H S Sunil Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

H S Sunil Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed with liberty reserved to the petitioners to approach the appropriate appellate authority (remedy under Section 106 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959); interim order/stay of Annexure-J granted on 30.09.2024 continued for a further period of four weeks; benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 allowed in case an appeal is filed; no opinion expressed on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the disqualification order dated 09-09-2024 (Annexure-J) passed by respondent No.2 under Section 29C of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, challenged in this writ petition, ought to be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

No opinion is expressed on the merits of the case; the appellate authority shall decide the matter in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

Because the petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 106 of the Act, the writ petition is dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to approach the appropriate appellate authority in the manner known to law.

Key takeaways

The interim order granted by this Court on 30.09.2024 (stay of Annexure-J) shall continue for a further period of four weeks from the date of this order.ratio¶58
In case the petitioners file an appeal, they shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.ratio¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (CS-RES) under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India by twelve petitioners challenging a disqualification order dated 09-09-2024 (Annexure-J, Ref. KRA.SAM.SANI.34/DOORU/21/202324) passed by respondent No.2 (Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiptur Sub Division) under Section 29C of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. Held: dismissing the petition on the submission that the petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 106 of the Act, with liberty to approach the appropriate appellate authority; the interim stay granted on 30.09.2024 is continued for four weeks; in any appeal the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963; no opinion is expressed on the merits, which the appellate authority shall decide in accordance with law.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28257 WP No. 27074 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 27074 OF 2024 (CS-RES)

BETWEEN:

H.S. SUNIL S/O SIDDANANJAPPA AGE 50 YEARS HULLEKERE POST, TURUVEKERE TALUK-572 215.

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

YOGANANDASWAMY S/O SADASHIVAIAH AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS HATTIHALLI BEECHANAHALLI POST TURUVEKERE TALUK-572 215.

A.C. NALINA W/O JAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS HULLEKERE POST

TURUVEKERE TALUK-572 215.

SHIVAGANGAMMA W/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS JAKKANAHALLI BEECHANAHALLI POST TURUVEKERE TALUK-572 215.

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28257 WP No. 27074 of 2024

HC-KAR

5. S.R. MAHESH

S/O RANGAPPA

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS SASALU, HULLEKERE POST TURUVEKERE TALUK-572 215.

B.S. MAHADEVAIAH S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS BEECHANAHALLI POST TURUVEKERE TALUK-572 215.

MANJUNATHAH N. S/O NANDISHAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS HATTIHALLI, BEECHANAHALLI POST TURUVEKERE TALUK-572 215.

B.N.SHANKARLINGAIAH S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS BALLEKATTE, HULLEKERE POST TURUVEKERE TALUK-572 215.

9. CHANDRAIAH

S/O BOARALAH

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS BALLEKATTE, HULLEKERE POST TURUVEKERE TALUK-572 215.

10. PRADEEP

S/O NARASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS BEECHANAHALLI POST TURUVEKERE TALUK-572 215.

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28257 WP No. 27074 of 2024

HC-KAR

SHANKARAPPA

S/O GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS HULLEKERE POST TURUVEKERE TALUK-572 215.

JAGADISH H.K. S/O KANCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS HULLEKERE POST TURUVEKERE TALUK-572 215.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES TIPTUR SUB DIVISION TIPTUR TALUK

TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.

PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. HULLEKERE, TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 215.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. YOGESH D.NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & R2; R3 - SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28257 WP No. 27074 of 2024

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE DISQUALIFICATION ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 09-09-2024 VIDE KRA.SAM.SANI.34/DOORU/21/202324, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioners in the instant writ petition have challenged the order of disqualification passed under Section 29C of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act').

2. This Court on 30.09.2024 had passed the following order:

"Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Issue emergent notice to respondent No.3 returnable by 28.10.2024.

In the meanwhile, there shall be an interim order of stay of Annexure-J dated 09.09.2024 passed by the 2^nd respondent till the next date of hearing.

Re-list on 28.10.2024.

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28257 WP No. 27074 of 2024

HC-KAR

Liberty is reserved in favour of respondents to seek vacation / modification of this order."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that, the petitioners are having an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 106 of the Act.

4. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is hereby dismissed reserving the liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate appellate authority in the manner known to law. However, the interim order granted by this Court on 30.09.2024 shall continue for a further period of four weeks from today. It is hereby made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the case and the appellate authority shall decide the same in accordance with law.

5. In case of filing of an appeal, the petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40