SRI. M v. MAYANNA
Case at a glance
- Bench
- E S INDIRESH
- Neutral citation
- 2026:KHC:24252
Outcome
Disposed of
petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
SRI. M. V. MAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O.M.V.VENKATAPPA, MEMBER OF SREE LAKSHMI NARASIMHA PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, MALAVALLI TOWN, KOTE BEEDI - 571 430, MANDYA DISTRICT. (BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H.C., ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052.
THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:24252 WP No. 13904 of 2026 HC-KAR MYSORE REGION, MYSORE - 570 001.
THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MANDYA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA - 571 401.
SREE LAKSHMI NARASIMHA PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., MALAVALLI TOWN, KOTE BEEDI - 571 430, MANDYA DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS INCHARGE. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ SECRETARY.
MALAVALLI TALUKA PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
RETURNING OFFICER AND E.O. OF TALUK PANCHAYAT, MALAVALLI, MALAVALLI TALUKA PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.
THE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION, NGO COLONY, WILSON GARDEN, - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:24252 WP No. 13904 of 2026 HC-KAR BANGALORE - 560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
SMT.K.ANITHA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O.NANDISH, WORKING AS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, MANDYA SUB-DIVISION, OFFICE AT MANDYA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED, MANDYA, SAHAKARA BHAVANA, NO.1156, 1ST CROSS, ASHOKNAGAR, MANDYA - 571 401. (BY SRI.YOGESH D NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI.P.ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5) …RESPONDENTS
25.03.2026 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED AR39.DDS /DISQUALIFICATION /29 /2024-25 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MANDYA SUB- DIVISION, MANDYA MARKED AS ANNX-AA6 BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND ETC., BEARING NO. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:24252 WP No. 13904 of 2026 HC-KAR
2. Respondent No.5 is represented by Sri. P Anand, learned counsel for respondent No.5/caveator.
3. It is submitted by Sri. H C Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for petitioner by referring to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3322/2025 dated
16.02.2026 and argued that, the impugned order passed by respondent No.4- The Assistant Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Mandya Sub Division, Mandya under Section 29C of the Karnataka State Co-operative Societies Act, 1959( hereinafter referred to as 'Act') requires to be interfered with by this Court.
4. Per contra, Sri. P Anand, learned counsel as well as learned Additional Government Advocate argued that as the impugned order is passed under Section 29C of the Act, the petitioner has efficacious remedy to approach the competent authority under Section 106 of the Act.
Operative part
5. In that view of the matter, taking into account the provisions contained under Section 106 of the Act, I am of the view that, the petitioner be directed to approach - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:24252 WP No. 13904 of 2026 HC-KAR the competent authority by way of an appeal. However, as the petitioner has already approached this Court as per Annexure-AA4 to the petition, I am of the view that the respondent-authorities are directed not to take any precipitative action for a period of two weeks from today, to enable the petitioner to approach the competent appellate authority. In that view of the matter, writ petition is disposed of.
6. Registry directed return original/certified copies produced in this writ petition with proper replacement, forthwith. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.