- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 14454 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: RAMAPURA VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA RAMAPURA VILLAGE, GAURIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR/DELEGATE, HANUMANTHA REDDY, S/O. RAMAIAHA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, (THE PETITIONER SOCIETY ARE REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT-1959). …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DEVIPRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BENGALURU REGION, SAHAKARA SOWDHA, MARGOSA ROAD, 8TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003. Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 3. KOLAR-CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., DCC BANK ROAD, KOLAR-563 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR. (REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959) 5. CHILKALANERPU AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD (SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959) REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI B. SHEKAR, S/O LATE P. PAYANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS CHILKALANERPU, CHELUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. 6. JARABANDAHALLI AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, (SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959) REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI HANUME GOWDA J.V S/O J.N. VENKATARAMANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS JARABANDAHALLI, MANCHENAHALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. (R5 AND R6 CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 04.06.2025) 7. SRI K.N. VENKATARAMAREDDY S/O NANJUNDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 OFFICE AT KUNTACHIKKANAHALLI VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMIITHA GAURIBIDANURU TALUK. (R7 CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 11.07.2025) …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPUR, AAG A/W SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. KRISHNA B., ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6; SRI. MANJUNATH G. KANDEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R7) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 09/05/2025 IN NO JRB/THIDUPADI-2/12(6)/2024-25 IN SO FAR AS ITS PERTAINS TO SI NO 12 AND 14 OF GOWRIBIDANUR AND MANCHENALLI TALUKS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner - Society has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by respondent No.2 produced as per Annexure-H and the order dated 13.05.2025 passed by respondent No.4 produced as per Annexure-K and to direct respondent No.2 to maintain bye-law of respondent No.3 strictly in conformity with the orders passed by this Court in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 WP.No.21521/2024 and as per earlier amendment produced as per Annexures-E, F and G. 2. Heard Sri. D.R.Ravishankar, learned senior advocate for Sri. Devi Prasad Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri. Krishna B, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 and Sri. Manjunath G. Kandekar, learned counsel for respondent No.7. 3. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner contended that the Chelur and Manchenahalli are the two new Taluks formed in Chikkaballapura District. Therefore, respondent No.3 has proposed to amend its bye-laws by way of a representation of respondent No.2. Even though, initially respondent No.2 rejected the proposal made by respondent No.3 to amend the bye-laws, subsequently, it issued Annexure- E dated 03.08.2024 directing respondent No.3 to provide two posts for Directors to Manchenahalli and Chelur Taluks by re- constituting the Board. Annexure-E which was issued on 03.08.2024 was slightly modified as per Annexure-F dated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 05.08.2024 by clarifying the situation. It is made clear that two Directors referred to above made for 'G and D' categories. 4. These Annexures-E and F were challenged by the petitioner and others before this Court by filing WP.No.21521/2024 with others matters. The said writ petitions came to be dismissed vide order dated 02.05.2025 with a direction to the Registrar to give effect to the amendment as proposed under Annexures-E and F and to hold the elections as per law. Accordingly, the amendment of bye-laws were issued. Now it is contended that, at serial No.14 in Annexure-H a line is left blank. If this serial No.14 of Annexure-H is considered with Annexure-F, it is clear that a portion of the wordings mentioned in the Annexure-F is deliberately removed while amending the bye-laws. 5. Learned senior advocate referred to Annexure-K - the order for amendment issued by the Deputy Commissioner and District Returning Officer to highlight the exact amendment that is to be brought to the bye-laws and contended that, Annexure-H dated 09.05.2025 is not in accordance with the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 proposed amendment and directions issued by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner is challenging Annexures-H and K. 6. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner by referring Annexure-H submitted that in serial No.14 since the said portion is kept blank, the same gives an impression that there must be some interpolation in the original documents. 7. Learned senior advocate submits that WP.No.21521/2024 connected with WP.Nos.32271/2024 and 23570/2024 were filed before this Court by Kamaganahalli Milk Producers Women's Co-Operative Society Limited, Ramapura Vyvasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha and Chikkalanerpu Agricultural Co-Operative Society Limited, seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the very same Annexures-E and F dated 03.08.2024 and 05.08.2024 respectively produced in the present case. The said writ petitions came to be dismissed, with a direction to the Registrar to give effect to the modifications proposed under Sub-section (5) of Section 12, by registering the said modification/amendment to the bye-laws, and to continue with the holding of elections at the earliest. Now the election has - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 already held and respondent Nos.5 to 7 are the successful candidates from Manchenahalli, Chelur and Gauribidanur constituencies. Accordingly, they were impleaded in the present writ petition to have their say in the matter. 8. Learned senior advocate contended that if Annexures-E and F together are taken into consideration to compare the same with Annexure-K, it is clear that Annexure-K is not accordance with the modification / amendment suggested in Annexures-E and F. Learned senior advocate has drawn the attention of the Court to memo dated 20.05.2025 and the enclosure therein to contend that, before amendment, Gauribidanur Taluk had eight Co-operative Societies as members, Manchenahalli was having eleven members. After the modification / amendment, Gauribidanur Taluk voters list shows as twenty six members (i.e., 18 plus 8), whereas Manchenahalli Taluk has only three members (i.e., 11 minus 8). In other words, eight members from Manchenahalli Taluk were taken away and included in the voters list of Gauribidanur Taluk and the disparity would remain the same with, Gauribidanur having twenty six members, Manchenahalli having - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 only three members, without there being even an occasion to contest the elections. 9. Learned senior advocate further submitted that if Annexures-E and F are compared with Annexure-H, it is very clear that at serial No.14, the following words found in Annexure-F dated 05.08.2024 were deliberately dropped i.e,. "(ªÀÄAZÉãÀºÀ½î vÁ®ÆèQ£À ªÀÄAZÉãÀºÀ½î ºÉÆç½ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UËj©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèQ£À vÉÆAqɨÁ« ºÁUÀÆ r ¥Á¼Àå ºÉÆç½UÀ¼À)". Similarly in respect of Chelur Taluk the following words were found missing i.e., "(ZÉüÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèQ£À ZÉüÀÆgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ a®PÀ®£ÉÃ¥ÀÄð ºÉÆç½UÀ¼À)" i.e., in serial No.13. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned senior advocate for the petitioner that Annexures-H and K are not in conformity with Annexures-E and F. Hence, the petition is liable to be allowed quashing Annexures-H and K and directing respondent No.2 to amend the bye-laws of respondent No.3 strictly in conformity with the order passed by this Court in WP.No.21521/2024 and as per the amendment suggested as per Annexures-E and F. 10. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General opposing the petition submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file and maintain the petition, he being the Director/ - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 Delegate of Primary Society is not authorized to represent the Society in view of Section 29G(4)(j) of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, 'the KCS Act'). Under Section 29G(4)(j) KCS Act, it is only the Executive Officer who can represent the society and not any Director or Delegate. 11. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that statutory remedy under Section 106(1)(b) of KCS Act is available for the petitioner, but the petitioner has not availed any such remedy for the reasons best known to him. It is also a ground for dismissing the petition. 12. Thirdly, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the elections to the Society is already held on 28.05.2025, and the results are declared. The petitioner has contested in the election and casted his vote, but he was defeated in the election. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has accepted the amendment and had acted upon the same, by contesting and casting the vote. Now he cannot turn around and contend that he is aggrieved by Annexures-K and H. 13. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that Chelur and Manchenahalli Taluk have no representation and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 therefore an order was came to be passed as per Annexure-E dated 03.08.2024 under Section 12(5) of the KSC Act. Two directorship that was provided to House Building Co-operative Society and Milk Producers Women's Co-operative Society were removed and those directorships were provided to Chelur and Manchenahalli Taluks. Therefore, the Board of Directors was ordered to be reconstituted. However, there was some mistake while issuing Annexure-E. Therefore, Annexure-F was came to be issued on 05.08.2024, making it very clear that two directorship removed from the House Building Co-operative Society is to be accommodated in a 'G' category Co-operative Society and the Milk Producers Woman's Co-operative Society directorship is to be accommodated in 'D' category. Co- operative Society and two directorship are to provided to chelur. It consists of cheluru and Chikkalanerpu Hobli, and Manchenahalli Taluk for Manchenahalli Hobli and Todedhavi Hobli and D. Palya Hobli for Gawribidanur Taluk constituting Manchenahalli Co-operative Society. 14. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the very same petitioner had challenged to the said - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 notifications, by filing the writ petition No.21521/2024 with connected writ petitions. The said petitions came to be dismissed by this Court as per Annexure-G vide order dated 02.05.2025. Therefore, the same cannot be once again called in question before this Court. 15. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the amendment carried out is in accordance with law and as per the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions referred to above. Such amendment is given effect to by modification and accordingly, Annexure-K was issued. Under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in this petition, accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petition. 16. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 who was subsequently impleaded in the petition contended that respondent Nos.6 and 7 were impleaded after the election for the Societies were held. Respondent No.7 has defeated the petitioner and is successful in the election. Respondent No.6 is the Primary Society in Manchenahalli. Learned counsel further contended that the only grievance raised by the petitioner is - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 that the direction given by the learned Single Judge is not followed while issuing Annexures-K and H. Learned counsel by referring to Annexure-G contended that as per point No.39.2, the learned Single Judge directed the Registrar to give effect to the modifications proposed under Sub-section 5 of Section 12, by registering the said modification/amendment to the bye- laws and to continue with holding of elections at the earliest. The said direction was complied with by issuing Annexure-H, which was modified to give clarity as per Annexure-K. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the order of the learned Single Judge as produced vide Annexure-G was not followed, cannot be accepted. 17. Learned counsel for respondent No.6, referring to Annexure-F contended that, it is evidenced that Chikkalanerpu Hobli, referred to therein is within Chintamani Taluk, for which the petitioner is not at all concerned. The petitioner is concerned about Chelur and Manchenahalli Taluk and not with Chikkalanerpu Hobli. Therefore, the petitioner cannot maintain the petition, contending that the direction issued by this Court - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 to give effect to the modifications proposed under Sub-section 5 of Section 12 cannot be found fault. 18. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Single Judge while considering the writ petitions filed by the petitioner and others raised point No.3 regarding the statutory remedy that was available under Section 106 of KCS Act, held that the same is to be exhausted by the petitioners. However, under exceptional circumstances the petitions were taken up for consideration. But the same cannot be taken advantage of to challenge Annexure-H, which is only an order implementing the direction. Annexure-J is the voters list dated 12.05.2025 and Annexure-K is the modified voters list, but it is not an order under Sub-section 5 of Section 12 of KSC Act. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge either Annexure-H or Annexure- K before this Court. 19. Learned counsel further contented that in view of the interim order dated 20.05.2025 the Vacation Bench of this Court directed the Returning Officer to proceed with the election with the electoral roll published, which should be subject to the result of this writ petition. Accordingly, the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 election is already held, the petitioner contested the election and got only 9 votes out of 26, whereas respondent No.7 got the remaining 17 votes. Therefore, the only remedy available for the petitioner is to challenge the result of the said election by filing an election petition. There are no merits in the petition filed by the petitioner and therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 20. In reply to the argument addressed by the learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7, learned Senior advocate for the petitioner reiterated his contention that as per Annexure-E two Directorship pertaining to House Building Co-operative Society and Milk Producers Women's Co-operative Society respectively were removed and the Co-operative Societies of Manchenahalli and Chelur Taluk were ordered to be constituted, since there was no clarity as to where the Directorship of House Building Co-operative Society and Milk Producers Women's Co-operative Society that was removed, is to be accommodated. Accordingly, Annexure-F dated 05.08.2024 came to be issued, according to which, the House Building Co-operative Society is - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 to be accommodated in 'G' category and Milk Producers Women's Co-operative Society is to be accommodated in 'D' category. It was these notifications which were challenged before this Court and these petitions were came to be disposed of by the Co-ordinate Branch by passing the order as per Annexure-G. Even though, the writ petitions were came to be dismissed, a specific direction is issued to the Registrar to give effect to the modifications proposed under Sub-section 5 of Section 12 of KCS Act by registering the said modification while amending the bye-laws and to continue with holding of elections at the earliest. Even though, such a specific direction was issued, the respondents issued Annexure-H, and at serial Nos.1(13) and (14) Chelur and Manchenahalli Taluk, Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society is referred to having one Directorship each. Again, Annexure-K was issued as an amendment to Annexure-H. Even though, the amended order is issued as per Annexure-K, the same is not in accordance with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the petitioner has rightly approached this Court by filing this writ petition. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 21. Learned Senior advocate contended that the petitioner is aggrieved by Annexures-H and K, which were said to have been issued in compliance of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the operative portion of Annexure-G, since the same are not in accordance with such direction, the writ petition is maintainable before this Court. The same cannot be considered by the Registrar under Section 106 of KCS Act, to find out as to whether, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge is complied or not. 22. Learned Senior advocate contended that since the petitioner - Society is represented by a Director/Delegate his authority cannot be challenged, in view of the resolution passed as per Annexure-A, the Board has resolved to authorize one of its Director/Delegate to represent the Society and to file the writ petition challenging non-implementation of the directions issued under Annexure-G. The Chief Executive appointed under Section 29(g) of KCS Act is required to function under the control of the Managing Committee. Section 28(c) of KCS act deals with the powers and functions of the board. Vast powers - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 and functions are vested in the board and the same is not curtailed, under any circumstances. 23. Learned Senior advocate has drawn the attention of the Court to point Nos.1 and 2 formulated in Annexure-G to content that even the learned Senior Judge while answering said point Nos.1 and 2 categorically held that the powers of the Chief Executive Officer is subject to the supervision of the Board, and that the Director acting on the authorization of the Board of Directors of a Primary Society can maintain a writ petition concerning the actions and amendment to the bye-laws of the Federal Society. Accordingly, Annexure-A is the resolution passed authorising the Director - delegate to represent the Society. Hence, the petitioner is properly represented and it is maintainable before the Court. 24. Learned Senior advocate placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Seema Sarkar V.s Executive Officer and Others1, to contend that the beneficiary cannot have any say in the matter when already an order is passed holding that the proceedings shall be subject to 1 "(2019) 6 SCC 559" - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 the result of the pending writ petition. The election in the present case was held subject to the result of this petition. Therefore, respondent No.7 is bound by the decision of this Court and he cannot have any grievance in the matter. 25. He also places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Poonam V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and others2, to contend that if the petitioner succeeds in this petition, third party to the lis will not get any legal right. 26. Placing reliance on these decisions learned senior advocate contended that since the election was held subject to the result of the petition, if the petitioner is successful in proving its contentions raised in this writ petition, respondent No.7 is bound by the result in view of the interim order dated 20.05.2025 and he cannot contest the matter independently. Thus, respondent No.7 has no locus standi to oppose the petition and no right is accrued in his favour. In other words the right will be accrued only if the writ petition is dismissed. 2 2016 (2) SCC 779 - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 27. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioner has no authority to represent the Society, and it is only the Chief Executive who can represent the Society to sue or be sued. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. She has drawn the attention of the Court to the definition of the word 'Delegate' found in Section 2 (e-1-a) of the KCS Act, to contend that, he can only represent the Society in other Co- operative Societies in the general body meeting, he can contest the election and cast his vote. Apart from that, he has no authority to represent the Society of which he is a Delegate, to file and maintain the petition like this. She refers to Section 29- G(4) of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, to contend that it is only the Chief Executive who can sue or be sued on behalf of the Society. 28. Learned Additional Advocate General placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Daman Singh and Others V/s State of Punjab and Others3, in support of her contention that, a person losses his individuality once he becomes the member of the Co-operative Society. She 3 1985 SCR (3) 580 - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 also places reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary V/s Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited and Others4 to highlight the objective with which the Co-operative movement was encouraged. 29. Learned AAG placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in B.Ganganna and others V/s State of Karnataka and others5 and Samaja Seva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha V/s State of Karnataka6 contended that, the petitioner could not have maintained this petition as an alternative remedy is available under the provisions of KCS Act. Without exhausting such remedy available under Section 106 of the KCS Act, the petition is not maintainable. 30. Learned AAG also places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India and Others V/s N. Murugeshan7, and contended that even though the facts in the present case are different, the Hon'ble Apex Court has highlighted the principles of approbate and reprobate. 4 2015 (8) SCC 1 5 W.P.No.29014 of 2023 D.D.24.01.2024 6 W.P.No.27992 of 2018 DD.16.12.2020 7 2022 (2) SCC 25 - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 Therefore, she contended that when the petitioner has voluntarily taken part in the process of election, later he cannot question conducting of such election and challenge the same before this Court simply because he lost the election. 31. Learned AAG placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Others V/s State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others8, to highlight similar position of law and contended that when the petitioner has taken part in the process of election, he cannot be permitted to challenge the very same process in which the election was held simply because he lost the election. 32. Learned AAG drawing the attention of the Court to the prayer made in the petition contended that, the petitioner had never challenged the election to Chelur Co-operative Society, which is not a party in this writ petition but was part of the election thereby any order that will be passed in this case may adversely affect the said Society. Therefore, on this count also the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 8 2023 17 SCC 147 - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 33. Learned AAG referring to the decision in Poonam (supra) relied on by the learned senior advocate for the petitioner contended that the facts in the said case are entirely different where it refers to a situation relating to allotment of a license to run the Fair Price Shop and not in respect of any democratic process. The decision is fact specific and therefore the same cannot be made applicable to the present case. 34. Similarly, she contended that in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered a contention regarding 'No Confidence Motion'. The facts are entirely different and the same cannot be made applicable to the facts in the present case. She highlighted the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Daman Singh (supra), to contend that the petitioner after participating in the election and not being successful, has approached this Court without any authority to represent the Society. Under such circumstances, placing reliance on various decisions which are not applicable and addressing the arguments amounts to waste of precious time of the Court, and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The petitioner who is challenging the election without - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 there being any specific relief in that regard has not made all those persons who will be affected by an order that is sought to be passed, several Societies have taken part in the election including Chelur Taluk who are not parties to the lis. Therefore, the petition is not maintainable. 35. Learned counsel for respondent No.7 has filed a memo producing the Letter dated 01.12.2025 issued by Rampura Multipurpose Primary Rural Agricultural Co-operative Societies Limited issued by the President of the Society, to contend that no meeting was held on 13.05.2025 authorizing Hanumantha Reddy to file the present writ petition on behalf of the Society as contended by the petitioner. Placing reliance on this Letter, learned counsel for respondent No.7 contended that the President of the Society himself made it very clear that he never called any meeting to be held on 13.05.2025, no meeting was held and he specifically states that the signature found on Annexure-A produced by the petitioner was not that of the President. Therefore, he contended that the Director who filed the petition representing the petitioner Society has committed - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 fraud on the Court and hence it is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly prays for dismissal of the petition. 36. Perused the materials on record. 37. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 38. The petitioner is a Primary Society represented by its Director as the delegate appointed as per Annexure-A. He has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 09.05.2025 issued by respondent No.2 produced as per Annexure-H, sofaras it pertains to serial Nos.12 and 14 i.e., Gowribidanur and Manchenahalli Taluks and the order dated 13.05.2025 passed by respondent No.4 produced as per Annexure-K and to direct respondent No.2 to amend the bye-laws of respondent No.3 - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 strictly in conformity with the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP.No.21521/2024 produced as per Annexure-G. 39. The locus-standi of the Director/delegate to represent the Primary Co-operative Society is seriously disputed by the respondents. According to the petitioner, Annexure-A is the resolution passed in his favour, according to which the Director representing the Primary Society. A resolution was passed in the Society authorizing him to represent the Primary Society for the purpose of filing the present petition. However, as per Section 29-G(4)(j) of KCS Act, it is only the Chief Executive of a Co-operative Society who will have the authority to sue on behalf of the Society. The Director or even the President are not authorized to represent the Society, in view of this specific provision in KCS Act. 40. Even though, the petitioner contended that the Director who is representing the Society was the delegate appointed by the Society, the word 'Delegate' is defined under Section 2(e-1-a) of KCS Act, which means a Director of a Co- operative Society appointed by the Board to represent that Co- - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 operative Society in other Co-operative Society with a power to participate and vote in the general meeting and to contest or propose or second in the election of the Co-operative Society to which he is appointed as Delegate. Therefore, the authority of the delegate to represent the Co-operative Society to sue on behalf of the Co-operative Society is conspicuously missing in the definition. There is no other provision under the Act authorising the Director or the delegate to represent the Co- operative Society for the purpose of suing on behalf of the Society. The said authority is exclusively given to the Chief Executive under Section 29-G(4)(j) of KCS Act. Under such circumstances, the contention raised by the learned additional advocate general is to be accepted. 41. It is the contention of the petitioner that Annexures-H and K are not in accordance with Annexures-E and F. Therefore, passing of the order as per Annexures-H and K is not in compliance of the order Annexure-G passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The specific contention taken by the petitioner is that in Annexure-H at serial No.14 referring to Manchenahalli Taluk Primary Co-operative Society, one line - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 is kept blank, which suggests that, there must be some interpolation or tampering in the original records which has primarily led to filing of the present petition. 42. To consider this contention taken by the petitioner, as per Order dated 28.10.2025, learned additional advocate general has produced the original copy of Annexure-H. On perusal of the same, there was no over writing, alteration or interpolation as suggested by the petitioner found in the original record pertaining to Annexure-H at is serial No.14. After being satisfied, that there is no interpolation, correction or tampering of this portion in the original record it was ordered to be returned back to the learned additional advocate general . Therefore, this contention taken by the petitioner will have to be rejected in limine. 43. The next contention taken by the petitioner is that the following words found in Annexure-F 05.08.2024 i.e., " ªÀÄAZÉãÀºÀ½î vÁ®ÆèQ£À ªÀÄAZÉãÀºÀ½î ºÉÆç½ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UËj©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèQ£À vÉÆAqɨÁ« ºÁUÀÆ r ¥Á¼Àå ºÉÆç½UÀ¼À ZÉüÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèQ£À ZÉüÀÆgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ a®PÀ®£ÉÃ¥ÀÄð ºÉÆç½UÀ¼À" found at serial No.13 are deliberately dropped. Therefore, Annexures-H and K are not in conformity with Annexures-E and - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 F. I have considered Annexure-H dated 09.05.2025 and the amended order Annexure-K dated 13.05.2025, where there is reference to inclusion of the wordings "ªÀÄAZÉãÀºÀ½î (ªÀÄAZÉãÀºÀ½î vÁ®ÆèQ£À ªÀÄAZÉãÀºÀ½î ºÉÆç½ & UËj©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèQ£À vÉÆAqɨÁ« ºÁUÀÆ r ¥Á¼Àå ºÉÆç½UÀ¼À) 'J' ªÀUÀðzÀ°è ¥Áæ,PÀÈ.¥À.¸À. ¸ÀAWÀUÀ¼ÀÄ" JA§ÄzÁV £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß "1.ªÀÄAZÉãÀºÀ½î vÁ®ÆèQ£À 'J' ªÀUÀðzÀ°è ¥Áæ.PÀÈ.¥À.¸À. ¸ÀAWÀUÀ¼ÀÄ" JA§ÄzÁV wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ªÀiÁr N¢PÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄAZÉãÀºÀ½î vÁ®ÆèQ£À ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ wzÀÄÝ¥ÀrAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉƼÀîAÁVzÀÄÝ, F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ N¢PÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. ªÀÄAZÉãÀºÀ½î (ªÀÄAZÉãÀºÀ½î vÁ®ÆèQ£À ªÀÄAZÉãÀºÀ½î ºÉÆç½ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UËj©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèQ£À vÉÆAqɨÁ« ºÁUÀÆ r. ¥Á¼Àå ºÉÆç½UÀ¼À) 'J' ªÀUÀðzÀ°è ¥Áæ,PÀÈ.¥À.¸À. ¸ÀAWÀUÀ¼ÀÄ JA§ÄzÁV £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹, UËj©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèQ£À vÉÆAqɨÁ« ºÁUÀÆ r.¥Á¼Àå ºÉÆç½UÀ¼À ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄAZÉãÀºÀ½î vÁ®ÆèQ£À ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è PÀuïvÀ¦à¤AzÀ ¸ÉÃj¹gÀĪÀÅzÁV, ªÀÄAZÉãÀºÀ½î vÁ®ÆèQ£À ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀnÖ¬ÄAzÀ UËj©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèQUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀnÖqÀĪÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÊ©lÄÖ UËj©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèQUÉ ¸ÉÃ¥ÀðqÉ ªÀiÁr CAwªÀÄ ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀnÖUÉ wzÀÄÝ¥ÀrAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ". Accordingly, the amendment as suggested is specifically stated in a tabular column. If this Annexure-K is read along with Annexures-E and F, it is clear that Annexure-H is the order implementing the directions already issued and Annexure-K is the order amending/modifying the voters list which was already published on 12.05.2025. Therefore, as rightly contented by - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 the learned additional advocate general , Annexure-K cannot be considered as an order passed under Section 12(5) of KCS Act. But it is an order to modify the final voters list which is already published pertaining to Manchenahalli Hobli of Manchenahalli Taluk, D. Palya, and Thondebavi Hobli of Gauribidanur Taluk, to read it as Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society of 'A' category of Manchenahalli Taluk as suggested in the table. 44. When the primary apprehension of the petitioner that serial No.14 in Annexure-H have been tampered or manipulated is ruled out by summoning and verifying the original Annexure-H, I do not find any substance in the contention that is raised by the petitioner in that regard. 45. The petitioner had filed WP.No.21521/2024 seeking to quash Annexures-E and F referred to herein and the said petitions along with the connected matters came to be dismissed on 02.05.2025 as no grounds were made out. A direction was issued to the Registrar to give effect to the modifications proposed under Section 12(5) of KCS Act, by registering the said modification amendment to the bye-laws and to continue with the holding of the elections at the earliest - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 in terms thereof. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance again in respect of Annexures-E and F. The contention of the petitioner that the direction given by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in WP.No.21521/2024 was not complied with while issuing Annexures-H and K cannot be accepted, as I do not find any support for the same. 46. During dependency of the writ petition the election for the respondent No.3 - Society was ordered to be held. The petitioner - Society represented by the delegate was permitted to contest and to vote in the said election. Admittedly, the election to respondent No.3 is already held, where the delegate representing the petitioner - Society contested and voted. It is respondent No.7 who is the successful candidate in the said election defeating the representative of the petitioner - Society. The result of the said election was made subject to the result of the present writ petition. Since I do not find any merits in the contention taken by the petitioner, the result of the election held as per the order of this Court shall be binding on all the concerned. - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6499 WP No. 14454 of 2025 47. Learned additional advocate general contented that the petitioner could not have maintained this petition bypassing the statutory remedy that is available under Section 106 of KCS Act. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was having the statutory remedy to appeal under Section 106 of KCS Act, but has approach in this Court under the guise of contending that Annexures-H and K were not in accordance with the direction issued by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP.No.21521/2024. I do not find any merits in the said contention taken by the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the petition. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of writ petition, pending I.A.No.1 of 2025 also stands dismissed. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM,PNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2