Allowed¶57

Sogalapalya Milk Producers Co. -Operative Society v. the Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2025WP/25971/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

De facto doctrine; co-operative society resolutions saved despite pending membership disputes; Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 — Sections 29C, 70, 71(3), 7(2); Assistant Registrar's stay of managing-committee resolutions quashed; certiorari under Articles 226/227; Gokaraju Rangaraju v State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 1473 relied on; dismissal of respondent consequent to resolutions; WP No. 25971 of 2023; R. Nataraj J.; 07.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the impugned order dated 07.10.2023 passed by respondent No.1 quashed; liberty reserved to respondent No.2 to raise all available contentions once the proceedings regarding the validity/invalidity of the membership of petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 are decided in accordance with law. ¶57

Sogalapalya Milk Producers Co. -Operative Society… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent No.1 (Assistant Registrar) could stay the resolutions dated 06.08.2021, 16.11.2021 and 21.12.2021 when the validity of the admission of petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 as members was still pending consideration before the competent authorities. +2 more

¶39

Court's answer

The respondent No.1 acted on the unreasonable assumption that stayed membership of petitioner Nos.2-4 rendered their resolutions invalid; consequently, the impugned order passed on that premise deserved to be set aside.

¶50

Ratio / Principle

As the validity of the resolutions admitting petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 is still pending consideration before the competent authorities, the resolutions dated 06.08.2021, 16.11.2021 and 21.12.2021, to which they were parties as managing committee members, have to be saved by applying the de facto doctrine, for which the Court drew on Gokaraju Rangaraju vs State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1981 SC 1473).

¶46

Key takeaways

Even assuming that the membership of petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 is annulled or stayed, the resolutions to which they are parties cannot be invalidated.ratio¶46
Following the resolutions, disciplinary proceedings culminated in respondent No.2's dismissal; he is bound to challenge that dismissal in accordance with law, and the resolutions as the anchor sheet of the dismissal order cannot be dissolved.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (R. Nataraj J.) — Writ Petition No. 25971 of 2023 (CS-RES), decided 07.08.2025: The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ramanagara Sub Division, by order dated 07.10.2023 on I.A. No. 1/22-23 in Dispute No.SaNiRa46/Dave(Dispute)/01/2022-23, stayed the resolutions dated 06.08.2021, 16.11.2021 and 21.12.2021 of the petitioner-Society on the footing that the memberships of petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 (who were parties to those resolutions as managing committee members) were under challenge/stayed. Held: since the validity of those admissions was still pending before the competent authorities (one matter pending in revision pursuant to this Court's order dated 02.09.2022 in connected WP.No.17353/2022; another under Section 70 pending in WP.No.2530/2023), the resolutions had to be saved by the de facto doctrine, drawing on Gokaraju Rangaraju vs State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1473 — even assuming the memberships were annulled or stayed, the resolutions to which such members were parties cannot be invalidated. The Registrar's contrary assumption did not stand to reason; the impugned order was quashed. Respondent No.2 (dismissed by order dated 13.04.2022 pursuant to the same resolutions) was left free to challenge the dismissal in accordance with law and to raise all contentions once the membership-validity proceedings are decided. Writ petition allowed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30872 WP No. 25971 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 25971 OF 2023 (CS-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SOGALAPALYA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY SOGALAPALYA VILALGE, VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT BY ITS SECRETARY MR BALARAMA P E S/O EREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶9

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI RUPESH S/O MENASE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PRESIDENT SOGALAPALYA MILK PRODUCERS CO -OPERATIVE SOCIETY, SOGALAPALYA VILLAGE, VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

¶11

SRI MUTHACHARI S/O VENKATACHARI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶12

SRI PUTTASWAMY S/O PUJARI EREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶13

SL. NO.3 & 4 ARE MEMBERS OF MANAGING COMMITTEE SOGALAPALYA MILK PRODUCERS CO -OPERATIVE SOCIETY, SOGALAPALYA VILLAGE, VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30872 WP No. 25971 of 2023

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT AND RESIDENT OF HOROKOPPA PALYA SOGALA POST, VIRUKAPAKSHAPURA HOBLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-563138 SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. H N BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION NO.4222, MUNICIPAL EXTENSION 3RD CROSS, WARD NO.12, RAMANAGARA-562159

¶21

SRI HEMALINGEGOWDA S/O KUNNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SOGALAPALYA VILLAGE VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-563138

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 SRI. JAI PRAKASH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07/10/2023 ON I.A. NO. 1/22-23 PASSED BY THE R1 IN DISPUTE NO. SANIRA-46/DAVE(DISPUTE)/01/2022-23 AS PER ANNEXURE-M.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30872 WP No. 25971 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 07.10.2023 on I.A.No.1/2223 passed by the 1^st respondent in Dispute No.SaNiRa46/Dave(Dispute)/01/2022-23.

¶31

The petitioner No.1 is a Co-operative Society of which the petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 were members. It appears that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner No.2 under Section 29C of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1959' for short), on the ground that he was enrolled illegally as a member of the petitioner No.1. The said proceedings attained finality in terms of which, the competent authority held that the membership of the petitioner No.2 was valid. On the heels of the above, another proceeding was against the petitioner No.2 under Section 71(3) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, challenging his membership in the petitioner No.1. In the said proceedings, an interim order was granted staying the operation of the resolution passed by the respondent No.1 admitting the petitioner No.2 as a member of the petitioner No.1. This was then challenged before this Court in

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:30872 WP No. 25971 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

WP.No.17353/2022. This Court in terms of an order dated 02.09.2022, held that the petitioner No.2 had an alternative remedy of a revision before the appropriate authority and therefore directed the petitioner No.2 to approach the competent revision authority. Following the above, the petitioner No.2 has approached the competent authority and proceedings are now pending before the competent revision authority, where an order of stay was granted.

¶36

In the meanwhile, another member of the petitioner No.1/Smt.Yeshodamma had initiated proceedings under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 ("the Act, 1959" for short) questioning the membership of the petitioner Nos.3 and 4, wherein an interim order was granted under Section 71(3) staying the resolution admitting the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 as members of the petitioner No.1. The said order is challenged before this Court in WP.No.2530/2023, where an interim order of stay is granted and the matter is pending. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.2 herein initiated proceedings under Section 7(2) of the Act, 1959 challenging the resolutions dated 06.08.2021, 16.11.2021 and 21.12.2021 to which the petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 were parties as members

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30872 WP No. 25971 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

of the managing committee of the petitioner No.1. The respondent No.2 inter alia contended that when the membership of the petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 was in question, the resolutions dated 06.08.2021, 16.11.2021 and 21.12.2021 were invalid. He therefore prayed that the said resolutions be set at naught. The respondent No.1 in terms of an order dated 07.10.2023, stayed the resolutions dated 06.08.2021, 16.11.2021 and 21.12.2021 in terms of the impugned order. The petitioners are therefore before this Court challenging the said order primarily on the ground that the issue regarding the validity of the resolution admitting them as members of the petitioner No.1 is pending consideration before the authority and the respondent No.1 should therefore not have assumed that the resolutions admitting the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as members of the petitioner No.1 were set aside. The petitioners therefore are before this Court challenging the aforesaid order.

¶40

When this petition was listed for preliminary hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that in terms of the resolutions dated 06.08.2021, 16.11.2021 and 21.12.2021, the respondent No.2 was suspended from service pending an enquiry and presently, the enquiry is held

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:30872 WP No. 25971 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

and an order of dismissal was passed on 13.04.2022. He therefore contends that the impugned order has become academic, as the respondent No.2 is bound to challenge the order of dismissal in an appropriate proceeding.

¶45

Learned Additional Government Advocate also reiterates the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶46

As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the validity or otherwise of the resolutions passed by the petitioner No.1 admitting the petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 is still pending consideration before the competent authorities. Consequently, the resolutions dated 06.08.2021, 16.11.2021 and 21.12.2021 to which the petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 were parties as members of the managing committee of the petitioner No.1, have to be saved by applying the de-facto doctrine. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gokaraju Rangaraju vs State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1981 SC 1473]. Even assuming that the membership of the petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 are annulled or stayed, the resolutions to which they are parties cannot be

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:30872 WP No. 25971 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

invalidated. Be that as it may, since the respondent No.1 has proceeded on the assumption that the membership of the petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 were stayed and therefore, the resolutions passed by them were also invalid, does not stand to reason. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 on that premise deserves to be set aside.

¶51

In addition, since the respondent No.2 has now

¶52

stated that following the resolutions dated 06.08.2021, 16.11.2021 and 21.12.2021, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and an order was passed dismissing him from service, he is bound to challenge the same in accordance with law and the anchor sheet of the order dismissing the respondent No.2 from service, namely the resolutions dated 06.08.2021, 16.11.2021 and 21.12.2021 cannot be dissolved.

¶53

In that view of the matter, the following order is

¶54

passed:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶57

ii) The impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 dated 07.10.2023 is quashed.

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:30872 WP No. 25971 of 2023

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

iii) It is however open for the respondent No.2 to raise all contentions available to him once the proceedings before the respondent No.1 regarding the validity and invalidity of the membership of the petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 is decided in accordance with law.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶63

BKN

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Sogalapalya Milk Producers Co. -Operative Society v. the Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sogalapalya Milk Producers Co. -Operative Society v. the Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shree Marikamba Devasthanagala Vyavasthapaka Committee Vs State of Karnataka

Amitabh Sinha Vs the Secretary

Mysore Sales International Limited Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Sharan Desai Vs the Principal Secretary to Government

The Gangolli Pry. Fishermen'S Co-Operative Society Limited Vs State of Karnataka

H K Sadashiva Vs the Registrar of Co. Operative Societies