[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Prakash Ishwarappa Tapshetti vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 December, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17235
WP No. 108307 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 108307 OF 2025 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. PRAKASH ISHWARAPPA TAPSHETTI,
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC.: DIRECTOR OF BDCC,
R/O NAVNAGAR,
TQ.: & DIST.: BAGALKOT-587101.
2. AJAYKUMAR S. SARNAIK,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC.: PRESIDENT OF BDCC,
R/O HIRESAVASHI,
TQ.: & DIST.: BAGALKOT-587101
3. MURGAPPA IRAPPA KADALIMATTI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC.: HUNGUND,
R/O KAMATAGI, TQ.: HUNGUND,
DIST.: BAGALKOT-587118.
4. SHIVANGOUDA RUDRAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC.: DIRECTOR,
R/O BDCC BANK, BAGALKOT,
RAKESH TQ. & DIST.: BAGALKOT-587101.
S
HARIHAR 5. ANAND S/O SIDDU NYAMANGOUD,
Digitally signed
AGE: 43, OCC.: DIRECTOR,
by RAKESH S R/O BDCC BANK, BAGALKOT,
HARIHAR
Date: 2025.12.11 TQ. & DIST.: BAGALKOT-587101
16:39:21 +0530
6. SIDDAPPA S/O KALLAPPA SAVADI,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC.: DIRECTOR,
R/O BDCC BANK, BAGALKOT,
TQ. & DIST.: BAGALKOT-587101
7. AGAPPA SAVADI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC.: DIRECTOR,
R/O BDCC BANK, BAGALKOT,
TQ. & DIST.: BAGALKOT-587101
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17235
WP No. 108307 of 2025
HC-KAR
8. RAMAPPA SIDDAPPA TALEWADI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC.: DIRECTOR,
R/O BDCC BANK, BAGALKOT,
TQ. & DIST.: BAGALKOT-587101
9. KUMARGOUDA S/O BASANGOUDA JANALI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC.: DIRECTOR,
R/O BDCC BANK, BAGALKOT,
TQ. & DIST.: BAGALKOT-587101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVES,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE COOPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
3RD FLOOR, T.T.M.C. BUILDING, A-BLOCK,
SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560027.
3. THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
CENTRAL OFFICE NO. 1, AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560052.
4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI,
NO. 5, UDAY BUILDING, SPM ROAD,
SHAHPUR, BELAGAVI,
DIST.: BELAGAVI-590001
5. THE ELECTION OFFICER FOR FEDERAL
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BAGALKOT, DIST.: BAGALKOT-587101
6. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BAGALKOT,
TQ.: BAGALKOT,
DIST.: BAGALKOT-587102
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17235
WP No. 108307 of 2025
HC-KAR
7. THE BAGALKOT DISTRICT CENTRAL
CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SIDDANGOUDA N. NEELAPANNAVAR,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC.: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
R/O SECTOR NO. 58, NAVNAGAR,
TQ.: & DIST.: BAGALKOT-587102
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. J.M. GANGADHAR, AAG ALONG WITH
SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE THE ORDER DATED
31/10/2025 BEARING NO.GRL/A/AA-NE/CR-138/2025-26 ISSUED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the
following relief:
A) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
order dated 31/10/2025 bearing No.GRL/A/Aa-Ne/CR-
138/2025-26 issued by the 4th respondent vide
Annexure-F in the interest of justice and equity and
etc.,
B) Issue any other writ or order as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit to grant in the fact and circumstances of the
case and in the aid main relief sought for.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17235
HC-KAR
2. This Court, owing to the submission of the counsel
appearing for the petitioner, on 06.11.2025 granted an interim
order, observing that if the Administrator had not taken charge
as on the date of grant of interim order, he shall not be
permitted to take charge.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that
the Administrator has already assumed charge and therefore the
interim order, insofar as not taking charge got divulged.
4. In the interregnum, it transpires that the term of the
petitioner expired on 04.11.2025. Therefore, if the petitioner's
contention is accepted and the order appointing Administrator is
set aside, it would amount to reviving an illegal order, as the
Managing Committee, whose terms has expired in law, has no
right to continue even for the purpose of conducting of elections.
The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.226145
of 2020 along with connected matters dated 16.10.2020,
wherein the Court has held as follows:
"10. After carefully considering the submissions of
the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Government Advocate, in the opinion of this Court, the
following questions arise for consideration:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17235
HC-KAR
1. Whether, the petitioners have locus standi to
challenge the appointment of an administrator?
2. Whether Part-IXB is still a part of the
Constitution of India in view of the Judgment of
the Gujarat High Court in Rajendra N. Shah's
case (supra) and in view of the Judgment of the
Apex Court in Kusum Ingots' case (supra)?
3. Whether Section 28-A(5) of the Act of 1959
impairs the autonomy of a Co-operative Society
conferred on it under Article 243-ZI and
whether it violates the fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the
Constitution of India? Whether Sections 28-A(5)
and 28-B of the Act of 1959 are
unconstitutional?
4. When the non-conduct of elections to elect
members of a Board is a condition
precedent for appointment of an
Administrator under Section 28-A(5) of the
Act of 1959 and when the petitioners had
all complied with their responsibility to
hold elections, could the Government
appoint an administrator on the ground
that elections could not be held due to the
Covid-19 pandemic? Whether in the facts
and circumstances of the case, it was just
to appoint an administrator while the
Government itself had exempted the
compliance of Section 39A of the Act of
1959? Does this amount to approbate and
reprobate?
5. Whether, there is no time fixed for holding
elections to the members of the Board of a
Co-operative Society under Section 39-A of
the Act of 1959 and therefore Section 28-
A(5) cannot be invoked for appointment of
an administrator ?
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17235
HC-KAR
6. Whether, the term of the elected members of
the Board of a co-operative society extends till
new members of the Board are elected in view
of the words "Subject to the provisions of
Sections 29A and 39A" and "save as otherwise"
found in Section 28-A(4) of the Act of 1959?
7. Whether, the words "subject to the provisions of
Sections 29A and 39A" and "save as otherwise"
found in Section 28-A(4) have any purpose or
are they inconsistent with Part IX-B of the
Constitution of India and if yes, whether the
said words are to be read down?
8. Whether, the petitioners are discriminated vis-
à-vis the members of the Board of Sugar
Co-operative Societies?
32. Question No.4: In so far as the present
case is concerned, it is clear from a reading of the impugned
order dated 14-07-2020 that the reason for appointing an
administrator was the non-conduct of elections to the Board
of co-operative societies before the expiry of the term of the
outgoing board. A reading of Section 28-A(5) of the Act of
1959 makes it evident that one of the contingencies when an
administrator could be appointed is when elections are not
conducted within the time specified under Section 39-A of the
Act of 1959. The petitioners have all claimed that they had
forwarded the list of eligible members as provided under Rule
13-D of the Rules of 1960, to the Election Officer within time
fixed under Section 28-B and 39AA (15) of the Act of 1959,
which is not disputed by the official respondents. Thus, they
contended that the reason for non-conduct of the elections
was not attributable to them and that therefore the
Government had continued the existing Board in exercise of
its power under Section 121 of the Act of 1959. The learned
Government Advocate contended that the postponement was
due to a pandemic which resulted in suspended animation of
all activities in the Country and elections to the co-operative
societies were also affected. However, she pointed out that in
several societies, Returning Officers were appointed well
before the expiry of the term of the outgoing boards and that
in some cases, calendar of events was issued.
33. It is relevant to note that the Disaster
Management Act, 2005 which deals with handling man made
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17235
HC-KAR
and natural disasters in India, has a definitive purpose while
providing an overriding effect in Section 72 of the Act of 2005
over all other legislations in the Country. This is due to the
fact that in the event of a disaster, all the officials of the
State are grouped into Disaster Management Authorities at
the Taluk, District and State Level and each Authority is
expected to chalk out a disaster management plan. Thus,
whenever there is a disaster, all other activities are put on
the back burner and special thrust is to be given to integrate
strategies for the prevention/ mitigation and management of
the disaster. In so far as the present pandemic is concerned,
the National Disaster Management Authority, Government of
India had already declared it as a disaster under the Act of
2005 and imposed a country wide lockdown with effect from
26-03-2020. Therefore, all the provisions of the Act of 2005
would become applicable. It is, therefore, quite logical that
the Government felt it appropriate to postpone the elections
to the members of the board of co-operative societies as
holding of elections would proliferate the spread of the virus.
34. The extension of the term of the Board of
these co-operative societies has to be viewed from the
perspective of the pandemic. The learned counsel for all the
petitioners did not dispute the fact that there is no provision
in the Act of 1959 or Part IX-B of the Constitution which
permits the extension of the Board beyond the period of five
years. It is relevant to note that conducting elections before
the expiry of the term of the outgoing Board is the
constitutional mandate under Article 243-ZK. The learned
Government Advocate relied on the Judgment of the Full
Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Committee of
Management of Sahakari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. vs.
State of U.P and others reported in AIR 2015 Allahabad
1 and contended that the term of the board of a Co-operative
society cannot be extended by the Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution as that would amount to violating the
provisions of the U.P.Co-operative Societies Act, 1966. The
Apex Court In Re Presidential Poll reported in 1974(2)
SCC 33 held:
"14. If the completion of election before the expiration of the
term is not possible because of the death of the prospective
candidate it is apparent that the election has commenced
before the expiration of the term but completion before the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17235
HC-KAR
expiration of the term is rendered impossible by an act
beyond the control of human agency. The necessity for
completing the election before the expiration of the term is
enjoined by the Constitution in public and State interest to
see that the governance of" the country is not paralysed by
non-compliance with the provision that there shall be a
President of India.
15. The impossibility of the completion of the election to
fill the vacancy in the office of the President before the
expiration of the term of office in the case of death of a
candidate as may appear from Section 7 of the 1952 Act does
not rob Article 62(1) of its mandatory character."
35. Further in Kishan Singh Tomar vs. Municipal
Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and others
reported in (2006) 8 SCC 352, the Apex Court held:
"It is true that there may be certain man-made
calamities, such as rioting or breakdown of law and order, or
natural calamities which could distract the authorities from
holding elections to the Municipality, but they are exceptional
circumstances and under no circumstance the Election
Commission would be justified in delaying the process of
election after consulting the State Govt. and other
authorities. But that should be an exceptional circumstance
and shall not be a regular feature to extend the duration of
the Municipality. Going by the provisions contained in Article
243-U, it is clear that the period of five years fixed
thereunder to constitute the Municipality is mandatory in
nature and has to be followed in all respects. It is only when
the Municipality is dissolved for any other reason and the
remainder of the period for which the dissolved Municipality
would have continued is less than six months, it shall not be
necessary to hold any elections for constituting the
Municipality for such period.
In our opinion, the entire provision in the Constitution was inserted
to see that there should not be any delay in the constitution of the new
Municipality every five years and in order to avoid the mischief of delaying
the process of election and allowing the nominated bodies to continue, the
provisions have been suitably added to the Constitution. In this direction, it
is necessary for all the State governments to recognize the significance of
the State Election Commission, which is a constitutional body and it shall
abide by the directions of the Commission in the same manner in which it
follows the directions of the Election Commission of India during the
elections for the Parliament and State Legislatures. In fact, in the domain
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17235
HC-KAR
of elections to the Panchayats and the Municipal bodies under the Part IX
and Part IX A for the conduct of the elections to these bodies they enjoy
the same status as the Election Commission of India."
In Re Special Reference 1/2002 reported in AIR 2003 SC 87, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held:
"The impossibility of holding the election is not a factor
against the Election Commission. The maxim of law
impotentia exusat legem is intimately connected with another
maxim of law lex non cogit ad impossibilia. Impotentia
excusat legem is that when there is a necessary or invincible
disability to perform the mandatory part of the law that
impotentia excuses. The law does not compel one to do that
which one cannot possibly perform. "Where the law creates a
duty or charge, and the party is disabled to perform it,
without any default in him, and has no remedy over it, there
the law will in general excuse him." Therefore, when it
appears that the performance of the formalities prescribed by
a statute has been rendered impossible by circumstances
over which the persons interested had no control, like the act
of God, the circumstances will be taken as a valid excuse.
Where the act of God prevents the compliance of the words
of a statute, the statutory provision is not denuded of its
mandatory character because of supervening impossibility
caused by the act of God.. These aspects were highlighted by
this Court in Special Reference 1 of 1974 (1975 (1) SCR
504). Situations may be created by interested persons to see
that elections do not take place and the caretaker
government continue in office. This certainly would be against
the scheme of the Constitution and the basic structure to that
extent shall be corroded."
(underlining provided by Court)
36. In view of the Constitutional mandate, the State had
no option but to postpone the elections and this could only be
done by invoking the power under Section 39-A of the Act of
1959. In view of the fact that there is no provision for
extending the term of the board and in view of Article 243-
ZL(v) ordaining the supersession of a co-operative society if
elections are not held in accordance with the provisions of the
Act of 1959, the official respondents were justified in
appointing the administrator.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17235
HC-KAR
37. Question 5: The contention of the petitioners
that there is no time limit prescribed for conduct of elections
under Section 39-A of the Act of 1959 is also fallacious since
proviso to Section 39-A warrants that the election
commission may start the "preparatory work for the
preparation of the electoral roll and the conduct of elections
during the last six months prior to the expiry of the term of
office of the Board of a co-operative Society". In M.S. Gill vs.
Chief Election Commissioner reported in 1978 (1) SCC
405, the word 'election' has been interpreted by the Hon`ble
Apex Court to include all the steps necessary for holding
election which includes preparation of the electoral roll
etc. The petitioners have in all these cases contended that
they had complied with the requirement of Section 39-AA(15)
of the Act of 1959 and Rule 13-D of the Rules of 1960 by
furnishing the eligible list of voters, following which returning
officers were appointed in some cases on various dates. None
of the petitioners placed on record their bye laws /
memorandum of association to determine the term of office
of the elected members of the Board and the provisions that
the outgoing board has to make for the conduct of the
elections. Thus, the petitioners are estopped from claiming
that no time is fixed for conduct of elections to the Board.
Having regard to the constitutional mandate in Article 243-ZK
and Section 28-B of the Act of 1959 that elections should be
conducted before the expiry of the term of the outgoing
board and having regard to the fact that elections have to be
held at four stages to the Primary/ Secondary/ Federal and
Apex Societies and the use of the words "may start the
preparatory work for the preparation of the electoral rolls for
and the conduct of elections during the last six months prior
to the expiry of the term of office of the Board of a co-
operative society" in Section 39-A of the Act of 1959, it is
clear that six months prior to the term of the outgoing term is
the time prescribed for holding elections. Since Article 243-
ZL(v) of the Constitution and Section 28-A(5) of the Act of
1959 contemplates the appointment of an administrator if
elections are not held within the time specified, it is invariable
that the respondents exercised their power and appoint an
administrator.
38. Yet another argument that Section 28-A(5) of the Act
of 1959 amounts to depriving a person of his property, it is
pertinent to note that Section 28-A(5) is not akin to Section
30 of the Act of 1959. It is also important to note that this
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17235
HC-KAR
argument is available only to a cooperative society and not to
the erstwhile members of the board whose term has expired.
Be that as it may, the appointment of an administrator would
not deprive a Society of any of its rights, as the purpose of
appointment of an administrator under 28-A(5) of the Act of
1959 is only to take steps for election of a board of
management as provided under Section 28-B(3) of the Act of
1959 and hand over the baton of administration to the
incoming board.
5. The Division Bench affirms the judgment of the Co-
ordinate Bench, and therefore the petition does not deserve any
indulgence in view of the aforesaid circumstances of the term
getting over. In that light, the petition stands disposed.
The interim order of any kind stands dissolved.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
RHR/-CT:ANB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60
