Sri Manju M Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:25478 WP No. 20581 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 20581 OF 2025 (CS-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MANJU.M, S/O MARISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1, PANDUPURA (KANNIDODDI), CHANNAPPATNA, VIRUPAKSHIPURA, RAMANAGARA, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 562 138.

¶9

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI. GOVINDARAJU, S/O CHIKKATHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR SRI. RAMAMANDIRA, KANNIDODDI VILLAGE, VIRUPAKSHIPURA, RAMANAGARA, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 562 138.

¶11

SRI. MANJU K.V., S/O VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANNIDODDI VILLAGE, VIRUPAKSHIPURA, RAMANAGARA, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 562 138

¶12

SRI. SRINIVASA V., S/O VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANNIDODDI VILLAGE, VIRUPAKSHIPURA,

¶13

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25478 WP No. 20581 of 2025

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

RAMANAGARA,

¶16

BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 562 138

¶17

SMT.JAYAMMA, W/O DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANNIDODDI VILLAGE, VIRUPAKSHIPURA, RAMANAGARA, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 562 138

¶18

SMT.JAYAMMA, W/O MARIYANNA , AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANNIDODDI VILLAGE, VIRUPAKSHIPURA, RAMANAGARA,

¶19

BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 562 138

¶20

SMT.SUMITHRA, W/O JAGADEESH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANNIDODDI VILLAGE, VIRUPAKSHIPURA, RAMANAGARA, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 562 138

¶21

…PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI. M.R.RAJGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. THILAKRAJ S.V, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶25

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:25478 WP No. 20581 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION, RAMANAGARA, BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT – 562 159

¶30

THE ROAD SUPERVISOR, BAMUL CAMP OFFICE, ADMINISTRATOR, KANNIDODDI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, KANNIDODDDI VILLAGE, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT – 562 160.

¶31

KANNIDODDI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED., BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE, KANNODODDI VILLAGE, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 562160.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. YOGESH.D.NAIK, AGA FOR R1&R2; SRI. NATARAJ BABA.K ADVOCATE FOR C/R4)

¶34

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 27 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.05.2025 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, IN NO.SANIRA-46/KALAM/29C/ANAHRATHE/CR40/2025-26 IN AS PER ANNEXURE-L AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2025 IN NO.SASANIRA-46/AA.MA.RA./CR40/2025-26 AS PER ANNEXURE-M IN APPOINTING THE 3RD AS A SPECIAL OFFICER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY IN SO FAR PETITIONER CONCERN.

¶35

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:25478 WP No. 20581 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶42

i) Issue a writ in the nature certiorari or any other writ to quash the impugned Order dated 29.05.2025 issued by 2nd respondent Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, in No.SaNiRa-46/Kalam/29C/Anahrathe/CR40/2025-26 in as per Annexure-'L'; and also the order dated 29.05.2025 in No.SaSaNiRa-46/Aa.Ma.Ra./CR40/2025-26 as per Annexure-'M' in appointing the 3rd as a special officer to 4th Respondent society, In So far & Petitioner concerned.

¶43

ii) Issue a writ of declaration to declare that, the law to the effect that, to employ the mechanism under Section 29C and Section 30 of the Co-operative Societies Act, in so far as it relates to disqualification of members of the managing committee individually as well collectively in view of the language employed provisions under section by declaring that, initiation of under Section 29C for collectively rendering the board by passing an order of disqualification is without an authority of law or it suffer with lack of competent as Annexure-'L' dated 29.05.2025.

¶44

iii) Pass any appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem it fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and allow this Writ Petition with costs? In so far as petitioners concerned in the ends of justice and equity.

¶45

What has been essentially challenged in this petition is the disqualification of the petitioners in terms of the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the

¶46

2^nd respondent-the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:25478 WP No. 20581 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Societies at Annexure-L and the consequent appointment of the 3^rd respondent as special officer of the 4^th respondent.

¶51

Though in the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 at Annexure-L, it has been stated that despite notice having been issued to the petitioners, the petitioners have not appeared before the 2^nd respondentAssistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies.

¶52

A perusal of Annexure-P2 being an application submitted by the petitioners under RTI where there is a specific reply issued that there is no document available for having issued the notice to the petitioners as regards Section 29C proceedings and the acknowledgment thereof. Hence the contents of Annexure-L are negated by the contents of Annexure-P2 inasmuch as no notice has been issued to the petitioners. Without issuance of notice, a drastic order of disqualification under Section 29C could not have been passed and there appears to be

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:25478 WP No. 20581 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

a complete disconnect between the officers and the Registrar of Cooperative Societies.

¶57

A perusal of all the orders which have also been produced would indicate that these are separate orders which are passed as regards the same proceedings and maintained in separate files by each of the officers. In my considered opinion, it would be required that an e-office software which is implemented as regards the other Government Offices is also made available to the Registrar of Cooperate Societies, such that the orders in the same proceedings by different Officers are maintained electronically in a single place, thereby obviating the disconnect between the officers and eliminating the possibility of different orders being passed by different officers in the same proceedings since the files are maintained separately.

¶58

The Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department could always avail the assistance of the Principal

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25478 WP No. 20581 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Secretary, E-Government Department for

¶62

implementation of the E-Office for entire officers of the Registrar Cooperative Societies including all the Registrars, Joint Registrars, Deputy Registrars, Attorney Registrars, Additional Registrars, Cooperative Development Officers and all officers reporting to them or operating under their supervision.

¶63

An affidavit in this regard to be filed within four weeks from today, placing on record the detailed project report for the implementation of the Office at the Registrar of Cooperative Societies.

¶64

In view of the above, I pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i) The writ petition is disposed of.

¶67

ii) Certiorari is issued, the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 having been passed without notice to the petitioners at Annexure-L and the consequent order at Annexure-M, are quashed.

¶68

8 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:25478 WP No. 20581 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

iii) Though the above petition is disposed of, re-list on 20.08.2025 for reporting compliance with the above directions.

¶72

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶73

KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Sri Manju M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manju M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Radha Vs the State of Karnataka

Kiran Kumar Atolige Vs Shree Poornananda Credit Co. Operative Society Ltd.

K v Renuka Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka

G Buddaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Somashekara Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

The Bananthalli Milk Producers Co. Operative Society (Code 2311) Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies