SRI VENKATESH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

1. SRI VENKATESH S/O SRI CHIKKAVENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A: DIBBURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101 (BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001

2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES CHIKKABALLAPUR S.B.7, ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVAN CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101 - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1921-DB WA No. 2 of 2026 HC-KAR

3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX SIDLAGHATTA ROAD CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101

4. THE DIBBURU VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DIBBURU VILLAGE CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101

5. SRI P.N. MUNEGOWDA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT. PURADAGADDE VILLAGE DIBBURU POST, KASABA HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 101

6. SRI NAGARAJ N S/O NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT. GANGAREKALUVE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKBALLAPUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 101

7. SRI N SUBBARAYAPPA S/O NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT DIBBURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101 - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1921-DB WA No. 2 of 2026 HC-KAR

8. SRI N.J. GOPINATH S/O JAYACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT. D. KURUBURAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101

9. SRI K. RAMU S/O D.K. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT. DIBBURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101

10. SRI VENKATESH S/O MUNIKONDAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT. PURADAGADDE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA FOR R-1 TO 4, SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI VARUN J. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R No.5 TO 10) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.12.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. No.36645/2025 (CS-RES) AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1921-DB WA No. 2 of 2026 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 04.12.2025 [the impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.36645/2025 (CS-RES). The operative part of the impugned order reads as under: i) The writ petition is disposed of. ii) Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the appeal in accordance with law expeditiously atleast within three months from today. In the meantime, there shall be stay of Annexure-C till disposal of the appeal. iii) It is needless to state that both the parties shall co-operate with respondent No.2 in such expeditious disposal of the appeal. iv) Respondent No.2 shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in this appeal while disposing of the appeal on merits.

2. The writ petitioners, who were the directors of The Dibburu Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Ltd. [the Society], had challenged an order dated 24.11.2025 passed by respondent No.3, The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, appointing a Special Officer to conduct the affairs of the Society. The appellant - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1921-DB WA No. 2 of 2026 HC-KAR was not a party to the said writ petition, as he was one of the Society’s directors who had resigned.

3. The controversy essentially concerns whether a quorum of directors existed following the resignations of certain directors of the Society. According to the appellant, since there was no quorum, the order appointing the Special Officer (Order dated

24.11.2025) was fully justified and in accordance with law. The writ petitioners had also filed an appeal against the order dated

24.11.2025.

4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Single Judge considered it apposite to direct that the appeal be considered by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies in a time-bound manner. Additionally, the learned Single Judge was persuaded to stay the order appointing a Special Officer, inter alia, on the ground that the resolution of the directors dated 27.09.2025 was not under challenge.

5. It is not necessary to examine the merits of the dispute in this appeal, as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has confined to challenge to the solitary ground that the learned - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:1921-DB WA No. 2 of 2026 HC-KAR Single Judge could not have passed the stay order, since an application filed by the writ petitioners seeking an interim stay of the said order had been rejected in the proceedings relating to the appeal preferred by the writ petitioners before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. He submits that, in effect, there are now two contrary orders: one passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co- operative Societies declining the interim stay; and the other, the impugned order passed by the High Court staying the operation of the order appointing the Special Officer.

6. He submits that since the order dated 27.11.2025, whereby the writ petitioners’ prayer for interim relief was rejected by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, is not the subject matter of challenge, the learned Single Judge did not have the jurisdiction to pass the impugned stay order.

7. We find that the said contentions are insubstantial. A plain reading of the relief sought in the writ petition indicates that the writ petitioners had challenged the order appointing a Special Officer, which was also the subject matter of challenge before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The learned Single Judge had examined the same and, considering that the writ petitioner had - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:1921-DB WA No. 2 of 2026 HC-KAR availed of an alternative remedy, relegated them to pursue the alternative remedy. However, the Court thought it fit to stay the said order for the reasons as set out in the impugned order.

8. The fact that the appellate authority had declined interim relief did not preclude the High Court from considering the challenge raised by the writ petitioners.

9. Clearly, the impugned order falls within the scope of the prayer made in the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioners. The same cannot be faulted on the ground that an interim relief had been rejected by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies.

10. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

11. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KMV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 26