Karnataka High Court
Golappa S/O Basappa Danashetti vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 October, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 107724 OF 2024 (CS-EL/M)
BETWEEN:
GOLAPPA S/O. BASAPPA DANASHETTI,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRIYUTHS. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ANAND D. BAGEWADI,
SHIVANAND MALASHETTI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
Digitally signed
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA 2. THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
Location: HIGH ELECTION AUTHORITY BENGALURU,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE RETURNING OFFICER
PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,
HULAKUND, AT: HULAKUND,
TALUK: RAMADURG, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591114.
4. THE PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH
NIYAMIT, HULAKUND,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
AT: HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN- 591114.
5. SRI. RAMESH S/O. LAXMAPPA NINGARADDI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN -591114.
6. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-580001.
7. NINGAPPA S/O. SHANKARAPPA CHINCHALI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
8. CHANNAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA HUNDEKAR,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
9. MAHADEVI W/O. PADEPPA PATIL,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
10. MAHADEV S/O. SHEKHARAPPA JAMKHANDI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
11. PARAMANAND S/O. FAKIRAPPA METRI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
12. PANDAPPA S/O. HANMANTAPPA MIRJI,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
DIST. BELAGAVI.
13. HANUMANTH S/O. KRISHNAPPA KULAGOD,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
14. RAMESH S/O. HANAMANT SINGADI,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
15. LAKKAVVA W/O. RUDRAPPA JADAGI,
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
16. IRANNA S/O. GUDDAPPA GANGI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRIYUTHS. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1 AND R6;
G.V. BHARAMAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;
VIJAYKUMAR B.HORATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
MAHANTESH R. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R16)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 1. TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION
LETTER/ ORDER DATED 16/12/2024 IN NO.DRL/ELECTION/350/2024-
25 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT I.E., DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETY BELAGAVI, VIDE ANNEXURE-E. 2. TO ISSUE
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS
TO DELETE THE NAME OF 5TH RESPONDENT IN THE LIST OF
CANDIDATES AND ETC.,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 11.09.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
1. To issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash
impugned communication letter/ order dated
16/12/2024 in no.DRL/ELECTION/350/2024-25
issued by the 6th respondent i.e., Deputy Registrar of
Co-Operative Society Belagavi, vide ANNEXURE-E.
2. To issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing
the respondents to delete the name of 5th
respondent in the list of candidates.
3. To issue any other order or directions as deems fit to
the circumstances of the above case.
2. Respondent No.4 is stated to be a Primary Cooperative
Society registered under the Karnataka Cooperative
Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
KCS Act', for short). Initially when the petition was
filed, it was stated that the petitioner and respondent
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
No.5 are members of the 4th respondent Cooperative
Society, but subsequently respondent Nos.7 to 16,
who are also members of the Cooperative Society
have been brought on record by way of impleadment.
3. The facts in brief are:
3.1. The Returning Officer was appointed to conduct
the election to the Committee of Management
of the Cooperative Society and a list of eligible
and ineligible voters was published. Thereafter,
the Returning Officer had published the
calendar of events on 19.11.2024.
3.2. The petitioner and other eligible candidates had
submitted their respective nomination papers,
which were accepted by the Returning Officer.
Symbols were allotted, and the list of
contestants was published on 16.12.2024.
3.3. Respondent No.5, being one of the contestants,
the petitioner had submitted his objections
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
stating that Respondent No.5 is a defaulter in
Sri.Veman Cooperative Society and requested
the Returning Officer to reject his nomination.
The said nomination came to be rejected on
15.12.2024.
3.4. Respondent No.5 thereafter submitted a
representation to Respondent No.6, Deputy
Registrar of Cooperative Societies (D.R.C.S.),
challenging the order passed by the Returning
Officer on 16.12.2024. On the very same day,
the D.R.C.S. addressed a letter to the Returning
Officer directing him to accept the nomination
paper. Hence, the name of Respondent No.5
also came to be included in the list of
contestants.
3.5. It is challenging the same that the petitioner is
before this Court.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. This Court, vide its order dated 20.12.2024, permitted
the petitioner and Respondent No.5 to contest the
elections. The votes cast in favour of the Respondent
No.5 were directed to be kept in a separate sealed
cover, and the results of the elections were directed
not to be declared without the leave of the Court. It is
thereafter that the impleading applications had been
filed by Respondent Nos. 7 to 16, which were allowed
on 29.07.2025. By way of the order dated
22.08.2015, the Returning Officer was directed to
count the votes cast and submit the results in a sealed
cover. The same was furnished on 08.09.2025 and
thereafter, the matter was taken up for hearing.
5. The submission of Sri. Shivaraj P. Mudhol, learned
Counsel for the petitioner, is that;
5.1. Admittedly, Respondent No.5, being a defaulter
in Veman Cooperative Society, could not have,
firstly, been declared to be an eligible voter,
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
and secondly, he could not have been permitted
to contest elections.
5.2. He relied upon Section 29-C(1)(a) of the KCS
Act, which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
29C. Disqualification for membership of the
[board].- (1) No person shall be eligible for being
elected or appointed or continued as a member of
the [board of any co-operative society], if,--
(a) he is in default to that society or any other co-
operative society in respect of any dues from him as
borrower;]
(b) he is interested directly or indirectly in any
contract made with such co-operative society or in
the sale or purchase made by such co-operative
society privately or in auction or in any contract or
transaction of the co-operative society (other than
investment and borrowing) involving financial
interests in that contract, sale, purchase or
transaction;
(c) he [XXX] carries] on a business of the kind
carried on by such co-operative society or by a co-
operative society of which such co-operative
society is a member;
(d) he is employed as legal practitioner on behalf of
such co-operative society or accepts employment as
legal practitioner against such co-operative society;
(e) he is a paid employee [other than the chief
executive] 1 of such co-operative society or of its
financing bank;
[x x x]
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
(f) he is a near relation of a paid employee of such
co-operative society.
[Explanation.--For the purpose of [this clause
[XXX] ] 'near relation' means,--
(i) husband, wife and unmarried daughter;
(ii) father, mother, undivided son, undivided brother
and unmarried sister; and
(iii) such other relations as may be prescribed to be
a near relation.
[x x x]
g) he was a paid employee of a co-operative society
and was dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired
from service of a co-operative society;
(h) he is disqualified to be a member of the society
or to vote as such member;
(i) he has been convicted for an offence punishable
under section 153A or section 171E or section 171F
or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 505
of the Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) or
under section 39J or clause (b) of sub-section (2) of
section 39K of this Act, unless a period of six years
has elapsed from the date of such conviction;
(j) he has been convicted by a Court in India for any
offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of
not less than two years, unless a
period of five years has elapsed from the date of his
release;
(k) he is found guilty of corrupt practice within the
meaning of section 39C unless a period of six years
has elapsed from the date on which he was found
guilty;
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
(l) he has failed to remit to any co-operative society
any amount (other than a loan) retained by him in
contravention of the provisions of this Act, rules or
bye-laws;
(m) he is a representative of a co-operative society
which is in default to a financing bank or to any co-
operative society in respect of any dues by the co-
operative society which he represents, for a
continuous period of one year:
Provided that the disqualification under this
clause for being continued as a member of the
*board* shall apply to a co-operative society which
has defaulted in payment of an amount exceeding
thirty percent of such dues;
(n) he was a member of the *board* which failed to
make arrangement for election within the time limit
specified in section 39A.]
(o) XXX
(p) he has absented himself for three consecutive
meetings of the board of such society , without leave
of absence.]
(2) No person including a person elected by a co-
operative society as a member of a [board] of
another co-operative society of which such co-
operative society is a member shall be a [President
or Chairperson, Vice-President or Vice-Chairperson
or other office bearer] of more than two co-operative
societies.
(3) If the board of a cooperative society fails,-
(a) to assist the cooperative Election Commission for
conducting elections as per section 39A and section
29F; or
(b) to call the annual general meeting under section
27 or special general meeting when required under
section 28; or
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
(c) to present the audited accounts and annual
report in the annual general meeting,
every member of such defaulting board shall be
disqualified for being elected or appointed or
continued as a member of the board of the society
for a period of five years from the date of the order
of disqualification]
4) Nothing in sub-section (2) shall apply,--
(i) to any person who is appointed by the State
Government or the Registrar as the President or
Chairperson, Vice-President or the Vice-
Chairperson; or
(ii) to any person who is merely a member of the
[board.]
(5) In the case of co-operative marketing societies,
consumers co-operative societies and such class or
classes of co-operative societies as may be specified
by the State Government, by notification in the
official Gazette, no member shall be eligible for being
appointed or elected as a member of the *board* of
such co-operative society if he does not fulfill the
minimum qualifications relating to his transactions
with the co-operative society upto such monetary
limits as may be specified from time to time in such
notification.
(6) There shall be no representative of individual
members on the [board] of a District Central Co-
operative Bank or an Apex Co-operative Bank or
such other classes of co-operative banks as may be
prescribed.
(7) Any question as to whether a member of the
[board] was or has become subject to any of the
disqualifications mentioned in this section shall be
decided by the Registrar after giving the person
concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
(8) If any member of a [board] of a co-operative
society during the term of his office,--
(a) becomes subject to any disqualifications specified
in sub-sections (1), (2) and (5); or
(b) has acted or has been acting fraudulently or with
gross negligence or in contravention of the
provisions of this Act, the rules or the bye-laws of
the co-operative society or without the sanction of
the [board] of the co-operative society where such
sanction is necessary or contrary to the resolution of
the co-operative society or its [board] or in any way
prejudicial
to the interest of the co-operative society; or
(c) has acted or has been acting persistently against
the directions or orders issued under this Act, rules
or bye-laws; or
(d) is not discharging his duties satisfactorily; the
Registrar may either on a report made to him or
otherwise, by order remove such member, and in
cases falling under clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of
this sub-section disqualify him from holding any
office in the co-operative society for such period not
exceeding five years, as may be specified in such
order:
Provided that no order shall be made under this
sub-section unless a reasonable opportunity of being
heard, is given to the person against whom the order
is to be made.
(9) A copy of the order made under sub-section (8)
shall be communicated to the member and the co-
operative society concerned.
(10) No director of a cooperative society shall be
eligible for being elected or appointed or continued
as a delegate of another society, if he suffers from
any disqualification mentioned in sub-section (1).
The provisions of sub- section (8) shall, mutatis-
mutandis, apply.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
(11) No member of a cooperative society shall be
eligible for being elected or appointed or continued
as a representative, if he suffers from any
disqualification mentioned in sub-section (1) other
than clauses (m) and (n) thereof. The provisions of
sub-section (8) shall, mutatis-mutandis, apply]
5.3. By relying on Section 29C(1)(a) of the KCS Act,
he submits that no person shall be eligible to be
elected to be a member or continue as a
member of the Board of any Cooperative
Society, if he is in default to that Society or any
other Cooperative Society in respect of any
dues to him as borrower.
5.4. By relying on the above, he submits that the
petitioner, admittedly being a defaulter in
Sri.Veman Cooperative Society in making
payment of dues to the said Society as a
defaulter, even such default would have to be
taken into consideration, since in terms of
Section 29C, no person shall be eligible for
being elected or appointed or continued as a
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
director, which would include contesting the
elections of Respondent No. 4 Society.
5.5. This aspect has not been considered at the time
of preparing the list of eligible and ineligible
voters, since at that time, it is only the default
to Respondent No.4 Society which was taken
into consideration. At the time when the
nomination of Respondent No. 5 to the elections
to the Respondent No.4 Society was filed, the
aspect of the default of the petitioner to
Sri.Veman Cooperative Society, having been
brought to the notice of the Returning Officer,
the Returning Officer had rightly rejected the
nomination.
5.6. The D.R.C.S. has no power to set aside the
order passed by the Returning Officer. Hence
the question of respondent No.5 approaching
the D.R.C.S. and the D.R.C.S. passing the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
impugned order dated 16.12.2024 is completely
contrary to the applicable law, and on that
basis, he submits that Respondent No.5 having
been permitted to contest, the votes cast in
favour of Respondent No.5, having been kept in
a separate ballot box, Respondent No.5 ought
to held to be ineligible to contest elections and
as such discard the votes cast in favour of
respondent No.5.
5.7. He relies on the decision of the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Sri.Vinod S.
Salian Vs. The State of Karnataka and
Others1, more particularly paras 9 and 11
thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
"9. In the present case, Section 70(2)(C) of
the Act provides for adjudication of Election
disputes by the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies. This Court in number of cases has
already held that the rejection of the
1 W.P.No.21814 of 2019 dated 21.05.2019
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
nomination paper requires to be adjudicated
under Section 70 of the Act and has relegated
the petitioner/s to avail the remedy available
under Section 70 of the Act.
11. However, in view of the categorical finding
of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Court
exercising the power under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution has to exercise the discretion
to entertain the writ petition, this Court is of
the view that the rejection of the nomination
paper based on the factual aspect requires to
be considered by the Registrar in terms of
Section 70 of the Act, the machinery provided
for determination of dispute arising out of
elections more particularly, the right to vote,
contest or dispute election being a statutory
right regulated by statutory provisions. Hence,
the writ petition filed by the petitioner by-
passing the statutory remedy available under
the Act cannot be entertained. On these
grounds, the writ petition deserves to be
rejected. Hence, the following:
ORDER
Writ petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of settlement of disputes available under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, in accordance with law. 5.8. The Coordinate Bench in Vinod Salian's case (supra), has categorically held that, if any contestant was aggrieved by the rejection of the nomination paper, he has to raise the dispute under Section 70(2)(c) of the KCS Act. There is
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR no provision for Respondent No.5 to have approached the DRCS.
5.9. He relies upon the decision in the case of Gangappa Nagappa Danannavar and another Vs. The Malaprabha Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd., and others2, more particularly para 11 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
11. Mr. Mandagi has, however, contended that even if it were to be assumed that the order at Ext. R1 disqualifying the Society is said to be in force, a detailed examination of the order itself would disclose that the disqualification pertains in respect of the Society mentioned in the order, that is to say that the disqualification prevents the petitioner-Society the from having a representation for a period of one year from the date of the order to the Belgaum District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., and by that order, Shri Ninganagouda Basanagouda Patil, was removed from the Committee of Management of the said District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and the disqualification would not extend to any other society to which the petitioner Society may seek representation on its Managing Committee. For this contention he relies upon the language of S. 29-C(1)(a) of the Act, which is as follows:
2 1979 (Vol.29) ILR 1461
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR 29-C: Disqualification for membership of the Committee: (1)No person shall be eligible for being elected or appointed or continued as a member of the committee if,-
(a) he is in default to any Co-operative Society in respect of any dues from him either as borrower or as surety.
Provided that a member of the Committee who has ceased to hold office as such under this clause shall not be eligible for a period of one year from the date on which he ceased to hold office for re-election or appointment as member of the committee of such Co- operative society or of election or appointment to the committee of any other Co-operative society.
(b) ........................................................." It is Mr. Mandagi''s contention that the proviso set out above clearly indicated that the disqualification would be operative for a period of one year from the date on which he ceased to hold office for re-election or appointment as a member of the Committee of such Co- operative Society; his emphasis is on the clause ""of such Co-operative Society"", and on the basis of such an interpretation, he said that the order is confined only in relation to the aforementioned Belgaum District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., and therefore would not act as a disqualification for the 1st respondent-Society in the present writ petition. Such a construction, in my opinion, is ex facie untenable having regard to what follows, the clause on which Mr. Mandagi has emphasised. The clause, "such Co-operative Society" is followed by "or of election or appointment to the Committee of any other Co-operative Society" and this has to be read disjunctively forming part of the proviso. Thus read, the inevitable conclusion would be that the statutory disqualification under Sec. 29-
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR C(1) extends not only to the specific Society in. respect of which the disqualification order has been passed by the Registrar, but also the disqualification would extend to election or appointment to the Committee of any other Co-operative Society, If this interpretation is not put on the proviso, then it would lead to the anomalous situation that a member who suffers from disqualification under Sec. 29-C, is capable of holding office or to be eligible for appointment as a member of the Committee of Management of another Society in spite of the disqualification incurred on account of his being a defaulter in any Co-operative Society under Sec. 28-C (1) (a) of the Act, This could not have been the intention of the Legislature, because, the person is disqualified to hold a post on the Committee of Management of a Society to which he is a defaulter, that disqualification on the language of the proviso would extend and must extend to all Co- operative institution in which he seeks appointment or lection to the Committee of Management.
5.10. Relying on Gangappa Nagappa Danannavar's case (supra), he submits that Section 29C(1)(a) of the KCS Act extends not only to the specific society in respect of which the disqualification order has been passed by Registrar, but also to the disqualification to the extent of elections or appointment to the Committee of any other Cooperative Society.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR On that basis, he submits that disqualification would extend to Respondent No.4 also. 5.11. He relies upon the decision in the case of Syed Yakoob Vs. K. S. Radhakrishnan3 more particularly para 7 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals; these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdictions. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened 3 AIR 1964 SC 477
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of tact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the. Tribunal had. erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was' insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmed Ishaque(1), Nagendra Nath Bora v. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam(2), and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh(3)."
5.12. By relying on Syed Yakoob's case (supra), his submission is that, whenever there is an error in the exercise of jurisdiction, this Court ought to exercise jurisdiction to render justice.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR 5.13. He relies upon the the decision in the case of Babi werghese Vs. Bar Council, Kerala4, more particularly para 31 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any Statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor vs. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch.D 426 which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad vs. King Emperor 63 Indian Appeals 372 = AIR 1936 PC 253 who stated as under :
"Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all."
5.14. By relying on Babi Werghese's case (supra), he submits that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. In the present case, he submits the DRCS did not have the power to direct the acceptance of the nomination.
4 1999(3) SCC 422
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR 5.15. He relies upon the decision in the case of Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots Assn. of India Vs. DG of Civil Aviation5, more particularly paras 3, 7, 27 and 28 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
3.The Appellants challenged the Circular dated 29.5.2008 before the High Court on the grounds, inter-alia, that even if CAR 2007 is kept in abeyance, the AIC 28/92, which stood obliterated, could not be revived; the CAR 2007 had been kept in abeyance by the order of the Authority, which did not have the competence to interfere in the functioning of the DGCA, respondent No. 1. The statutory authority i.e. DGCA alone is competent to pass the appropriate order in the matter. The Circular dated 29.5.2008 has seriously jeopardised the safety of passengers and the same was passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. However, the High Court did not accept the submissions of the appellants, rather rejected the same in an elaborate judgment. Hence, this appeal.
7. It may be necessary to make reference to relevant provisions of the Aircraft Act, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as `Act 1934'). Section 4A of the Act 1934 provides for safety oversight functions that the DGCA shall perform the safety oversight functions in respect of matters specified in this Act or the rules made thereunder. Section 5 empowers the Central Government to make 5 2011(5) SCC 435
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR rules. Sections 5(2) and 5-A of the Act 1934 read as under:
"5 (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for-
(m) the measures to be taken and the equipment to be carried for the purpose of ensuring the safety of life.
5-A. Power to issue directions.-(1) The Director- General of Civil Aviation or any other officer specially empowered in this behalf by the Central Government may, from time to time, by order, issue directions, consistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, with respect to any of the matters specified in clauses (aa), (b),
(c), (e), (f),(g), (ga), (gb), (gc), (h), (i),
(m) and (qq) of sub-section (2) of section 5, to any person or persons using any aerodrome or engaged in the aircraft operations, air traffic control, maintenance and operation of aerodrome, communication, navigation, surveillance and air traffic management facilities and safeguarding civil aviation against acts of unlawful interference, in any case where the Director-General of Civil Aviation or such other officer is satisfied that in the interests of the security of India or for securing the safety of aircraft operations it is necessary so to do.
(2) Every direction issued under sub- section (1) shall be complied with by the person or persons to whom such direction is issued."
27. Similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16; Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 1159; and Pancham Chand & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 1888, observing that an authority vested with the power to act under the statute alone should exercise its discretion following the procedure prescribed therein and interference on the part of any authority upon whom the statute does not confer any jurisdiction, is wholly unwarranted in law.It violates the Constitutional scheme.
28. In view of the above, the legal position emerges that the authority who has been vested with the power to exercise its discretion alone can pass the order. Even senior official cannot provide for any guideline or direction to the authority under the statute to act in a particular manner.
5.16. By relying on Joint Action Committee's case (supra), his submission is that, it is only the authority who is vested with a particular power who can act and discharge such obligation in the procedure prescribed thereunder. If the same is done in a different manner than that provided, this Court ought to intercede in the matter.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR 5.17. He relies upon the decision in the case of Shaji K. Joseph Vs. V. Viswanath and Others6 more particularly paras 15, 16, and 17 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
15. In our opinion, the High Court was not right in interfering with the process of election especially when the process of election had started upon publication of the election program on 27th January, 2011 and more particularly when an alternative statutory remedy was available to Respondent no.1 by way of referring the dispute to the Central Government as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Act read with Regulation 20 of the Regulations. So far as the issue with regard to eligibility of Respondent no.1 for contesting the election is concerned, though prima facie it appears that Respondent no.1 could contest the election, we do not propose to go into the said issue because, in our opinion, as per the settled law, the High Court should not have interfered with the election after the process of election had commenced. The judgments referred to hereinabove clearly show the settled position of law to the effect that whenever the process of election starts, normally courts should not interfere with the process of election for the simple reason that if the process of election is interfered with by the courts, possibly no election would be completed without court's order. Very often, for frivolous reasons candidates or others approach the courts and by virtue of interim orders passed by courts, the election is 6 (2016) 4 SCC 429
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR delayed or cancelled and in such a case the basic purpose of having election and getting an elected body to run the administration is frustrated. For the aforestated reasons, this Court has taken a view that all disputes with regard to election should be dealt with only after completion of the election.
16. This Court, in Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (supra) has held that once the election process starts, it would not be proper for the courts to interfere with the election process. Similar view was taken by this Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra (supra).
17. Thus, in view of the aforestated settled legal position, the High Court should not have interfered with the process of election. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and direct that the result of the election should be published. We are sure that due to interim relief granted by this Court, Respondent no.1 must not have been permitted to contest the election. It would be open to Respondent no.1 to approach the Central Government for referring the dispute, if he thinks it proper to do so. No issue with regard to limitation will be raised if Respondent no.1 initiates an action under Section 5 of the Act within four weeks from today.
5.18. By relying on Shaji K. Joseph's case (supra), he submits that once the election process is started, the courts ought to refrain from interfering with such an election process. The nomination having been rejected, the DRCS
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR also ought not to have interceded in the matter, but ought to have permitted the election process to continue.
5.19. He relies upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Laxmappa Ningaraddi Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others7, filed by Respondent No. 5 herein, more particularly para 3 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that pursuant to a representation dated 16.12.2024 (Annexure-E to the writ petition) made by him to the 3rd respondent Deputy Registrar, the 3rd respondent issued a communication dated 16.12.2024 to the 4th respondent directing him to accept the nomination of the petitioner. The 4th respondent not having accepted the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for appropriate relief.
5.20. By relying on Ramesh Laxmappa Ningaraddi case, he submits that Respondent No.5, having 7 W.P.No.107701 of 2024 dated 18.12.2024
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR approached this Court challenging the order of rejection of nomination and the non- consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner, the same having been rejected by this Court, vide its aforesaid order dated 18.12.2024, the DRCS could not have directed the Returning Officer to include the name of the petitioner to accept the nomination of the petitioner.
5.21. On the basis of the above submission, he submits that the writ petition is required to be allowed.
6. Sri.Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 would submit that; 6.1. This Court having allowed the Petitioner and Respondent No.5 to contest, Respondent No.5 having contested the election, this Court ought not to decide the matter, but ought to relegate
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR the parties to Section 70 of the KCS Act. The Returning Officer did not have any authority to reject the nomination of the respondent No.5. 6.2. In this regard he relies on Rule 14-B(2) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KCS Rules', for short). By relying on the same, he submits that the said Rule does not provide any power to the Returning Officer to reject the nomination on the ground that he is a defaulter in any other Cooperative Society.
6.3. Rule 14-B (1) and (2) of the KCS Rules are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"14-B. Scrutiny of Nominations.- (1) On the date fixed for scrutiny of nominations, the candidates or their proposers, may be present at such time and place as the returning officer may appoint, and the returning officer shall [provide them an opportunity to give objections] within the time and in the manner laid down in this rule for satisfying themselves about their correctness, eligibility and completeness.
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR (2) The returning officer shall then examine the nomination papers and shall decide all objections which may be made to any nomination and may, either on such objection or on his own motion, after such summary enquiry as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination on any of the following grounds, namely:-
(i) that the candidate either is not qualified or is disqualified for being elected as a director of the board / representative under the provisions of the Act, the rules and the bye-
laws;
(ii) that the signature of the candidate or the proposer on the nomination paper is not genuine.
Provided that the nomination of a candidate shall not be rejected merely on the ground of an incorrect description of his name or of the name of his proposer or of any other particulars in regard to the candidate or his proposer as entered in the electoral roll (list of the members/representatives/delegates) if the identity of the candidate or proposer, as the case may be, is established.
Provided further that the returning officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character.
(iii) that the nomination paper has been delivered or received after the date and time fixed for the receipt of the nomination. (3) The returning officer shall endorse on each nomination paper his decision accepting or rejecting the same and if the nomination paper is rejected, shall record in writing a brief statement of his reasons for such rejection. (4) Immediately after all the nomination papers have been scrutinized and decision
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR accepting or rejecting the same have been recorded, the returning officer shall prepare a list containing the names in the alphabetical order in Kannada and addresses as given in the nomination papers of validly nominated candidates in Form XIV that is to say candidates whose nominations have been found valid and affix it on the notice board of his office. A copy of the said list shall also be published on the notice board of the society on the same day."
6.4. The Respondent No.5 had approached this Court in W.P.No.107701/2024, challenging the rejection of the nomination. This Court, vide order dated 18.12.2024, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the election process has already commenced. For the very same reason, the elections having already been completed, the present writ petition is not maintainable, more so, when this Court vide interim order dated 20.12.2024, has permitted the Respondent No.5 to contest the election. 6.5. There is no dispute as regards Respondent No.4 being a Primary Cooperative Society and the
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR petitioner and Respondent No.5 being the members of Respondent No.4Society. 6.6. His submission is that, respondent No.3 did not have any authority to reject the nomination of respondent No.5, and this is what has also been opined by respondent No.6, and in pursuance of the said opinion, respondent No.3 - Returning Officer has accepted the nomination. It is only an opinion expressed by respondent No.6. There is no order which has been passed by respondent No.6.
6.7. This Court granted permission to the petitioner to contest the election by way of interim order dated 20.12.2024, however, directed declaration of results to be stayed. The petitioner, as also respondent No.5, filed two separate writ appeals. Respondent No.5 had filed W.A.No.100027/2025, and the petitioner
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR had filed W.A.No.100041/2025. The Honourable Division Bench, after considering the matter, disposed of the same by order dated 27.01.2025. He places reliance on paras 5 and 6 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
5. This Court is of the considered view that the concerned questions must be considered by the Writ Court in WP No.107724/2024, as it is still seized of such petition. The Writ Court will have to decide, amongst others, whether the Returning Officer could indeed have rejected the fifth respondent's application, whether the concerned Deputy Registrar could have issued a direction to accept the nomination, whether the results must be now announced if there are multiple candidates to the position for which both the appellant and the fifth respondent are contesting.
6. This Court must opine that these questions, and even other question, except insofar as the consequence of the Petition in WP No.107701/2024 must be examined independent of any observation either in the order of dismissal of the Writ Petition or in the interim order. The disposal of the fifth respondent's petition is rendered inconsequentially with the fifth respondent also being permitted to contest the election. In the light of the afore, the Writ Appeals stand disposed of subject to observation as aforesaid.
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR 6.8. His submission is that the direction issued by the Division Bench would have to be considered by this Court to take the necessary decision. 6.9. By referring to Rule 14-B of the KCS Rules, he submits that the same provides for examination of nomination papers, and after holding enquiry, the Returning Officer can reject the nomination. The same would require an enquiry to be held. Without enquiry, the nomination papers cannot be rejected.
6.10. A nomination cannot be rejected without there being a defect of a substantial character. Rule 14-B of the KCS Rules does not provide for rejection of nomination on the ground of default in some other Society. The name of the respondent No.5 being found in the list of eligible voters, there cannot be a rejection of the nomination made.
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR 6.11. Insofar as Section 29C(1) of the KCS Act is concerned, his submission is that the said embargo would come into operation only upon election to the Board of Management and not prior thereto, in that only upon a person being elected and occupying the post of director would the question of disqualification apply. Not yet being elected, the disqualification under Section 29C(1) of the KCS Act would not be applicable insofar as Respondent No.5 is concerned. The disqualification could only be incurred after Respondent No.5 is elected and not before.
6.12. He refers to Section 29C(7) of the KCS Act and submits that, any question as to whether the member of the Board was, or has become subject to any disqualification would have to be decided by the Registrar and not by the Returning Officer.
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR 6.13. Section 29C(7) of KCS Act is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
29C. Disqualification for membership of the committee.
(7) Any question as to whether a member of the committee was or has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in this section shall be decided by the Registrar after giving the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
6.14. Respondent No.6 DRCS is not acting merely as a DRCS, but as the District Election Officer in order to conduct the elections in a proper manner. The DRCS, being aware of the illegality, has directed the Returning Officer to accept the nomination so that the illegality does not persist.
6.15. He relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 22.10.2019 passed in W.A.No.2366/2019 and other connected matter in the case of Sri.K. Eregowda Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others, more particularly
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR para 12 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
12. Sub-section (1) of Section 29-C lays down Disqualification for membership of the board.
Clause (h) thereof lays down that no person shall be eligible for being elected or appointed or continued as a member of the board, if he is disqualified to be a member of the society or to vote as such member. Sub-sections (2) to (6) are not applicable. The order of Assistant Registrar is specifically passed under sub- section (8) of Section 29-C. Under sub- section(8), in the cases falling under clauses
(a) (b) (c) and (d), the Registrar has power to disqualify a member of the Board from holding any office in the co-operative society for such period not exceeding five years. As far as sub- section(8) is concerned, on its plain reading, it becomes applicable, if any member of a board or a co-operative society during the term of his office, becomes subject to any disqualification as specified in sub-sections (1), (2) and (5) or commits acts to which clauses (b) to (d) of sub-section (8) are applicable. Thus, on its plain reading, sub-section (8) is applicable when either disqualification is incurred or acts covered by clauses (b) to (d) thereof are committed by the member of a board during the term of his office. Thus, sub-section (8) cannot apply to the acts committed or disqualification incurred prior to election of a member.
6.16. By referring to K. Eregowda's case (supra), he submits that it is only after following the procedure under Section 29-C of the KCS Act
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR that the Registrar has the power to disqualify a member of the Board.
6.17. The procedure not having been followed, the enquiry not having been held, the opportunity not having been granted to Respondent No.5, the order of rejection of nomination was improper on the ground that Respondent No.5 was allegedly disqualified.
6.18. He relies upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 05.09.2024 in W.P.No.17366/2024 in the case of H. S. Shivashankar and Others Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others, more particularly paras 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 22 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
15. The question therefore is whether the Returning Officer is empowered to declare a member of the society as ineligible, ignoring the approved list of eligible and ineligible members?
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR
16. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 13E provides for the functions of the Returning Officer. Clause 6 of sub-rule (2) of Rule 13E enumerates the general duty of the Returning Officer at an election. Accordingly, the Returning Officer is duty bound to issue notice inviting the nominations; receive and scrutinize the nomination papers; publish list of candidates eligible to contest, etc. Rule 14B provides for scrutiny of nominations. Sub-rule (2) empowers the Returning Officer to examine the nomination papers and to decide all objections which may be made to any nominations. He is empowered to reject any nomination, either on the basis of any objections or on his own motion on the ground enumerated in clause (i) or (ii) of sub-rule(2) of Rule 14B. For easy reference, sub-rule(2) of Rule 14-B is extracted herein below:
"14-B (2). Scrutiny of Nominations.-
(1) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (2) The returning officer shall then examine the nomination papers and shall decide all objections which may be made to any nomination and may, either on such objection or on his own motion, after such summary enquiry as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination on any of the following grounds, namely-
(i) that the candidate either is not qualified or is disqualified for being elected as a director of the board / representative under the provisions of the Act, the rules and the bye-laws;
(ii) that the signature of the
candidate or the proposer on the
nomination paper is not genuine:
Provided that the nomination of a candidate shall not be rejected merely
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR on the ground of an incorrect description of his name or of the name of his proposer or of any other particulars in regard to the candidate or his proposer as entered in the electoral roll (list of the members/ representatives/delegates) if the identity of the candidate or proposer, as the case may be, is established:
Provided further that the returning officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character."
17. It was argued on behalf of the respondents that the Returning Officer is empowered under this provision to reject any nomination on the ground that the candidate is either not qualified or disqualified for being elected, under the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the Bye-laws.
6.19. By relying on H.S.Shivashankar's case (supra), he submits that the Returning Officer is not empowered to declare a member of the society as ineligible, ignoring the approved list of eligible and ineligible members. As such, the Returning Officer would not be empowered to reject the nomination.
6.20. On all the above basis, his submission is that the rejection of the nomination of the
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR respondent No.5 by the Returning Officer, being bad in law, the DRCS has exercised its supervisory power, being the District Election Officer, by directing the Returning Officer to accept the nomination, in pursuance of which he was permitted to contest by this Court. 6.21. As such, after all the above having occurred, it would be but required for the election results to be announced by dismissing the writ petition.
7. Learned AGA supports the order of the DRCS by contending that the DRCS has acted in its capacity as the District Election Officer and, as such, no fault could be found therewith.
8. Heard Sri.Shivaraj P. Mudhol, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Ramesh B. Chigari, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 6, Sri.G. V. Bharamagoudar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, Sri.Vijaykumar B. Horatti, learned counsel for
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR respondent No.4, Sri.Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Sri.Mahantesh R. Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 16. Perused the papers.
9. The points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether, for incurring disqualification under Section 29C(1)(a) of the KCS Act, the person ought to have already been elected to the Board of Management?
2. Whether a disqualification or a default in payment of dues in any other cooperative society would lead to automatic disqualification in terms of Section 29C(1)(a) of the KCS Act?
3. Whether the Returning Officer was right in rejecting the nomination form of respondent No.5?
4. Whether the DRCS, as the District Election Officer or otherwise, could have directed the Returning Officer to accept the nomination form of Respondent No.5?
5. Whether, in the above circumstances, this Court is required to direct the announcement of results including that of Respondent No.5 by counting the votes kept in a separate ballot box?
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR
6. What order?
10. I answer the above points are as under;
11. Answer to point No.1: Whether, for incurring disqualification under Section 29C(1)(a) of the KCS Act, the person ought to have already been elected to the Board of Management? 11.1. What is being sought to be made out by Sri.Srinivas B. Naik., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 that until and unless a person is already a director, the question of disqualification under Section 29-C of the KCS Act would not arise. The logic of his arguments is that only if a person is qualified and appointed as a director could he be disqualified. Hence, a person who is not elected as a director would not incur the disqualification under Section 29-C of the KCS Act.
11.2. I am unable to accept his submission inasmuch as Sub-section (1) of Section 29-C of the KCS
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR Act would categorically indicate that no person shall be eligible for being elected or appointed or continued as a member of the board of any Co-operative Society, if he is in default to that society or any other Co-operative Society in respect of any dues from him as a borrower, etc., 11.3. Thus, the operative words are "being elected or appointed", which would include a stage prior to a person being appointed as a director and as such the disqualification under Section 29-C of the KCS Act would extend to even a person who is not already a director of a Co-operative Society.
sssssw 11.4. Thus, I answer point No.1 by holding that for incurring disqualification under Section 29-C (1)(a) of the KCS Act, the person need not be an elected director of the Board of
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR Management. A person who even seeks to be elected or appointed as a director would be covered under Section 29-C including 29- C (1)(a) of the KCS Act.
12. Answer to point No.2: Whether a disqualification or a default in payment of dues in any other cooperative society would lead to automatic disqualification in terms of Section 29C(1)(a) of the KCS Act?
12.1. Section 29-C(1)(a) of the KCS Act is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
29C. Disqualification for membership of the [board].-
(1) (a) he is in default to that society or any other co-operative society in respect of any dues from him as borrower;] 12.2. A perusal of Section 29-C (1)(a) of the KCS Act would indicate that no person shall be eligible for being elected or appointed as a member of the board, if he is in default, to that society or
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR any other Co-operative Society in respect of any dues from him as a borrower.
12.3. Sri.Shivaraj P. Muhdol, learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on Gangappa Nagappa Danannavar's case has contended that the disqualification under Section 29-C(1)(a) of the KCS Act is automatic so long as there is a default made by a person to that society or any other Co-operative Society in respect of any dues from him as a borrower. The disqualification would be incurred by such person under Sub-section (1) of Section 29-C of the KCS Act automatically and in that regards he submits that there being no dispute as regard to default of respondent No.5 in respect of payment of his dues to Veman Co-operative Society. Respondent No.5 has automatically incurred disqualification.
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR 12.4. What would however have to be seen is Sub-
section (7) of Section 29-C of the KCS Act, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
29C. Disqualification for membership of the [board].-
(7) Any question as to whether a member of the [board] was or has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in this section shall be decided by the Registrar after giving the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
12.5. A perusal of Sub-section (7) of Section 29-C of the KCS Act would indicate that any question as to whether a member of the Board was or has become the subject to any of the disqualification mentioned in Section 29-C of the KCS Act shall be decided by the Registrar after giving the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thus, Sub-section (7) of Section 29-C of the KCS Act makes it
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR mandatory for a notice to be issued and for the Registrar to decide on the disqualification. 12.6. The condition of disqualification being contained in Sub-section (1), (2) and (3) of Section 29-C of the KCS Act. The methodology of disqualifying is only after issuing a notice and/or a person being heard in terms of Sub- section (7) of Section 29-C of the KCS Act. The reason for the same is not far to see in as much as disqualification would bring about several disentitlements on part of a person and the disqualification being penal in nature, it is but required that the concerned person is heard before such an order is passed. 12.7. Thus, it cannot be said that the disqualification under Sub-section (1) of 29-C including Clause
(a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 29-C or 29(2) or 29(3) of the KCS Act is automatic.
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR Necessarily an order would have to be passed by the Registrar by following the procedure prescribed under Sub-section (7) of Section 29- C of the KCS Act.
12.8. Hence, I answer point No.2 by holding that a disqualification of a default in payment of dues in any other Co-operative Society would not lead to automatic disqualification in terms of Section 29-C (1)(a) of the KCS Act 1959. The procedure under Sub-section (7) of Section 29-C of the KCS Act would have to be followed for declaring a person to be disqualified.
13. Answer to point No.3; Whether the Returning Officer was right in rejecting the nomination form of respondent No.5?
13.1. The Returning Officer after accepting the nomination of respondent No.5 rejected the same on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner that there is a default made by
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR respondent No.5 as regards his dues to Veman Co-operative Society. As on the date on which the nomination of respondent No.5 was rejected by the Returning Officer, there was no order which had been passed under Sub-section (7) of Section 29-C of the KCS Act.
13.2. Thus, on record there is no disqualification of respondent No.5 which has occurred in any of the proceedings by following the due process of law. Though there might have been a ground for disqualifying respondent No.5, the fact remains that there is no order of disqualification which had been passed in respect to respondent No.5.
13.3. Hence, I answer point No.3 by holding that the Returning Officer was not right in rejecting the nomination Form of respondent No.5 without there being a disqualification order passed by the
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR Registrar in terms of Sub-section (7) of Section 29-C of the KCS Act.
14. Answer to point No.4: Whether the DRCS, as the District Election Officer or otherwise, could have directed the Returning Officer to accept the nomination form of Respondent No.5? 14.1. The DRCS in the present matter is not only acting as a Deputy Registrar but as a District Election Officer. Thus, there is a duty cast on the District Election Officer to see to it that the elections are conducted in a proper manner. 14.2. Though the reasons are not forthcoming from the orders of the DRCS, the fact remains that the Returning Officer could not have rejected a nomination form of Respondent No. 5 since there is no disqualification order passed in terms of Sub-section (7) of Section 29-C of the KCS Act. 14.3. Thus, on an objection raised by the petitioner, when the Returning Officer has rejected the nomination form, the action on part of the
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR District Election Officer in directing the acceptance of the nomination form, in my considered opinion cannot be found fault with. More so, as indicated supra, there being no order of disqualification of Respondent No. 5. 14.4. The application which had been filed by Respondent No. 5 before the District Election Officer, is only to bring to the notice of the District Election Officer about the order passed by the Returning Officer and pointing out that the nomination form could not have been rejected on that ground.
14.5. Hence, I answer point No.4 by holding that the DRCS, acting as a District Election Officer was right in directing the Returning Officer to accept the nomination form of respondent No.5.
15. Answer to point No.5: Whether, in the above circumstances, this Court is required to direct the announcement of results including that of
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR Respondent No.5 by counting the votes kept in a separate ballot box?
15.1. In view of my answers to points No.1 to 4, it being clear that respondent No.5 is not disqualified, there is no automatic disqualification in terms of Section 29-C(1)(a) of the KCS Act. Though the grounds for disqualification may be available, the same would require the Registrar to pass specific orders after issuing notice to the concerned person in terms of Sub-section 7 of Section 29- C of the KCS Act. The results of the elections would have to be declared by counting the votes cast in favor of respondent No.5 as also announcing the results insofar as respondent No.5 is concerned.
15.2. Hence, I answer point No.5 by holding that the results of the elections are required to
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238 WP No. 107724 of 2024 HC-KAR be declared including that of respondent No.5.
16. Answer to point number 6: What order?
16.1. In view of my finding above, no grounds being made out the petition stands dismissed. 16.2. Respondents are directed to announce the results within seven days from today. 16.3. Liberty is however reserved to any aggrieved party to file dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, if so advised.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE GAB,SR List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2