The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION No.658/2025 (CS-EL/M) BETWEEN: THE PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., ANTARSANTE H.D. KOTE, MYSORE DISTRICT-571125 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI MAHAMAD TAHIR A. A/W SRI VARUN J. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONR AND IMPLEADING APPLICANTS ON I.A.2/2025) AND: 1. 2. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. THE REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES NO.1, ALI ASKER ROAD BANGALORE-560052. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY, 3RD FLOOR, TTMC A BLOCK, K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. 5. 6. - 2 - THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER AND ALSO DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES MYSORE DISTRICT-571125. THE RETURNING OFFICER PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., ANTARSANTE H.D. KOTE, MYSORE DIST-571125 REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959. THE VOTER LIST SCRUTINY OFFICER ALSO CDO PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., ANTARSANTE H.D. KOTE, MYSORE DISTRICT-571125. REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AAG A/W SRI SIDHARTH BABU RAO, AGA FOR R-1, R-2, R-4, R-5 & R-6; SRI T.L. KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT ON I.A.1/2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-4 TO 6 TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE TERM OF PETITIONER SOCIETY; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE PRESENT BOARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 05.06.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-H1 TILL THE ELECTIONS ARE HELD. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR 28/01/2025, FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: COMING ORDERS ON ON - 3 - CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CAV O R D E R The petitioner-society is seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.4 to 6 to conduct the election from the stage, where it was halted before the expiry of the term of the Board of the society and further, a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to continue the present Board in accordance with the Government Notification dated 05.06.2024 vide Annexure-H1 till the elections are held. 2. Brief facts are that, petitioner a Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘the society’ for short), is being managed by the Board of Directors, who were elected on 02.02.2020 and the term of the Board comes to an end on 02.02.2025. The case of the petitioner is that the new Board of Directors have to be elected on or before 02.02.2025 and the petitioner has made all arrangements to conduct the election, including sending of statutory notices under Rule 13-D of the Karnataka Co- - 4 - Operative Societies Rules, 1960 (‘the Rules’ for short), which notices were placed along with the letter to respondent No.4 stating that the notices for defaulters have been issued and the society has not received any objections pursuant to sending the statutory notices. 3. On the society submitting all the necessary documents for conduct of the election, the District Election Officer proceeded to appoint respondent No.5 as a Returning Officer to conduct the election of the petitioner-society and also appointed respondent No.6 as a Scrutiny Officer to scrutinize and finalize the list of voters in order to conduct the election. The election of the Board is not conducted which is required to be done as per Section 28B of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 (‘the Act’ for short). 4. Learned senior counsel Sri Jaykumar S. Patil appearing for the petitioner-society would urge the following grounds: - 5 - i. In regard to the impleading applicants, complaining about no notices have been received by them, the proposed impleading applicants are in the draft eligible voter list at Sl. Nos.59, 153, 383, 412, 473, 687 and 968 and hence, the question of issuance of notice under Rule 13-D (2-A) of the Rules will not arise. ii. Despite the petitioner having submitted all the necessary documents, the respondents-authorities in the given situation it appears that they are doing this to see that an Administrator is appointed under Section 28A of the Act and they are not inclined to hold the election before the expiry of the term of the Board of the petitioner-society and also to deprive the right of the petitioner to contest in the Mysuru DCC election, which election is to be completed by 13.03.2025 as per the order in CCC No.155/2024. iii. Taking this Court to Annexure-H-the representation dated 04.01.2025, learned senior counsel points out that the petitioner-society, in its letter addressed to the respondents, clearly stated that the respondents are - 6 - deliberately not taking steps to conduct the election to the petitioner-society before the expiry of the term of the present board. iv. That the efforts made by the respondents, either by omission or commission, in such a way directly contravening the statutory provisions collectively by an officer and it has to be taken as legal malice and request to pass an order that the benefit of Annexure-H, condition No.5 should be extended to the petitioner-society as well and this is the only way the petitioner-society can participate in the election of Mysuru DCC Bank. v. Stressing upon legal malice, it is submitted that the set of facts shows that for no reason, if something is not followed, which results in deprivation of the right of a third party, it amounts to a legal malice and the benefit of the order granted to a set of cooperatives needs to be accorded to the petitioner as well, in light of the peculiar facts. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Kishansing Tomar Vs. Municipal Corporation of - 7 - the City of Ahmedabad and Others1 (Kishansing) and in the case of Kalabharati Advertising Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and others2 (Kalabharati Advertising). 5. Learned Additional Advocate General
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Prathima Honnapura appearing for the official respondents supporting the statement of objections submits that the action on part of the respondents is in line of the fact that the members of the petitioner-society have failed to make necessary arrangement and that the petitioner has failed to comply with the mandatory stipulations as contained under Rule 13-D (2-A) of Rules and hence, without the voters’ list the election could not be completed in time. Further, the affidavit of the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies is filed to the effect that the minimum required number of days to complete the election process is 120 days, as contemplated under Rule 13-D, which is mandate for
Decision
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. A writ of mandamus is issued to respondent No.5-the Returning Officer to continue the process of election from where it is halted and - 38 - the Election Officer to take steps for publication of the voters list in the manner prescribed under Rule 13-D (3) of Rules and Returning officer to complete the entire process in accordance with law. iii. The non-conduct of the election is due to the dereliction of the duties by the Election Officer- respondent No.4 and the Returning Officer, who was appointed on 30.10.2024 and not due to the fault on part of the Board of the petitioner- society, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the term of the present Board members to be continued till the elections are conducted by the Election Officer and the Returning Officer as indicated at the operative portion of para No.ii of the order. iv. The cost of Rs.50,000/- each is imposed on the Election Officer-respondent No.4 and the Returning Officer, who was appointed on - 39 - 30.10.2024 to be paid from their pocket to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority within two weeks from today. v. The application-I.A.No.2/2025 filed for impleading by the petitioner does not fall for consideration, as the term of the Board is extended until election is conducted as indicated at para No.ii of the operative portion. vi. I.A.No.1/2025 for impleading is disposed of with liberty to avail the remedy as available under law. MBM Sd/- ________________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA