Karnataka High Court
Manjunath S/O Apparai Khot vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2025
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7956
WP No. 101599 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 101599 OF 2025 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATH S/O. APPARAI KHOT,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
CHIEF PROMOTER,
PROPOSED SHRI LAXMIDEVI VIVIDODESH
PRATHMIK GRAMEEN KRUSHI SAHAKARI
SANGH NIYAMIT, MEERAPURHATTI,
TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591222.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SANJANA S. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
CHIKKODI SUB-DIVISION,
Location: HIGH CHIKKODI, AT CHIKKODI,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA DIST: BELAGAVI-591201.
DHARWAD
BENCH ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
1. TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24/01/2025 IN NO.AR-
11/RSR/59/2024-25 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE
ANNEXURE-E.
2. TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO GRANT PERMISSION TO FLOUTING
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7956
WP No. 101599 of 2025
HC-KAR
OF THE SHARE AMOUNT FOR PRE-REGISTRATION OF THE
SOCIETY IN THE NAME OF THE PROPOSED SHRI LAXMIDEVI
VIVIDODESH PRATHMIK GRAMEEN KRUSHI SAHAKARI SANGH
NIYAMIT, MEERAPURHATTI, TQ: CHIKKODI BY ALLOWING
THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Miss.Sanjana
S. Mudhol and the learned AGA for the respondents-State.
2. The petitioner is an agriculturist and permanent
resident of Meerapurhatti village, Chikkodi taluk, district
Belagavi. He was not enrolled as member of any of the
primary Co-operative Societies. The petitioner and other
similarly situated farmers have called for a Gram Sabha
meeting at Meerapaurhatti village to address their
grievances and problems suffered by the farmers in the
village and therefore, decided to form a society in the
name of Proposed Shri Laxmidevi Vividodesh Prathmik
Grameen Krushi Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Meerapurhatti,
taluk Chikkodi, to the welfare of the farmers in the village.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7956
HC-KAR
3. In view of the same, the petitioner made a
representation to respondent No.2 on 01.01.2025 to grant
permission for floating the share collection from the
eligible farmers for registration of the Co-operative Society
in the name of Proposed Shri Laxmidevi Vividodesh
Prathmik Grameen Krushi Sahakari Sangh Niyamit,
Meerapurhatti, taluk Chikkodi. Respondent No.2 sent a
letter dated 06.01.2025 to the Co-operative Inspector
requesting him to submit a report regarding economic
viability of the proposed society without hearing the
petitioner or notifying the petitioner. The Co-operative
Inspector submitted a report dated 13.01.2025 which was
also without notice and knowledge of the petitioner and
based on the said report, respondent No.2 without hearing
the petitioner issued a show cause notice dated
16.01.2025 and passed the impugned order rejecting the
proposal for grant of floating of the share collection to the
proposed formation of the society by order dated
24.01.2025, which is impugned herein.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7956
HC-KAR
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that respondent No.2 has rejected the proposal
for floating of the share collection only on the reason that
it is not viable and there could be overlapping of the
society, that there are already other existing societies
registered in the same area. Therefore, the question of the
present society being successful for overlapping other Co-
operative Societies already existing with the same
qualities is against the guidelines prescribed by NABARD.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
the said reasoning provided by respondent No.2 is
arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable. It is without
application of judicial mind. There is no such requirement
forthcoming under the Act or the Rules for permitting
floating of shares as what is opined by the respondent.
Whether there is a chance of success of Co-operative
Society and economic viability is the requirement to be
considered and no application of mind has been applied by
the respondent while passing the impugned order and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7956
HC-KAR
without even hearing and notifying the petitioner has out
rightly rejected the proposal for floating of share collection
for formation of the society.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon
the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.100493/2024 dated 06.02.2024 wherein in similar
matter on similar grounds the assistant registrar of Co-
operative Societies has rejected the application without
giving an opportunity to the petitioner to satisfy the
requirement and chances of success and viability. The writ
petition came to be allowed. Another judgment has been
also relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in
W.P.No.104197/2021 which also goes in favour of the
petitioner for the reason that while considering the
application for economic viability and success of the
floating of shares, the respondent may not look into the
existence of societies or viability of the other Co-operative
Societies. It is only on the basis of information furnished
by the promoters that the Registrar is required to be
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7956
HC-KAR
satisfied on the proposed floating of shares by the Society
to have reasonable chance of success and economic
viability that is required to be satisfied which has to be
considered by the Registrar, which has not been done in
the present case.
7. Also it is not the case of the respondent that
there are other rival Co-operative Societies which have
filed any complaint or objection to the floating of shares of
the present petitioner or formation of the societies. Under
these circumstances, there is force in the argument put
forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner and is
appreciated by this Court for allowing the petition. Hence,
the petition is required to be allowed. Accordingly, I pass
the following order:
ORDER
i. Petition is allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7956
HC-KAR
ii. The impugned order dated 24.01.2025 in
No.AR-11/RSR/59/2024-25 passed by respondent
No.2 vide Annexure-E is hereby quashed.
iii. The respondent is directed to collect the share
amount for floating of the shares of society for
registration subject to the petitioner satisfying
other requirements of the law and provide an
opportunity to the petitioner before passing any
such orders.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
KGK
