-laws of respondent No.6. It is contended that subsequent order dated 20.09.2023 passed by the respondent No.3 is absolutely bad, perverse besides being illegal, improper and unjustified. Respondent No.3 passed an order claiming to be in compliance of order made under Section 68 of the Act of 1959 on 20.09.2023 (wrongly shown as 20.09.2022) and virtually reconsidering the earlier stand, and by observing that there is no misappropriation of amount, and no loss is being caused to the union, dropped - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9231 WP No. 7160 of 2025 the allegation made against the respondent No.6. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 20.09.2023 issued by respondent No.3, is before this Court. 3. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 filed a statement of objections contending that the repetition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, and these respondents contended that the repetition filed challenging the impugned order is appealable under Section 105 of the Act of 1959. Hence the petitioner without exhausting the efficacious alternative remedy filed this writ petition. It is also contented that the allegations in Section 65 of the Act of 1959 are specifically denied as false, and allegations made against respondent No.5 are far away from the truth, and the details of the approval obtained for the said expenditure. It is contented that respondent No.6 passed an order on 20.09.2023 stating that the charges levelled against the Union were not proved, and dropped the proceedings. The impugned order passed by the authority is in accordance with law. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9231 WP No. 7160 of 2025 4. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the statement of objections filed by respondent Nos.6 and 7. It is contented that the petitioners have no locus standi to question the legality of the order passed by the respondent No.3, since the petitioner is a stranger to the cooperative society. Respondent No.5 has not chosen to challenge the order passed by the respondent No.3 before the competent authority. It is contented that the earlier report was against the society alleging that there was a misappropriation of funds and subsequently, by virtue of the impugned order, it is declared that there is no other charges levelled against respondent No.5, were proved. The impugned order passed by the concerned authority is not in accordance with the earlier report. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri M.P. Srikanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9231 WP No. 7160 of 2025 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the report was submitted under Section 65 of the Act of 1959, respondent No.3 passed an order under Section 68 of the Act, and held that the explanation offered was not acceptable and as stated in the preamble, directions were issued and the same was required to be complied with. He submits that respondent No.3 has specifically considered the representation made in pursuance of the report submitted under Section 65 of the Act of 1959 and held that such explanation offered as per the letter dated 08.11.2021, wherein it was claimed that subsequently, there has been approval by the general body of the expenditure and also that spending made in excess of budgetary allocation as a bonafide. He submits that, it is apparent from reading, the emergent managing committee meeting proceedings dated 25.05.2023 that every same issue was reiterated for consideration of respondent No.3 as which were considered and rejected at the first instance. He submits that, there has been a finding by the inquiry officer that without authorization and budgetary allocation, amounts were paid in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9231 WP No. 7160 of 2025 respect of the mega diary project undertaken by the respondent No.6. He also submits that in the general body held on 27.10.2021 suppressing the fact regarding the enquiry being initiated and report being submitted and payments which were made in excess of budgetary allocation and without authorization. He also submits that the respondent No.3 specifically rejected such a contention being taken in terms of the order under Section 68 of the Act of 1959. He submits that, the petitioner filed this petition challenging the order dated 20.09.2023 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-N insofar as the petitioner is concerned and also sought for a mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take further action against the office bearers of respondent No.6 for not complying with the directions issued by the order dated 23.02.2023 vide Annexure-L. He submits that there is no provision to review or reconsider the order which has already been made. He submits that respondent No.3 passed an order dated 20.09.2023 virtually reviewing the allegations and exonerating the management of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9231 WP No. 7160 of 2025 respondent No.6 milk union. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned order is appealable under Section 106(1)(h) of the Act of 1959 and this Court cannot re-appreciate the facts. He also submits that the petitioner is not a creditor as defined under Section 65 of the Act of 1959. He submits that the order of acceptance was passed. He submits that the order dated 02.09.2023 was wrongly typed as 20.09.2022 and the writ petition was filed on 25.02.2025 and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. He submits that the writ petition was filed at the time of process of election. The petitioner did not furnish the resolution authorizing the petitioner to file the writ petition and he submits that there is no pleading regarding the resolution authorizing the petitioner to file the writ petition. He submits that the resolution dated 15.02.2025 was produced on 15.07.2025 and the said resolution was not produced along with the writ petition. The writ petition is - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9231 WP No. 7160 of 2025 liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. The petitioner has no authority to represent the society without there being a resolution and he also submits that the society has not challenged the order passed by respondent No.3. The society is the aggrieved party and not the petitioner. The petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 8. The learned Government advocate supports the impugned order and prays to dismiss the petition. 9. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 10. It is an undisputed fact that an enquiry was conducted against respondent No.6 under Section 65 of the Act of 1959 alleging regarding the purchase of boilers installed in the Yaluvahally Dairy Project Unit in Chikkaballapur Taluk, for which permission was not obtained from the government i.e., the Registrar of Co-operative Society. The said allegation was with respect to civil works - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9231 WP No. 7160 of 2025 of building construction in Yaluvalahally Mega Diary Project Unit in Chikkaballapur and third allegation is with respect to the installation of effluent treatment plant in the said diary. The allegations made against the respondent society was denied and it is contented that the findings given by the inquiry officer are false. The Government of Karnataka through Animal Husbandry Department accorded the permission to establish mega diary project with an estimated cost of Rs.512 crores. As per the order dated 06.01.2011, an amount of Rs.9.74 crores reserved for civil work and for Rs.41.38 crores reserved for purchase of machineries. Further, the enquiry officer reported regarding the details of expenditure incurred for the mega diary project at page number 13 of the report. The respondents, after following the rules and regulations of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000, invited a technical and commercial bid in the e-tender portal and the said tender notification was duly published in the state-wide national newspapers. Pursuant to the tender notification, the bidders participated in the said tender process and quoted the lowest - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9231 WP No. 7160 of 2025 bid and work order was issued. The Purchase order was issued. The concerned officer submitted a report. The report discloses that the allegations made against respondent No.6 were proved, and recorded a finding that the officer without authorization, proceeded ahead and budgetary allocation amounts, were paid in respect of mega diary project undertaken by respondent No.6. Respondent No.6 passed a resolution in the general body held on 27.10.2021 and approved regarding the payments which were made in excess of budgetary allocation. 11. Respondent No.3 passed an order on 23.02.2023 under Section 65 of the Act, 1959 stating that the compliance report stated to have been submitted by respondent No.6. Subsequently, order dated 20.09.2023 was passed claiming to be in compliance of the order made under Section 68 (wrongly shown as 20.09.2022), by observing that there is no misappropriation of the amount. The impugned order is an appealable under Section 106(1)(h) of the Act, 1959. The impugned order was passed on 20.09.2023 and the writ petition is filed on 25.02.2025. There is delay of more than - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9231 WP No. 7160 of 2025 16 months in filing the writ petition. The petitioner has not explained the delay in filing the writ petition at a belated stage. It is settled law that delay defeats the equity. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others vs. T.T.Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 held in paragraph 16, which reads as under: 16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9231 WP No. 7160 of 2025 "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent- employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others' ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons who compete with 'Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van Winkle'. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold. 13. From the perusal of Para 16 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that inordinate delay would only - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9231 WP No. 7160 of 2025 invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the door of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. 14. Admittedly, there is delay of 16 months in filing the writ petition, and further the Hon'ble Apex Court has refused to condone the delay of 4 years in the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi & Ors., in Civil Appeal No.7696/2021 disposed of on 16.12.2021. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Basavaraj and another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013)14 SCC 81 has observed as under: "The expression "sufficient cause" cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party." It is further observed that, "Even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party but - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9231 WP No. 7160 of 2025 it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute." It is further observed that,- "In case a party has acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or there is inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions." It is observed that, "Each application for condonation of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by this Court". It is further observed that, "If Courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to the legislature." 15. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has declined to condone the delay of 467 days in preferring the second appeal in the case of Lingeswaran Etc. vs. Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 2054-2055/2022 disposed of on 25.02.2022, held that when it is found that the delay is not properly explained, the application to condone the delay is required to be dismissed. 16. The petitioner at the time of filing the writ petition has not produced the resolution authorizing him to file the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. The respondents have - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9231 WP No. 7160 of 2025 taken specific defence that the petitioner has no locus standi to file a writ petition as he has no authority to file the writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner produced authorization letter dated 15.07.2025. However, there is no reference about the authorization letter in the memorandum of writ petition. 17. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed. ii. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB [ONLINE] List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22