Sri C Vishwanath Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri C Vishwanath Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; certiorari issued quashing the orders dated 16.10.2024 (file nos. KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C/03 to 10 of 2024-25) passed by respondent No.2 at Annexures-H to H8; respondent No.2 directed to hold fresh elections to respondent No.3-Society at the earliest, with the petitioners entitled to contest; pending IAs disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders dated 16.10.2024 passed by Respondent No.2 (Assistant Registrar) disqualifying the petitioner-directors under Section 29(C) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 were liable to be quashed by certiorari. +2 more

Court's answer

Certiorari was issued quashing the nine orders dated 16.10.2024 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexures-H to H8.

Ratio / Principle

Although the Section 29(C) order is appealable under Section 106 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, relegating the petitioner to the appellate remedy at this stage would not be in the interest of justice, warranting entertainment of the writ.

Key takeaways

There was no financial irregularity alleged against the petitioners regarding the appointment; the Assistant Registrar ought to have taken those factors into account and verified whether the appointed person was qualified.obiter¶62
The person appointed as Computer Operator by the petitioners was overaged as on the date of appointment and could not have been appointed.ratio¶65
Given the circumstances, it was open to the Assistant Registrar to have cancelled the appointment and dealt with the matter by merely reprimanding the petitioners and instructing them to follow the applicable law, rather than disqualifying them.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Co-operative law / disqualification of office-bearers - Single Judge (Suraj Govindaraj, J.), writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Nine elected directors (Managing Committee members elected 22.12.2023) of a primary agricultural co-operative society were disqualified by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (orders dated 16.10.2024, Annexures H-H8) under Section 29(C) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, for appointing a Computer Engineer - on NABARD's instructions, by resolution dated 31.1.2024, at Rs.2,000/- per month - without following the prescribed procedure, the appointee being unqualified and above the 40-year upper age limit. Holding that no financial irregularity or personal benefit was alleged and that the Assistant Registrar ought to have verified qualifications and could have simply cancelled the appointment and reprimanded the directors, the Court held that the rigor of Sub-clause (C) of Section 29 disqualification was not warranted. Certiorari was accordingly issued quashing Annexures H to H8; respondent No.2 was directed to hold fresh elections at the earliest (a Special Officer's term having nearly ended), with the petitioners entitled to contest. Although the Section 29(C) order is appealable under Section 106 of the Act, the Court entertained the writ in view of the pendency, deeming relegation to the appellate remedy not in the interest of justice.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9572 WP No. 30255 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 30255 OF 2024 (CS-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI C VISHWANATH S/O CHANNABASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

SMT. CHANNAJAMMA W/O BASAVANAYAK AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

SRI. V S VISHWAS S/O SIDDANAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

SRI. V N SRIKANTASWAMY S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

SRI. VRUSHABENDRA S/O SHIVAMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI. MUDDAPPA @ MAHESH S/O SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

SRI. GANGADHARA SWAMY S/O SHANTHAMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

SMT. GAVIYAMMANI W/O PUTTAVERAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

SMT. BASAMANNAMMA W/O P DEVAPPA

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9572 WP No. 30255 of 2024

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

ALL ARE ELECTED DIRECTORS OF BOMMALAPURA PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATHINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA BOMMALAPURA-571111 GUNDLEPETE TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. JAI PRAKASH REDDY M.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, MS BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES CHAMARAJANAGARA SUB DIVISION, CHAMARAJANAGARA CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571313

BOMMALAPURA PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATHINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA BOMMALAPURA-571111 GUNDLEPETE TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK., AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. A.C. BALARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT QUASHING THE ORDERS DATED 16.10.2024 IN NO. KR.SAN.AR42/KALAM29C/03/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C/04/202425, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C/06/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR42/KALAM29C/04/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C/07/202425, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C/08/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR42/KALAM29C/05/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C/10/2024-

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9572 WP No. 30255 of 2024

25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C/09/2024-25 VIDE ANNX-H TO H8 PASSED BY R-2 AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the

following reliefs:

i. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the orders dated 16.10.2024 in NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/ KALAM29C /03/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/ KALAM29C /04/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/ KALAM29C /06/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/ KALAM29C /04/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/ KALAM29C /07/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42 /KALAM29C /08/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/ KALAM29C /05/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/ KALAM29C /10/2024-25, NO. KR.SAN.AR-42/ KALAM29C /09/2024-25 vide Annexures H to H8 passed by Respondent No.2.

ii. Pass such other orders as may be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice and equity.

The petitioners were members of the Managing Committee of respondent No.3-Society elected on 22.12.2023. In pursuance of the instruction issued by the NABARD, the petitioners had appointed one Sri.Mahadevappa S/o Sri.Shivabasappa as a

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9572 WP No. 30255 of 2024

Computer Engineer in pursuance of the resolution passed on 31.1.2024 at a consolidated salary of Rs.2,000/- per month. There being a complaint which had been lodged against the petitioners for violation of the bye-laws on the ground that the procedure for appointment of any personnel or the Society has not been followed and furthermore that the person who had been appointed was not qualified as also was above the age upper age limit being 40 years of age.

Proceedings were taken up, individual notices came to be issued under Section 29 (C) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 on 03.09.2024. Enquiry was held, reply having been submitted by the petitioners that the appointment was only in the interest of Society and for digitizing and computerizing the Society was not accepted and orders were passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 16.10.2024, disqualifying the petitioner. It is challenging the

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9572 WP No. 30255 of 2024

same, that the petitioner is before this Court seeking

for the aforesaid reliefs.

When the matter had come up before this Court on 12.11.2024, the said orders were stayed and the said interim order has been continued.

Sri. Sri.Jai Prakash Reddy.M., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that;

5.1. There is no benefit which the petitioners have derived from the said appointment inasmuch as it is on the instructions of NABARD that the computer operator was appointed at a monthly consolidated salary of Rs.2,000/-.

5.2. There is no allegation made against the petitioners that they have derived any financial benefit or otherwise. The only allegation made against them is that they had appointed a person who was overage and was not completely qualified.

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9572 WP No. 30255 of 2024

5.3. The petitioners bona fide believed the said

person to be qualified and were not aware of the age limit and as such appointed him.

5.4. He submits that this aspect when submitted to the respondent No.2 has not been considered. If at all, the appointment could have been cancelled disqualification could not have resulted in pursuance of show cause notice issued under Section 29(C).

Both learned AGA and the counsel appearing for the Society would however support the order of the respondent No.2 by contending that there is a violation of the applicable Rules inasmuch as the appointment procedure has not been followed and a person who is more than 40 years age had been appointed and as such, they submit that the above petition is required to be dismissed.

Heard Sri.Jai Prakash Reddy.M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Yogesh D.Naik., learned AGA appearing for respondents No.1 and 2

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9572 WP No. 30255 of 2024

and Sri.A.C.Balaraj., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. Perused papers.

The order passed under Section 29(C) is appealable under Section 106 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. But, however, the above petition has been pending before this Court for some time now and relegating the petitioner to the appellate remedy at this stage, in my considered opinion would not be in the interest of justice.

Moreso, when the facts indicate that an appointment had been made by the petitioner as a computer operator at consolidated salary of Rs.2,000/- per month, as regards which there is no financial irregularity which has been alleged against the petitioner, as regards the qualification of the said person. The Assistant Register ought to have taken those factors into account and verified whether the person had been qualified or not.

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9572 WP No. 30255 of 2024

Be that as it may, the person appointed by the petitioner was overaged as on the date of the appointment and could not have been appointed.

In that view of the matter, it could have also been for the Assistant Registrar to have cancelled the appointment and matter proceeded with by reprimanding the petitioners and instructing them to follow the applicable law.

Taking into consideration, the peculiarity of the facts where there is no allegation of financial irregularity but the procedure not having been followed by the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that a Special Officer have already been appointed the term likely to come to an end in the near future, it would be required for elections to be held.

The actions on part of the petitioners in this particular situation, in my considered opinion would not require the application of the rigor of Sub-clause (C) of Section 29 disqualifying them. As such, I pass the following;

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9572 WP No. 30255 of 2024

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed.

ii. A certiorari is issued, the order dated 16.10.2024 at NO.KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C /03/2024-25, NO.KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C /04/2024-25, NO.KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C /06/2024-25, NO.KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C /04/2024-25, NO.KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C /07/2024-25, NO.KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C /08/2024-25, NO.KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C /05/2024-25, NO.KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C /10/2024-25, NO.KR.SAN.AR-42/KALAM29C /09/2024-25 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexures-H to H8 are quashed.

iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to hold fresh elections to respondent No.3-Society at the earliest.

iv. Needless to say, the petitioners would be entitled to contest in the said election.

v. In view of disposal of the main petition, pending IA's does not survive for consideration. Hence, IA stands disposed of.

SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21