The Taluka Agricultural Co. Operative Marketing Society Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:9572 WP No. 2726 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 2726 OF 2026 (CS-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE TALUKA AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, NO.F-817/1, BHARAT NAGARA, 1^ST PHASE, BEL LAYOUT, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 091. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. GEORGE ANTHONY CRUZE.,ADVOCATE AND SRI.C.MUDALAGIRIYAPPA.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA B BY IT'S THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE Location: High Court of Karnataka SOCIETIES IN KARNATKA, NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052.

¶12

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BENGALURU 4^TH CIRCLE, NO.146, 8^TH CROSS, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003.

¶13

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:9572 WP No. 2726 of 2026

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

SRI. VIJAY KUMAR. H, S/O. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT.NO.248/2, 12^TH CROSS, SHIVANANDNAGARA, HEGGANAHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 091.

¶16

SRI. NAGESHKUMAR. S S/O. SUBBAIAH. M, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.114, 3^RD CROSS ROAD, HEROHALLI VILLAGE, VISHWANEEDAM POST, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, YESHANTHPURA HOBLI, BENGLAURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560091

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.YOGESH.D.NAIK.,AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS PENDING ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENT NO.2 PERTAINING TO RTI INFORMATION SOUGHT BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4 AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

3 -

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:9572 WP No. 2726 of 2026

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner filed this petition seeking for the following reliefs:

¶27

"(i) Call for relevant records pending on the file of Respondent No.2 pertaining to RTI information sought by Respondent No.3 and 4.

¶28

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of writ of CERITORARI by quashing the impugned notice issued by Deputy Registrar Co-operative Socierties-4^th Circle - Respondent No.2 dated 10/12/2025 bearing No.DRB-4/TAPCMS/03/2025 vide Annexure-F.

¶29

(iii) Issue further direction to the learned Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies-4^th Circle - Respondent No.2 to dispose of the further proceedings in pursuant of the notice bearing No.DRB-4/TAPCMS/03/2025 vide Annexure-F dated 10/12/2025.

¶30

(iv) Issue any other order, direction as deemed just in the circumstances in the probabilities of the case and the same may be kindly consider in the interest of justice and equity."

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:9572 WP No. 2726 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

¶35

Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are non-members in the petitioner's Society filed an application seeking information under Section 61 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'the RTI Act'). The endorsement was issued to them is also challenged by them before the Information Commissioner. The application was rejected in limine and the respondents filed an application before respondent No.2-DRCS. Respondent No.2 has issued a notice and commenced the proceedings. It is contented that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition in view of the order passed by the Apex Court and this Court. Hence, the petitioner seeks the due intervention of this Court to quash the impugned notice dated 10.12.2025 and proceedings pending before

¶36

respondent No.2-DRCS.

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:9572 WP No. 2726 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the RTI Act is not applicable to the petitioner-Society. It is submitted that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not the members of the petitioner-Society. To address his arguments, he has placed a reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.7407/2006 (GM-RES) and connected matters, disposed of on 09.02.2009. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings initiated by respondent Nos.3 and 4. Hence, the notice issued by respondent No.2 is arbitrary, and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he pays to allow the petition.

¶41

Per contra , learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the impugned notice is only a notice for appearance before respondent

¶42

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:9572 WP No. 2726 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

No.2. He submits that, the petitioner can appear before respondent No.2 and can place reliance on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7407/2006 and connected matters. Hence, on this ground, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶45

Perused the records and considered the

¶46

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶47

Admittedly, the petitioner's Society is a registered

¶48

Society under Section 7 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed an application seeking information of the petitioner-Society under Section 61 of the RTI Act before the Information Commissioner. The said application was rejected by the Information Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos.3 and 4 approached respondent No.2 by filing an appeal. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 10.12.2025 calling upon the petitioner to appear before respondent No.2 on 23.01.2026. The

¶49

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:9572 WP No. 2726 of 2026

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

petitioner instead of appearing before respondent No.2, filed this petition. The petitioner-Soceity could have appeared before respondent No.2, and could have filed objections contending that the RTI Act is not applicable to the petitioner-Society. By the impugned notice, respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to appear before respondent No.2 on 23.01.2026. Already the date fixed for appearance is over, and respondent No.2 issued only a notice for appearance and no adverse orders have been passed by respondent No.2. The petition filed by the petitioner is premature. Hence, I do not find any grounds to entertain the writ petition.

¶52

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i) The petition is dismissed .

¶55

ii) A liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach respondent No.2 by filing the objection/representation and also can place

¶56

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:9572 WP No. 2726 of 2026

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

reliance on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7407/2006 within a period of fifteen(15) days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶59

iii) If such representation/objection is filed by the petitioner, respondent No.2 shall hear both parties, consider the objection/representation and pass

¶60

appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of one(1) month from the date of filing of objection/representation.

¶61

iv) Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.

¶62

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶63

PHM

¶64

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25

The Taluka Agricultural Co. Operative Marketing Society Limited v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Taluka Agricultural Co. Operative Marketing Society Limited 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Chowdappa Vs Manjanaika @ Dodda

Mrs Kuchibhotla Mythilee Rao Vs Smartowner Services India Private Limited

Sri Raju K Vs Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.

Sri. Mohammed Irshad Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Shri Lakshmi Venkataramana Yajamana Industries, Vs Union of India

D Shanmukhappa Vs State Bank of India