- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5650 WP No.4321 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.4321 OF 2021 (GM-KSR) BETWEEN: SRI. D.S. SIDDAPPA S/O SIDDALINGAPPA DEPAPUR AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/AT DEPAPURA VILLAGE DEPAPURA POST GUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 123. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AFSAR AHMED S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 009. 2. KARNATAKA PRADESH KRISHIK SAMAJ NO.18, KRISHIK SAMAJ NRUPATUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 BY ITS OFFICER SECRETARY. 3. RETURNING OFFICER/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE APPOINTED FOR TALUK KRISHIK SAMAJ GUNDLUPET CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT - 571 123. Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5650 WP No.4321 of 2021 4. TALUK KRISHIK SAMAJ OFFICE OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE GUNDLUPET CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT - 571 123 BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1, R3 AND R4; SRI. SRIKANTH PATIL K., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION OF THE SAID ORDER PASSED IN DATED 05.05.2015 WHICH IS PUBLISHED IN NEWS PAPER IS HEREWITH PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 TO HOLD THE ELECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AS PER THE VOTERS LIST PUBLISHED ON 17.05.2015 IS HERE WITH ANNEXED AT 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 E.S.INDIRESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5650 WP No.4321 of 2021 ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the notification of the order dated 05.05.2015, published in the news paper, issued by respondent No.2, at Annexure–D and has sought a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to hold elections to respondent No.4. 3. Taking into consideration the fact that the impugned order is of the year 2015 and that the same has been challenged after an inordinate delay of six years, and therefore, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for in this petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9