Karnataka High Court
Vikas S/O Shankar Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2025
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7959
WP No. 102415 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. 102415 OF 2025 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
VIKAS S/O. SHANKAR PATIL,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHIEF PROMOTER,
PROPOSED SHIVA BASAV VIVIDODESH PRATHMIK
GRAMEEN KRUSHI SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT, ANKALI,
AT: ANKALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI,
R/O. ANKALI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591213.
...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.
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI
2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
Location: HIGH
CHIKKODI SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKODI,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
CHIKKODI, 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 15/10/2024 IN NO.AR-
11/RSR/22/2024-25 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:7959
WP No. 102415 of 2025
HC-KAR
OF THE SHARE AMOUNT FOR PRE-REGISTRATION OF THE
SOCIETY IN THE NAME OF THE NIYOJIT SHIVA BASAVA
VIVIDODESH PRATHMIK GRAMEEN KRUSHI SAHAKARI SANGH
NIYAMIT, ANKALI 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 Ankali 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
Ankali 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 Niyojit Shiva Basava
Vividodesh Prathmik Grameen Krushi Sahakari Sangh
Niyamit, Ankali, taluk Chikkodi to the welfare of the farmers
in the village.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7959
HC-KAR
3. In view of the same, the petitioner made a
representation to respondent No.2 on 21.08.2024 to grant
permission for floating the share collection from the eligible
farmers for registration of the Co-operative Society in the
name of Niyojit Shiva Basava Vividodesh Prathmik Grameen
Krushi Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Ankali, taluk Chikkodi.
Respondent No.2 sent a letter dated 26.08.2024 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 30.09.2024
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 03.10.2024 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
15.10.2024, which is impugned herein.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that respondent No.2 has rejected the proposal for
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7959
HC-KAR
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 without even hearing and notifying the petitioner
has out rightly rejected the proposal for floating of share
collection for formation of the society.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7959
HC-KAR
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 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.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7959
HC-KAR
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.
ii. The impugned order dated 15.10.2024 in
No.AR-11/RSR/22/2024-25 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7959
HC-KAR
requirements of the law and provide an opportunity
to the petitioner before passing any such orders.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
KGK
CT-MCK
