- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17870 WP No. 9312 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.9312 OF 2026 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. P.K. SIDDEGOWDA S/O S KARUGUNDE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS MEMBER OF SOGALAPALYA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., R/AT SOGALAPALYA VILLAGE. VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI. CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562138. 2. SRI. P.S. CHANDRA SHEKAR S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS MEMBER OF SOGALAPALYA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., R/AT SOGALAPALYA VILLAGE, VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT- 562138. 3. SRI. EREGOWDA S/O CHIKAMASTHI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS MEMBER OF SOGALAPALYA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17870 WP No. 9312 of 2026 R/AT SOGALAPALYA VILLAGE, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT- 562138. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.R. RAJGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. THILAKRAJ S.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION, RAMANAGARA, BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT-562159. 3. THE ADMINISTRATOR, SOGALAPALYA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SOGALAPALYA, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA SOUTH DISTRICT-562138. 4. THE SECRETARY, SOGALAPALYA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SOGALAPALYA, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA SOUTH DISTRICT-562138. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17870 WP No. 9312 of 2026 5. SRI. HEMALINGE GOWDA, S/O KUNNNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SOGALAPALYA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SOGALAPALYA, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA SOUTH DISTRICT - 562138. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 24/02/2026 ON IA NO. 1 IN C- OPERATIVE APPEAL NO. 360/2025 AS PER ANNEXURE -M; AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing (i) the order dated 24.02.2026 passed on I.A. No. 1 in Co-operative Appeal No. 360 of 2025 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17870 WP No. 9312 of 2026 (Annexure-M), and (ii) the order dated 21.11.2025 passed in Dispute No. 80/2022-23 (Annexure-J) by respondent No. 1. The petitioners have, inter-alia, sought for a direction to the authorities to restore the order of dismissal of respondent No.5 from the post of Secretary of respondent No.3-Society. 3. Heard Sri M. R. Rajgopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for learned counsel Sri. Thilakraj S.V., for the petitioners, and Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State. 4. Sri M. R. Rajgopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has erroneously dismissed I.A. No. 1 filed by the petitioners seeking to challenge the award dated 21.11.2025 passed by respondent No. 1. It is contended that the petitioners - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17870 WP No. 9312 of 2026 have substantial interest in the respondent-Society and that any loss incurred by the Society would adversely affect the rights of its shareholders, including the petitioners herein. 5. It is further contended that the petitioners are “persons aggrieved” and are entitled to challenge the impugned award in view of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar reported in (1976) 1 SCC 671. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 requires a liberal construction to safeguard the interests of the members of the Society, and therefore, seeks interference of this Court. It is also argued that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has not properly appreciated the law laid down by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17870 WP No. 9312 of 2026 Constitution Bench referred to above and as such sought for interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that an Administrator has already been appointed to the respondent-Society and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is managing its affairs. It is therefore contended that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has considered the contentions of the petitioners in detail and rightly dismissed the application and as such sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioners have challenged the award passed by respondent No.2 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 360 of 2021. The core question that arises for consideration is whether the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17870 WP No. 9312 of 2026 members of the respondent-Society have the locus standi to challenge the impugned award before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. 8. In this regard, Section 29(G)(4)(j) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 provides that the CEO is the competent authority to sue and be sued on behalf of the Society. It is also not in dispute that the State has appointed an Administrator to manage the affairs of the respondent-Society. 9. A perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-M, particularly paragraph 18, indicates that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai (supra) and has rightly concluded that the appellants therein do not have locus standi to challenge the impugned award. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17870 WP No. 9312 of 2026 10. Further, paragraph 34 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarifies the concept of locus standi in invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the petitioners, being members of the Society, cannot be construed as “aggrieved persons” to independently challenge the award, especially when the statute confers the authority to represent the Society upon the CEO, and the affairs of the Society is being presently under the control of Administrator. 11. In that view of the matter, and having regard to the detailed consideration made by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners cannot be treated as aggrieved parties. The CEO and the Administrator are competent to safeguard the interest of the respondent-society. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17870 WP No. 9312 of 2026 12. However, it is to be noted that, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has safeguarded the interests of the petitioners by granting liberty to them to approach the CEO/Administrator with regard to their grievances as urged in I.A. No. 1. 13. In view of the above, this Court do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Annexure-M. Accordingly, with the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10