Karnataka High Court
Kumasamudra Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 May, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 20877 OF 2024 (CS-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 23569 OF 2024 (CS-RES)
IN W.P.NO. 20877/2024
BETWEEN
KAMASAMUDRA VYAVASAYA SEVA
SAHAKARA SANGHA LTD
BY ITS PRESIDENT,
SRI GOVINDRAJU,
S/O MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/A PICHAHALLI, BANGARPET TQ,
KOLARA DISTRICT.
(REG UNDER 14(A) OF KCS ACT)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.R. RAJGOPAL., SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU., ADVOCATE)
AND
Digitally signed
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA
Location: HIGH
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF BY ITS SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA CO OPERATION DEPARTMENT,
HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 775,
ALI ASKAR ROAD, NEAR RAJ BHAVAN,
VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052.
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
NO. 146, 3RD FLOOR, 8TH CROSS ROAD,
MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KOLARA AND CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
CO OPERATIVE BANK,
KOLARA DISTRICT.
KOLARA-563131
4. ADMINISTRATOR
KOLARA AND CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
CO OPERATIVE BANK,
KOLARA DISTRICT, KOLARA,
SRI AMMAN ADITHYA BISWAN,
SENIOR I A S OFFICER,
REGIONAL COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU DIVISION,
TTMC BUILDING, SHANTINAGARA,
BENAGALURU - 27
RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA., AAG A/W
SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK., AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
IN RELATED TO THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO. CO.100CCB2024
DTD. 29.07.2024 AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO. 23569/2024
BETWEEN
ANNIHAOLLI VIVIDHODESHA PRATHMIKA
KRISHI GRAMINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA
ANNIHALLI VILLAGE
S B HALLI POST, HOLUR HOBLI
KOLAR , KOLAR DISTICT
REP BY ITS DIRECTOR
BYLAHALLI GOVINDE GOWDA
S/O LATE MULAGABAGALPPA
AGED 60 YEARS
(SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT-1959)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAYKUMAR S. PATIL., SR. ADVOCATE)
AND
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
CO OPERATION DEPARTMENT,
HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 775,
ALI ASKAR ROAD, NEAR RAJ BHAVAN,
VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052.
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
NO. 146, 3RD FLOOR, 8TH CROSS ROAD,
MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
3. KOLARA AND CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
CO OPERATIVE BANK,
KOLARA DISTRICT.
KOLARA-563131
REP BY ITS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
4. KOLARA AND CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
CO OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD
KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR
REP BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR
(R3 & R4 SOCIETY ARE REGISTRED UNDER
KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT-1959)
RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA., AAG A/W
SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK., AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SMT. RAKSHITHA P. SINGH., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S. BALAKRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR PROP ON I.A.2/24))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
IN RELATED TO THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO. CO.100CCB2024
DTD. 29.07.2024 AND ETC.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND
HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.03.2025, THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioner in W.P.No.20877/2024 is before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Call for records in related to the proceedings bearing
No. CO.100CCB2024 dated 29.07.2024;
b. Issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the
letter dated 29.07.2024 in CO.100CCB2024 issued
by the R1 as per Annexure-K and order passed by
the R2 Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies
dated 30.7.2024 in No. JRB/AA.MAM.RA/28-
A(5)/21/2023-24 as per Annexure-L
c. Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction
as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case and allow this
writ petition in the ends of justice and equity.
2. The Petitioner in W.P.No.23569/2024 is before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i. Call for records in related to the proceedings bearing
No. CO.100CCB2024 dated 29.07.2024;
ii. Issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the
letter dated 29.07.2024 in CO.100CCB2024 issued
by the R1 as per Annexure-K and order passed by
the R2 Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies
dated 30.7.2024 in No. JRB/AA.MAM.RA/28-
A(5)/21/2023-24 as per Annexure-L
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
iii. Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction
as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case and allow this
writ petition in the ends of justice and equity.
FACTS IN W.P. No.20877/2024:
3. The Petitioner claims to be a primary society and a
member of the Respondent No.4-Kolar and
Chikkaballapur Co-operative Bank [hereinafter
referred to as 'DCC Bank']. The term of the elected
body of DCC Bank expired on 17.11.2023;
consequent upon the expiry, the Deputy Registrar of
Co-operative Societies, Bangalore District,
[hereinafter referred to as 'DRCS'] appointed an
Administrator in terms of Section 28A(5) of the
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959
[hereinafter referred to as 'KCS Act'].
4. Elections were required to be held, and a resolution
of the Board was passed on 23.03.2023 to that
effect. The Board had on 08.05.2023 called for
information to provide for a Group-A officer to be
appointed as the returning officer. Meanwhile, the
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
term of the Managing Committee expired on
17.11.2023. Prior to such expiry, the Assistant
Commissioner, Kolar Sub-division was designated as
its returning officer.
5. The process of election being taken up, the
preparation of voters list was going on, due to the
intervention of the Parliamentary election in the year
2024, the election of all Co-operative societies was
postponed by a Government Order dated
06.06.2024.
6. Upon the expiry of the period of postponement,
elections were required to be held. However, it is
contended that the Administrator appointed in terms
of Section 28A(5) was lethargic and did not complete
the process of election. Hence, the DCC Bank had
approached this court in WP No. 23677 of 2023 and
sought for directions to complete the process of
election in a timebound manner. The said writ
petition came to be disposed on 03.07.2024 with a
direction to the State Co-operation Election
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
Authority, Regional Commissioner, Bangalore
Division and the Apex Co-operative Societies
Election Officer to continue the process of election in
respect of the DCC Bank from the stage it was
halted.
7. The District Election Officer was directed to ensure
that the process of election shall be continued and
ensure that the election will conclude as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
the order. While doing so, this Court also referred to
an earlier order in W.P. No. 15653 of 2024, which
was disposed of on 19.06.2024, when a similar
direction had been issued to the State Co-operative
Election Authority, Regional Commissioner,
Bengaluru Division and Apex Co-operative
Societies, Election Officer to continue the process of
election.
8. In pursuance of the said directions, a revised
notification in Form No.11 was notified by the
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
election authorities for the Federal societies on
10.07.2024 in terms of Rule 14(1) of the Karnataka
Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959 [hereinafter
referred to as 'KCS Rules'].
9. On the same day, another notification had been
issued there being certain contradictions, the same
was challenged by the DCC Bank in WP No. 18829 of
2024, which came to be disposed of on 16.07.2024
directing the District Election Officer to comply with
the direction issued by the Co-operative Election
Authority in terms of the communication dated
15.07.2024, having regard to the earlier orders
passed in WP No. 20454.
10. At this stage, the Secretary Co-operation
Department, vide its letter dated 29.7.2024,
recommended that the Regional Commissioner,
Bangalore Region, be appointed as the
Administrator. Respondent No.2 - Joint Registrar of
Co-operative Societies [hereinafter referred to as
'JRCS'] passed an order on 20.7.2024, appointing
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
the named officer, who is the Regional
Commissioner, as the Administrator of Respondent
No.4.
11. It is aggrieved by the said appointment of the
Regional Commissioner, Bangalore Division as the
Administrator that the Petitioners are before this
court.
12. WP No. 23569 has also been filed for similar reliefs.
The facts as stated therein are more or less identical
to those stated in W.P. No.20877 of 2024.
13. Sri. M.R. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner in W.P. No. 20877 of
2024, would submit that;
13.1. Respondent No.4-JRCS has not applied his
independent mind, but has acted on the
instruction of Respondent No. 1, Secretary. A
letter having been issued by the Secretary on
29.07.2024, the JRCS has issued the
appointment order on 30.07.2024. There is no
requirement for the JRCS to have issued such
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
an order of appointment. Firstly, there is no
independent application of mind, secondly, a
senior IAS officer could not be appointed as an
administrator by the JRCS who is junior in rank.
13.2. The term of the elected members having
expired on 17.11.2023, the elected members
having taken steps for holding of elections prior
to the expiry of the term, it was only on
account of the intervention of the parliamentary
election that the election was postponed. The
elected members were not responsible for the
delay, irrespective of which an administrator
under Section 28A(5) has been appointed. Now
when the elections are required to be held, an
administrator of an IAS officer cadre has been
appointed only to delay the matter. The dates
etc. having been fixed, it indicates that the
State by such appointment at such a belated
stage wishes only to delay the election.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
13.3. A junior officer cannot appoint a senior officer
as an administrator since the said Administrator
is required to act under the supervision of the
Registrar who is a junior officer. In this regard
he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Air Line Pilots' Assn. of India v.
DGCA 1, more particularly para nos. 26 to 28
thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
26. The contention was raised before the High Court
that the Circular dated 29-5-2008 has been issued by
the authority having no competence, thus cannot be
enforced. It is a settled legal proposition that the
authority which has been conferred with the
competence under the statute alone can pass the
order. No other person, even a superior authority,
can interfere with the functioning of the statutory
authority. In a democratic set-up like ours, persons
occupying key positions are not supposed to
mortgage their discretion, volition and decision-
making authority and be prepared to give way to
carry out commands having no sanctity in law. Thus,
if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at
the behest or on suggestion of a person who has no
statutory role to play, the same would be patently
illegal. (Vide Purtabpore Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commr. of
Bihar [(1969) 1 SCC 308 : AIR 1970 SC 1896] ,
Chandrika Jha v. State of Bihar [(1984) 2 SCC 41 :
AIR 1984 SC 322] , Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State
1
(2011) 5 SCC 435
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
of Punjab [(2001) 6 SCC 260 : AIR 2001 SC 2524]
and Manohar Lal v. Ugrasen [(2010) 11 SCC 557 :
(2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 524 : AIR 2010 SC 2210] .)
27. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in
Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji [1951 SCC
1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] , Bahadursinh Lakhubhai
Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia [(2004) 2 SCC 65 :
AIR 2004 SC 1159] and Pancham Chand v. State of
H.P. [(2008) 7 SCC 117 : 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 a senior official cannot provide for any
guideline or direction to the authority under the
statute to act in a particular manner.
13.4. By relying on Air Line Pilots' Assn. of India's
case, he submits that it is only the authority
which has been conferred with the competence
under the statute who alone can pass the
order. Such authority cannot act on the
instruction of a superior authority and exercise
its powers. Even a senior official cannot provide
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
any guidance or directions to the authority to
act in a particular manner. In the present case,
the JRCS has acted on the instructions of the
Secretary, and the order of appointment is bad
in law.
13.5. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan
Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed,2 more
particularly para no. 13 thereof which is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
13. This takes us to the further question: Who is an
"aggrieved person" and what are the qualifications
requisite for such a status? The expression "aggrieved
person" denotes an elastic, and to an extent, an
elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the
bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition.
At best, its features can be described in a broad
tentative manner. Its scope and meaning depends on
diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent
of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the
specific circumstances of the case, the nature and
extent of the Petitioner's interest, and the nature and
extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by him.
English courts have sometimes put a restricted and
sometimes a wide construction on the expression
"aggrieved person". However, some general tests have
been devised to ascertain whether an applicant is
eligible for this category so as to have the necessary
2
(1976) 1 SCC 671
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
locus standi or "standing" to invoke certiorari
jurisdiction.
13.6. By referring to Jasbhai Motibhai Desai's case
he submits that even a member of a Federal
Society would be an aggrieved party. The
elections being conducted by the Administrator,
the Petitioner being one of the members of the
Federal Society, and the manner and
methodology of holding the election and
conducting it thereof would have a bearing on
the members, including the Petitioner.
Therefore, he submits that the Petitioner would
be an aggrieved party who could agitate the
issue before this court.
13.7. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh3,
more particularly para no. 9 thereof, which is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
9. The question, then, is what is mala fides in the
jurisprudence of power? Legal malice is gibberish
3
(1980) 2 SCC 471
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
unless juristic clarity keeps it separate from the
popular concept of personal vice. Pithily put, bad faith
which invalidates the exercise of power -- sometimes
called colourable exercise or fraud on power and
oftentimes overlaps motives, passions and
satisfactions -- is the attainment of ends beyond the
sanctioned purposes of power by simulation or
pretension of gaining a legitimate goal. If the use of
the power is for the fulfilment of a legitimate object
the actuation or catalysation by malice is not legicidal.
The action is bad where the true object is to reach an
end different from the one for which the power is
entrusted, goaded by extraneous considerations, good
or bad, but irrelevant to the entrustment. When the
custodian of power is influenced in its exercise by
considerations outside those for promotion of which
the power is vested the court calls it a colourable
exercise and is undeceived by illusion. In a broad,
blurred sense, Benjamin Disraeli was not off the mark
even in law when he stated: "I repeat . . . that all
power is a trust -- that we are accountable for its
exercise -- that, from the people, and for the people,
all springs, and all must exist". Fraud on power voids
the order if it is not exercised bona fide for the end
designed. Fraud in this context is not equal to moral
turpitude and embraces all cases in which the action
impugned is to effect some object which is beyond the
purpose and intent of the power, whether this be
malice-laden or even benign. If the purpose is corrupt
the resultant act is bad. If considerations, foreign to
the scope of the power or extraneous to the statute,
enter the verdict or impel the action, mala fides or
fraud on power vitiates the acquisition or other official
act.
13.8. By referring to Gurdial Singh's case, he
submits that there are malafides in the exercise
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
of the powers by the JRCS and there is malice
on part of the State. The State is trying to
postpone the election by changing the
Administrator just before the elections are to be
held. The actions on part of the State are
fraudulent in nature and as such, would have to
be set-at-naught and this court would be
required to pass necessary orders in relation
thereto.
14. Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner in W.P. No.23569 of
2024 reiterates the submissions made by Sri. M.R.
Rajagopal, learned Senior counsel.
14.1. He refers to Section 28A(5) of the KCS Act and
submits that the Registrar or any other officer
within whose jurisdiction the Society is situated
and who is authorised by the Registrar shall be
deemed to have assumed charge as
Administrator and he shall for all purposes
function as the Board of Management. Thus, he
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
submits that it is the Registrar in whose
jurisdiction the Society is situated who would
be deemed to be the Administrator except for a
formal order to be passed by the Registrar, the
Regional Commissioner is not contemplated in
the said section.
14.2. The Kolar-Chikkaballapura DCC Bank coming
under the jurisdiction of Respondent No.2-
JRCS, who has regional authority over Kolar
and Chikkaballapura would be deemed to be
the Administrator and in furtherance thereof,
that the Registrar had earlier appointed the
JRCS of this region as the Administrator, the
change now made by the Registrar in
appointing the Regional Commissioner is
contrary to Subsection (5) of section 28A of the
KCS Act.
14.3. There is no reason to appoint an officer as
superior as the the Regional Commissioner to
be/function as an Administrator in pursuance of
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
holding elections to the Society. There is no
reason forthcoming either in the
recommendation made by the Secretary dated
29.07.2024 or in the order dated 30.07.2024 of
the JRCS. There being no particular reason to
deviate and depart from Subsection (5) of
Section 28A, he submits that the order passed
is completely malafide, requiring it to be set
aside.
14.4. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Madhya Pradesh High Court in State of M.P. v.
Sanjay Nagayach 4, more particularly para
nos. 36, 37 and 42 thereof, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
37. The Registrar/Joint Registrar, while exercising
powers of supersession has to form an opinion and
that opinion must be based on some objective
criteria, which has nexus with the final decision. A
statutory authority shall not act with pre-conceived
notion and shall not speak his masters' voice,
because the formation of opinion must be his own,
not of somebody else in power, to achieve some
ulterior motive. There may be situations where the
Registrar/Joint Registrar are expected to act in the
4
(2013) 7 SCC 25
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
best interest of the Society and its members, but in
such situations, they have to act bona fide and within
the four corners of the statute. In our view, the
impugned order will not fall in that category.
42. Further, we are inclined to give the following
general directions in view of the mushrooming of
cases in various courts challenging orders of
supersession of elected Committees:
42.1. Supersession of an elected Managing
Committee/Board is an exception and be resorted to
only in exceptional circumstances and normally
elected body be allowed to complete the term for
which it is elected.
42.2. Elected Committee in office be not penalised
for the shortcomings or illegalities committed by the
previous Committee, unless there is any deliberate
inaction in rectifying the illegalities committed by the
previous Committees.
42.3. Elected Committee in office be given sufficient
time, say at least six months, to rectify the defects, if
any, pointed out in the audit report with regard to
incidents which originated when the previous
Committee was in office.
42.4. The Registrar/Joint Registrar are legally
obliged to comply with all the statutory formalities,
including consultation with the financing
banks/controlling banks, etc. Only after getting their
view, an opinion be formed as to whether an elected
Committee be ousted or not.
42.5. The Registrar/Joint Registrar should always
bear in mind the consequences of an order of
supersession which has the effect of not only ousting
the Board out of office, but also to disqualify them for
standing for election in the succeeding elections. The
Registrar/Joint Registrar therefore is duty-bound to
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
exercise his powers bona fide and not on the
dictation or direction of those who are in power.
42.6. The Registrar/Joint Registrar shall not act
under political pressure or influence and, if they do,
be subjected to disciplinary proceedings and be also
held personally liable for the cost of the legal
proceedings.
2.7. Public money is not to be spent by the State
Government or the Registrar for unnecessary
litigation involving disputes between various factions
in a co-operative society. Taxpayers' money is not
expected to be spent for settling those disputes. If
found necessary, the same is to be spent from the
funds available with the Bank concerned.
14.5. Based on Sanjay Nagayach's case, he
submits that statutory functionaries like the
Registrar, Joint Registrar, etc., of Co-Operative
Societies have to function independently and
without external pressure. The powers and
authority vested in them are required to be
exercised by them without external guidance or
pressure. In the present case, the JRCS has
exercised powers as per the instruction of the
Secretary, hence, the same is not an exercise
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
of powers by the JRCS on his own. There is no
opinion which has been formed by the JRCS
based on any objective criteria. There is no
particular nexus in the appointment of the
Regional Commissioner as the Administrator
when Subsection (5) of Section 28A indicates
that it is the JRCS who would be deemed to be
the Administrator.
14.6. His submission is, therefore, that the Secretary
has acted under political pressure and
influence, which has been passed on to the
Registrar, and therefore, the impugned order is
not one passed by the Registrar on his own.
14.7. He also relies upon the decision in Air Line
Pilots' Assn. of India v. DGCA [supra], more
particularly para nos. 26, 27 and 28 thereof, for
the very same contention as contended by Sri.
M.R. Rajagopal.
14.8. On the basis of all of the above, he submits that
the writ petition is required to be allowed.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
15. Ms. Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional
Advocate General would submit that;
15.1. The petition is not maintainable since the
Petitioner is only a member of the DCC Bank. A
mere member cannot maintain the present writ
petition. There is no locus for such a member to
file and prosecute the above petition.
15.2. The term of the Board having expired on
17.11.2023 in view of Section 28A(5) of the
KCS Act, there is a requirement for the
appointment of an Administrator since the term
of the earlier Board has expired, and they
cannot discharge their duties as the Board. The
Administrator who has been appointed would
have to conduct the elections so as to facilitate
the election of the new Board. The present
petition is coming in the way of holding
elections, and as such, this court ought to
dismiss the petition in limine.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
15.3. Any Co-operative society which has failed to
arrange for elections within the time specified
in section 39A is deemed to have vacated their
office on the last day of the expiration of 5
years from the date of election. She refers to
Section 2A(3) of the KCS Act, which is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
2A. Registrar, Additional Registrars, Joint
Registrars, Deputy Registrars 2 [,State
Representatives] 2 and Assistant Registrars.-
(1) Xxx
(2) Xxx
(3) The State Government may appoint such
other officers with such designations as it
deems fit to assist the Registrar.
15.4. By referring to Section 2A(3) she submits that
the State Government may appoint such
officers with such designation as it deems fit to
assist the Registrar. Thus, the recommendation
made by the Secretary is not one without
power or jurisdiction.
15.5. The State Government has taken into
consideration the requirement to appoint a
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
senior person to conduct the elections,
considering that the elections are to be held in
two districts, Kolar and Chikkaballapura and the
past elections, as also the events leading up to
the present election have resulted in several
litigations and disputes which cannot be
effectively managed by a junior officer.
15.6. The State Government in its wisdom, has
chosen to appoint the Regional Commissioner
as the Administrator who not only has rich
experience but, by the very nature of the post
held by him and on account of his seniority,
would be better equipped and capable of
handling elections in two different districts by
issuing necessary directions and ensuring
compliance with those directions by all the
concerned officers.
15.7. Though normally, it is the Joint Registrar or a
person junior to the Joint Registrar who is
appointed as an administrator. In the
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
peculiarity of the present case, taking into
consideration the need of a senior person to
conduct the elections, the State Government
exercised its powers under Section 2A(3) and
recommended that the Regional Commissioner
be appointed as the Administrator, which has
been accepted by the JRCSand the appointment
so made cannot be challenged.
15.8. She submitted that the usage of the word 'any
other officer' in Section 28A(5) cannot be
restricted to an officer of the Co-operative
department. The State and or the Registrar can
appoint any other officer of the Government
within whose jurisdiction the Society is situated.
In the present case, the Society operating and
situated both in Kolar and Chikkaballapura
comes under the jurisdiction of the Regional
Commissioner. The Regional Commissioner is
an officer of the State within whose jurisdiction
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
the Society is situate, the appointment of the
Regional Commissioner is proper and correct.
15.9. She submits that it is the intention of the
Legislature to grant wide discretion to the
Government in the appointment of an
Administrator. A restrictive definition as sought
to be contended by the Petitioner, that it is to
be a JRCS or an officer junior to him is not the
intention of the Legislature as contained under
Section 28A(5). In this regard, she relies upon
the decision in Crawford v. Spooner5, more
particularly, the observation of Lord Brougham,
at page 116 thereof, which is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
xx Lord Brougham.-
Their Lordships are clearly of opinion, that the
Judgment of the Court of Bombay cannot stand. The
construction of the Act must be taken from the bare
words of the Act. We cannot fish out what possibly
may have been the intention of the Legislature ; we
cannot aid the Legislature's defective phrasing of the
5
1846, 4 MIA, 179
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
Statute; we cannot add, and mend, and, by
construction, make up deficiencies which are left
there. If the Legislature did intend that which it has
not expressed clearly ; much more, if the Legislature
intended something very different; if the Legislature
intended something pretty nearly the opposite of
what is said, it is not for the Judges to invent
something which they do not meet with in the words
of the text (aiding their construction of the text
always, of course, by the context); it is not for them
so to supply a meaning, for, in reality, it would be
supplying it: the true way in these cases is, to take
the words as the Legislature have given them, and
to take the meaning which the words given naturally
imply, unless where the construction of those words
is, either by the preamble or by the context of the
words in question, controlled or altered; and,
therefore, if any other meaning was intended than
that which the words purport plainly to import, them
let another Act supply that meaning, and [188]
supply the defect in the previous Act.
15.10. By relying on the observation in Crawford's
case, she submits that even if there is a
defective phrasing in the statute, the court
cannot add or amend by construction any
deficiencies in the said statute. The intention of
the Legislature would have to be given prime
importance. The courts would have to take the
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
words as the Legislature has given them and as
they naturally imply.
15.11. In the present case, she submits that the
authority under Section 28A(5) is available if a
new committee is not constituted under Section
29A on the date of expiry of the term of the
office of the Committee. The Registrar or any
other officer within whose jurisdiction the
Society is situated and who is authorised by the
Registrar shall be deemed to have assumed
charge as the Administrator, and he shall, for
all purposes, function as the Committee of
Management.
15.12. Merely because the Administrator is subject to
the control of the Registrar in exercising all
powers and perform all the functions of the
Committee of the Co-operative Society or any
office bearer of the Co-operative Society and
take all such action as may be required in the
interest of the Co-operative Society. The usage
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
of the words "subject to the control of the
Registrar" would not require the officer to be
junior to the Registrar. The Registrar would
naturally exercise all powers under the KCS Act
and Rules, and the Administrator would be
subject to the said Act and Rules. The same
would not make the Administrator subservient
to the Registrar.
15.13. The usage of the word 'or any other officer
within whose jurisdiction society is situated' and
the usage of the words 'subject to the control of
the Registrar', would not mean that "any other
officer" has to be junior to that of the Registrar.
15.14. Relying on Gray -vs- Pearson6, she submits
that the grammatical and ordinary sense of the
word is required to be adhered to, unless they
lead to some absurdity or repugnance. In the
present case, there is no absurdity in the usage
of the ordinary meaning 'any other officer',
6
(1857) 6 HLC 61
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
which would mean any other officer of the
Government, including the Regional
Commissioner.
15.15. She relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Gurudevdatta -v- State of
Maharashtra7, more particularly para no. 26
thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
26.Further we wish to clarify that it is a cardinal
principle of interpretation of statute that the words of
a statute must be understood in their natural,
ordinary or popular sense and construed according to
their grammatical meaning, unless such construction
leads to some absurdity or unless there is something
in the context or in the object of the statute to
suggest to the contrary. The golden rule is that the
words of a statute must prima facie be given their
ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of
construction that when the words of the statute are
clear, plain and unambiguous, then the Courts are
bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of
the consequences. It is said that the words
themselves best declare the intention of the law giver.
The Courts have adhered to the principle that efforts
should be made to give meaning to each and every
word used by the Legislature and it is not a sound
principle of construction to brush aside words in a
statute as being inapposite surpluses, if they can have
a proper application in circumstances conceivable
within the contemplation of the statute.
7
(2001) 4 SCC 534
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
15.16. She further relies on the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Union of India -v- Tata
Chemicals Limited8 , which also relied on
Gurudevdatta's case, more particularly para
no. 23 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder
for easy reference:
23. It is also well settled principle that the courts must
interpret the provisions of the Statute upon
ascertaining the object of the legislation through the
medium or authoritative forms in which it is
expressed. It is well settled that the Court should,
while interpreting the provisions of the Statute, assign
its ordinary meaning.
15.17. By relying on Gurudevdatta and Tata
Chemicals Limited's case, she again submits
that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the
cardinal principle of interpretation is to give
natural, ordinary or popular meaning to the
statute which has to be construed according to
their grammatical meaning. The golden rule is
to give a statute its ordinary meaning. It is also
a well-settled principle that Courts ought to
8
(2014) 6 SCC 335
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
interpret legislation through its objects and the
form in which it is expressed.
15.18. She further submits that it is only a Chief
Executive Officer who can represent a Society.
The present writ petition has been filed by a
Director of the Society. The Director cannot sue
or be sued in the name of the Society. Only the
Chief Executive Officer can do so. In this
regard, she relies upon Section 29G(4)(j),
which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
29G(4) The Chief Executive shall be the
Chief Administrative Officer of the Society
and shall, subject to the general
supervision and control of the Committee
and such other conditions and restrictions
as may be specified in the bye-laws,-
(a) to (i) xxxxx
(j) sue and be sued on behalf of the co-
operative Society
15.19. She relies on the decision of this Court in Shri.
Abdulla A.K. -V- Nanjarayapatna
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
Vyavasaya Seva9, more particularly para nos.
26, 27 and 28 thereof which are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
26. According to learned counsel for the respondent
as per Section 29-G of KCS Act, Chief Executive has
the power to sue and be sued on behalf of the Co-
operative Society and that as per Section 2(a-3), the
Manager is the Chief Executive of the Bank and as
such, he can sue on behalf plaintiff.
Section 29G(4)(j) of KCS Act reads as follows:
"29-G. Appointment of Chief Executive- (1) For every
co-operative Society there shall be a Chief Executive
who shall, be appointed and be removable by the
Society:
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx
(4) The Chief Executive shall be the Chief
Administrative Officer of the Society and shall, subject
to the general supervision and control of the [board]
and such other conditions and restrictions as may be
specified in the bye-laws-
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx
(j) sue and be sued on behalf of the co-operative
Society;"
27. The said power of the Chief Executive to sue or be
sued on behalf of the Co-operative Society is subject
to the condition / restrictions as may be specified in
9
AIR Online 2018 Kar 96
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
the law. As already observed above, the Bye-law of
the plaintiff at Clause 18(a)(5) clearly mentions that it
is the Secretary only who can sue on behalf of the
plaintiff, as such, the Bye-law of the Society restricts
the power to sue only to its Secretary and to none
else.
Section 2(a-3) of KCS Act defines the Chief Executive
as below:
"Chief Executive" means any employee of a co-
operative society by whatever designation called and
includes an official of the State Government, an
employee of any other institution or co-operative
society who discharges the functions of a Chief
Executive under the Act, Rules or the Bye-laws;
28. A reading of the said Section go to show that
though any employee of the Co-operative Society
irrespective of their designation can be called as Chief
Executive, but, for him to be called so, it must be
shown that he was discharging the functions of a
Chief Executive Officer under the Act, Rules or the
Bye-laws. However, neither any material has been
placed nor evidence has been led to the effect that
the previous post of Secretary was later converted
into the post of Manager of the plaintiff and the same
was subsequently re-designated as Chief Executive. In
the absence of any such pleading or evidence and in
the presence of the Bye-law, it appears to have still
retaining its Clause 18(A)(5) holding that the
Secretary alone shall sue on behalf of the plaintiff, the
argument of the learned counsel for the respondent
that the Secretary was the Manager and himself has
now designated as a Chief Executive cannot be
acceptable. Consequently, the contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant that the suit has
instituted by the plaintiff, shown as being represented
by its Manager was not maintainable as per the Bye-
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
law of the plaintiff and in the absence of any
resolution of the plaintiff in the General Body. As
such, I answer the substantial question of law No.1 in
the negative.
15.20. By relying on Section 29G4 and the aforesaid
decision, she submits that a person needs to be
designated as a chief executive officer to qualify
to be a chief executive, and only the chief
executive can sue on behalf of the Society.
15.21. She relies on the decision of this Court in
Bharathi Souhardha Credit Co-operative
Limited, Kaup, Udupi District -v- State of
Karnataka and others10, more particularly
para no. 9 and 10 thereof, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
9. Section 31(2)(b) of the Karnataka Souharda
Sahakari Act, 1997 reads as under:
"The Chief Executive shall be the Chief
Administrative Officer of the Co-operative and shall,
subject to the general control and superintendence
of the Board, sign documents, enter into
agreements and contracts, and institute and defend
suits and other legal proceedings on behalf of Co-
operative".
10
2008 SCC Online Kar 469
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
10. From the above provision of law, it is clear that
all legal proceedings are to be initiated only by the
Chief Executive of the Co-operative Society under
the Act. During the course of arguments, it is fairly
conceded by the Petitioner's Counsel that there was
no disability for the Chief Executive to institute
legal proceedings. When there is a specific
provision under the Act, the Chief Executive cannot
delegate his power to the President to file the writ
petition and when there is no disability of
whatsoever nature for him to file the writ petition.
Therefore, only on this short ground the petition
filed by the Petitioner is to be dismissed.
15.22. She submits that there being a chief executive
officer appointed for the Society, and there
being no disability on the part of the said chief
executive officer to file the present petition, the
Chief Executive Officer not having filed the
petition, but the petition has been filed by the
Director, is not maintainable. The chief
executive officer, as held in Bharathi
Souhardha Credit Co-operative Limited's
case, cannot even delegate his power to the
President. In the present case, no delegation or
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
authorisation has been made to the Director to
file the above petition.
15.23. She relies upon the decision of the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Dr. Veerendra
Teggimani -v- The District Registrar of
Societies11 more particularly para nos. 3 and 4
thereof which are reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
3. On perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-C,
it is clear that the Registrar has appointed an
Enquiry Officer to go into the affairs of the
respondent No.3-Society by virtue of the power
conferred under Section 25 of the Act. Therefore,
when a question was posed to the learned counsel
for the Petitioner as to how the Petitioner, even if he
is a member of the Society, is aggrieved of the
impugned order and answer as to how he could
challenge the impugned order and what is his locus-
standi, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits
that under the guise of the impugned order dated
13.05.2022, the respondent-Registrar is seeking to
hold an enquiry against the Petitioner, since a
complaint has been made making allegations against
the Petitioner and it is by virtue of the said
complaint that the impugned order has been issued.
4. It does not satisfy the requirement of law. It is
clear from the impugned order that the respondent
No.1-Registrar has appointed an Enquiry Officer to
go into the affairs of the respondent No.3- Society.
If at all anybody is aggrieved, it should be the
respondent No.3-Society. It is also clear that the
11
W.P. No. 101894 of 2022
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
Petitioner has no locus-standi, as a member of the
Society to call in question the impugned order.
15.24. By relying on Veerendra Taggimani's case,
she submits that a member of the Society has
no locus to question the order appointing an
enquiry officer to go into the affairs of the
Society.
15.25. She also relies on the decision of this Court in
Gaddikeri Milk Producer -v- The State of
Karnataka12 more particularly para nos. 8 and
12 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
8. Learned counsel submits that, the petitioners
being society members they would have the right to
challenge the notification and in support of the said
contention, learned counsel places reliance on the
judgment rendered by the seven judges Bench of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
R.C.Cooper Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1970
Supreme Court 564.
12. It cannot be denied that a member of a
Corporate Society would have the right to challenge
an order, which it feels would be inappropriate. It is
however to be noticed that the decision of the
Government, after taking into all relevant factors,
12
W.P. 107266 of 2023
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
cannot be questioned on the ground that the
wisdom behind the decision was incorrect. The
State Government, being the ultimate authority to
monitor the financial conditions of the Milk Union
would be at liberty to take an appropriate decision
to safeguard the overall interests of the Milk Union.
Merely because a few Constituent Members of the
Union were of the view that the recruitment to a
post or recruitment to various posts would have a
detrimental effect on its finances, the same cannot
be permitted to be stalled.
15.26. By relying on Gaddikeri Milk Producer's case,
she submits that the State Government, being
the ultimate authority to monitor the financial
conditions of the milk union, would be at liberty
to take an appropriate decision to safeguard the
overall interest of the Milk Union. The State, in
the present case, being of the opinion that the
Regional Commissioner is to be appointed as an
Administrator, the said decision having been
taken in the interest of the Society, one of the
members of the Society cannot question the
appointment of an Administrator. The said
decision taken by the Government, being
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
proper and correct, does not require any
interference.
15.27. She also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Joint Action
Committee of Airline Pilots Association,
more particularly para no. 31 thereof, which is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
31. It is a question of challenging the public policy
and it is well settled that public authorities must be
given a very long rope, full freedom and full liberty
in framing policies, though the discretion of the
authorities cannot be absolute and unqualified,
unfettered or uncanalised. The same can be the
subject-matter of judicial scrutiny only in
exceptional circumstances where it can be shown
to be arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of the
statutory provisions. More so, the courts are not
well equipped to deal with technical matters,
particularly, where the decisions are based on
purely hypertechnical issues. The court may not be
able to consider competing claims and conflicting
interests and conclude on which way the balance
tilts.
15.28. By relying on Airline Pilot's case, she submits
that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision
has categorically held that the public authorities
must be given a long rope, full freedom and full
liberty in framing policies. The same can be
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
subject matter of judicial scrutiny, only in
exceptional circumstances where it is shown to
be arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of
statutory provisions. In the present case, the
action taken by the Government is not arbitrary
nor is it unreasonable or violative of the
statutory provisions. The same is a decision
well thought of and as per the statute.
15.29. On that basis, she submits that the above
petitions are required to be dismissed.
16. An impleading application having been filed by the
ex-director of the DCC bank, the impleading
Applicant was permitted to assist the court as an
intervener. The intervener is a member of, and ex-
director of the DCC Bank.
16.1. He submits that in the year 2011-12, the DCC
Bank had reached the stage of bankruptcy and
it is only thereafter that the Government
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
monitored the Bank under the supervision of an
Administrator that the financial conditions of
the DCC Bank has improved.
16.2. Sri. M. Govinda Gowda, who is the Director of
the Petitioner in W.P. No.23569 of 2024 was
elected as the President of the DCC bank, who
it is alleged has been instrumental in the
misappropriation committed in the bank. He
alleges that the said Director had
misappropriated huge amounts of money
running to crores of rupees. The entitlement of
the farmers under the loan waiver scheme of
the Government has not reached the farmers,
as regards which a complaint has been lodged
with Lokayukta police.
16.3. His further submission is that Sri M. Govinda
Gowda also disbursed loans without verification
to his near and dear ones. It is in order to cover
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
up the same that they have challenged the
appointment of a senior IAS officer as an
Administrator. His contention is that the senior
IAS officer/Regional Commissioner would
unearth all these misdoings of the Board of
Directors and take necessary action in that
regard. It is for that reason that they wish to
have a junior officer who would not be well
equipped to deal with the complex situation in
the matter at hand.
17. Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel, in
reply, would submit as under:
17.1. He relies upon Section 30 of the KCS Act which
is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
30-Supersession or suspension of the board.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law
of the time being in force, no board of a co-
operative society shall be superseded or kept under
suspension for a period exceeding six months.
Provided that in case of a co-operative society
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
carrying on the business of banking, the provision
of this clause, shall have effect as if for the words
―six months‖, the words ―one year‖ had been
substituted.
(2) If in the opinion of the Registrar, the board of a
co-operative society-
(i) persistently makes default or is negligent in the
performance of the duties imposed on it by this Act,
or the rules or the bye-laws; or
(ii) commits any act, which is prejudicial to the
interest of the Society or its members; or
(iii) where there is a stalemate in the constitution
or functioning of the board; or
(iv) has serious financial irregularities or frauds
which have been detected; or
(v) fails to provide books and records, necessary
information and assistance to the election
commission as per the calendar set out by the
election commission to conduct elections to the
board within the stipulated time and as a result or
80 otherwise, the election commission has failed to
conduct elections to the board within the stipulated
time;
Registrar, may, after giving the board an
opportunity to state objections, if any, by order in
writing, superceed or suspend the said board and
appoint an administrator to manage the affairs of
the Society for such period not exceeding six
months.
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
Provided that the board of any co-operative society
shall not be superseded or kept under suspension
where there is no Government share holding or
loan or financial assistance or any guarantee by the
Government.
Provided further that the supersession or
suspension of the board of a co-operative bank
shall be done only after consultation with the
Reserve Bank of India / National Bank as the case
may be and the provisions of Banking Regulation
Act,, 1949 shall also apply.
Provided also that, no member of the board
superceded under sub-section (2) shall, be eligible
for being elected as a member of the board of such
Society or any other Co-operative Society for a
period of one year from the date of removal of such
board and no such order of disqualification for
contesting the election to the Board shall be made
unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard, is
given to the person against whom such order is
made] and
(3) The Administrator so appointed shall, subject to
the control of the Registrar and such instructions as
he may give from time to time, exercise all or any
of the functions of the board or of any office-
bearer of the co-operative Society and take such
action as he may consider necessary in the interest
of the Society.
(4) In case of supersession of a board, the
Administrator shall, before the expiry of his term of
office, arrange for the conduct of elections and the
constitution of a new board in accordance with this
Act,, the rules and the bye-laws of the co-operative
Society and hand over management to the elected
board.
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
(5) In case of suspension of a board, the Registrar
shall reinstate the said board and the Administrator
shall, on the expiry of his term of office, handover
the management to the said board and the period
of suspension shall be reckoned while computing
the original term of office of the board.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,,
the Registrar shall, in the case of a co-operative
bank, if so required in writing by the Reserve Bank
of India, in public interest or for preventing the
affairs of the co-operative bank being conducted in
a manner detrimental to the interest of the
depositors or for securing the proper management
of the co-operative 81 bank, by order in writing,
remove the board of that co-operative bank and
appoint an administrator to manage the affairs of
the co-operative bank for such period not exceeding
one year as may be specified by the Reserve Bank
of India:
[Provided that no member of the board, removed
shall, be eligible for being elected as a member of
the board of such Bank or any other Co-operative
Society for a period of one year from the date of
removal of the board and no such order of
disqualification shall be made unless a reasonable
opportunity of being heard, is given to the persons
against whom the order is made.]
(7) Any officer or employee of the Government or a
Co-operative organisation may be appointed as
Administrator of a co-operative society-
(i) if he is appointed on full time basis, his pay and
other allowances shall be borne by the co-operative
Society. The service rules applicable to him in the
department or organisation shall continue to govern
his service as Administrator of the Society;
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
(ii) if he is appointed as Administrator in addition to
his regular post, he shall be paid remuneration at
the rate of ten percent of his basic pay out of the
funds of the co-operative Society. The service rules
applicable to him in the department or organisation
shall continue to govern his service as
Administrator of the Society]
30-A- Appointment of Special Officer- xxx
30B. Powers to give direction in public
interest.- (1) Where the State Government is
satisfied that in public interest and for the purposes
of securing proper implementation of co-operative
and other development programmes approved or
undertaken by the State Government or for
specially safeguarding the interest of the members
belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and other Backward Classes and ensuring
reservation to persons belonging to such Castes,
Tribes or Classes in the services under the Co-
operative Societies, it is necessary to issue
directions to any class of Co-operative Societies
generally or to any Co-operative Society or Co-
operative Societies in particular, it may issue
directions from time to time and all such Co-
opertaive Socities or the Co-operative Society
concerned shall be bound to comply with such
directions.
(2) The State Government may modify or cancel
any directions issued under sub-section (1) and in
modifying or cancelling such directions may impose
such conditions as it mat deem fit.
(3) The State Government may by notification,
delegate its powers under this section to the
Registrar subject to such restrictions and conditions
as may be specified in the notification.
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
17.2. He submits that the Registrar could appoint an
Administrator under Section 30, for the reasons
stated in Section 32(i) to (v), there is no
restriction therein as regards who has to be
appointed as an Administrator.
17.3. By relying on Section 28A(5), he submits that
the Registrar or any other officer within whose
jurisdiction the Society is situated and who is
authorised by the Registrar shall be deemed to
have assumed charge as an Administrator.
Thus, he submits that the same can only be
referred to an officer in Co-operative
department and not an officer outside the Co-
operative department since there would be
several such officers, the reference of a
Registrar can only mean the Registrar under
whose jurisdiction the Society is situated. That
would imply the JRCS under whose jurisdiction
Kolar and Chikkaballapura districts are situated.
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
17.4. He again reiterates that an Administrator
cannot be so senior as a Regional
Commissioner. In the present case, since the
Regional Commissioner cannot be controlled by
the Registrar, who is much junior to him in the
exercise of the powers by the Administrator.
Thus, he submits that the powers have been
exercised by the Government in a malafide
manner. The Regional Commissioner, being
superior to the Registrar, would exercise
powers independently and not under the control
of the Registrar, and therefore, he submits that
the writ petitions are required to be allowed.
18. Heard Sri. M.R. Rajagopal, learned Senior Advocate
for the Petitioner in W.P.No.20877/2024, Sri.
Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Advocate for the
Petitioner in W.P.No.23569/2024, Smt. Prathima
Honnapura, learned Additional Advocate General
along with Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, for Respondents in
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
both the matters and Smt. Rakshitha P. Singh,
learned counsel for impleading applicant in
I.A.No.2/2024 in W.P.No.23569/2024. Perused
papers.
19. The points that would arise for the consideration of
this Court are:
1. Can the State Government suggest and/or
nominate any particular officer to be an
Administrator, which is required to be
followed and implemented by the Registrar?
2. Would the term 'any other officer' in section
28A(5) mean only an officer of the Co-
operative Department or an officer outside
the Co-operative Department?
3. Can an officer senior in cadre to the Registrar
be appointed as an Administrator, or can only
a junior officer in cadre be appointed?
4. Whether the order of appointment of the
Regional Commissioner as an Administrator
is proper and correct?
5. What order?
20. I answer the above points as under.
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
21. Answer to Point No. 1: Can the State
Government suggest and/or nominate any
particular officer to be an Administrator, which
is required to be followed and implemented by
the Registrar?
21.1. The submission of Sri. M.R. Rajagopal, learned
Senior counsel is that the Administrator in the
present matter has not been appointed by the
Registrar but has been appointed at the
instruction of the State Government. Therefore,
there is no application of mind on part of the
Registrar. Any appointment of Administrator
under Subsection (5) of Section 28A would
have to be made by the Registrar by applying
his own individual mind. The same not having
been done, the appointment of the
Administrator is required to be set aside.
21.2. The submission of Ms. Prathima Honnapura
learned Additional Advocate General is that the
term of the Board having expired, there is a
requirement for the appointment of an
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
Administrator under Subsection (5) of Section
28A and in that regard, she relies upon
Subsection (3) of Section 2A to contend that
the State Government may appoint such other
officers with such designation as it deems fit to
assist the Registrar. By relying on the phrase
"the State Government may appoint", she
submits that the State Government has an
inherent interest in the administration being
carried out properly. The State Government,
taking into consideration the innumerable
litigations with respect to Respondent No.4-
society, taking into consideration that this
society functions from two districts, has
thought it fit to recommend the Regional
Commissioner to be appointed as the
Administrator. The reason for the same being
that a person of the capacity and calibre, as
also the cadre of the Regional Commissioner, is
one who can better handle the election and the
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
disputes which have arisen therein, and it is for
that reason that the recommendation has been
made by the State Government to the Registrar
to consider appointment of the Regional
Commissioner as the Administrator which has
been accepted by the Registrar and an
appointment made of the Regional
Commissioner as the Administrator under
Subsection (5) of Section 28A.
21.3. It is this aspect as to whether the State
Government can nominate or recommend any
particular officer to be an Administrator which is
required to be considered. The Petitioners
contending that the Government has no such
right or authority, whereas, the State
Government contends that it has the right.
21.4. The other submission made by Sri. M.R.
Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel, is that there
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
is malice on the part of the State inasmuch as
there being an Administrator who had already
been appointed. The said Administrator is
proposed to be changed by the impugned order
which would result in delay in election.
Countering that, the submission of the Learned
Additional Advocate General is that there would
not be any delay. The calendar of events have
already been issued in terms of directions
passed by this Court as also in the contempt
petition, the elections would be held as per the
schedule fixed therein.
21.5. The submission of Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners in certain other matters, is that in
terms of Subsection (5) of Section 28A, it is the
Registrar in whose jurisdiction society is situate
who would be deemed to be the Administrator
and only a formal order has to be passed by the
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
Registrar. In so far as Respondent No.4 is
concerned, the same coming under the
jurisdiction of Respondent No.2-JRCS, he would
be the Administrator in terms of Subsection (5)
of Section 28A. Subsection (5) of Section 28A is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
28A - Management of co-operative societies
vest in the Committee
(5) If the new Committee is not constituted under
section 29A, on the date of expiry of the term of
office of the Committee, the Registrar or any other
officer within whose jurisdiction the society is
situated, and who is authorised by the Registrar,
shall be deemed to have assumed charge as
Administrator and he shall, for all purposes function
as such Committee of management. The
Administrator shall, subject to the control of the
Registrar, exercise all the powers and perform all
the functions of the Committee of the co-operative
society or any office bearer of the co-operative
society and take all such actions as may be
required, in the interest of the co-operative
society.[Provided that the Registrar shall appoint an
administrator to a Co-operative Society or each of
the co-operative Societies formed after
amalgamation or reorganisation or division in
accordance with section 14 for a period of three
months and the administrator so appointed shall
arrange for holding elections to a Committee of
such Co-operative Society or Societies as the case
may be.
- 56 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
21.6. The reading of the above Sub-section would
indicate that if a new Board is not constituted
under Section 29A on the date of expiry of the
term of the office of the board or if elections
are not held within the time frame specified in
Section 39A, then the Registrar or any other
officer within whose jurisdiction society is
situate and who is authorised by the Registrar
shall be deemed to have assumed charge as
Administrator and he shall for all purposes
function as Board of Management. In the
present case, it is not in dispute that a new
Board has not been constituted under Section
29A, it is also not in dispute that the term of
the Board has expired and elections have not
been held within the time specified under
Section 39A.
21.7. In those circumstances, Subsection (5)
indicates that the Registrar or any other officer
- 57 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
within whose jurisdiction society is situate and
who is authorised by the Registrar shall be
deemed to have assumed charge of the
Administrator. Thus, there are two components
for this: the Registrar or any other officer within
whose jurisdiction society is situated, and such
person to be authorised by the Registrar.
21.8. Though the submission of Sri.Jayakumar S.
Patil is that it is the JRCS within whose
jurisdiction respondent No.4 is situated who is
deemed to be the Administrator. The usage of
the words "Registrar or any other officer", in
the said Subsection (5) of Section 28A does not
mandate that is only the Registrar, it could be
any other officer. Registrar is defined under
Subsection (i) of Section 2 which is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
2(i) "Registrar" means a person
appointed to perform the functions of the
- 58 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
Registrar of Co-operative Societies under
this Act, and includes an Additional
Registrar of Co-operative Societies, a Joint
Registrar of Co-operative Societies, a
Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies
and an Assistant Registrar of Co-operative
Societies appointed to assist the Registrar
when exercising all or any of the powers
of the Registrar;
21.9. A perusal of the above definition would indicate
that a Registrar would mean a person
appointed to perform the function of the
Registrar of the co-operative societies under
the Act and includes an Additional Registrar, a
Joint Registrar, a Deputy Registrar, and an
Assistant Registrar appointed to assist the
Registrar. Thus, the usage of the word
'Registrar' in Subsection (5) of Section 28A
would include all the above as indicated under
Subsection (I) of Section 2. If the contention of
Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil that any other officer
would mean the Joint Registrar of Co-operative
Societies within whose jurisdiction the society is
- 59 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
situated would render the usage of the words
"any other officer" redundant, since as
indicated supra, the word 'Registrar' would
include JRCS in terms of Subsection (I) of
Section 2.
21.10. In the above background, the disjunctive "or
any other officer" would have to be read,
complementing Subsection (I) of Section 2 of
the KCS Act.
21.11. The second contention is that such a person
would have to be authorised by the Registrar,
that is to say, merely because the society is
situate within the jurisdiction of the Registrar or
any other officer such person would not
automatically assume charge as Administrator
just because the society is within his
jurisdiction. For such an assumption of charge
as administrator, there must be an
- 60 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
authorisation by the Registrar; that is, without
such authorisation by the Registrar no one can
take charge as an Administrator. In that view of
the matter, I am of the considered opinion that
the harmonious reading of the phrases "or any
other officer" and "who is authorised by the
Registrar" has to be given, and any other
officer, therefore, cannot be said to be the
JRCS, DRCS or ARCS, it could also be any other
officer of the State Government.
21.12. Subsection (3) of Section 2A provides power to
the State Government to appoint such other
officers with such designation as it deems fit.
Subsection (1), Subsection (2), Subsection (4),
and Subsection (5) are all relating to the
Registrar and officers of the co-operative
department. Subsection (3), therefore, stands
out as a standalone provision which empowers
the State Government to appoint such other
- 61 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
officers with such designation as it deems fit to
assist the Registrar.
21.13. It is in that background that the State
Government being vested with an obligation to
see that the affairs of the society are conducted
properly, would also be vested with a discretion
and right to recommend the appointment of
such other person other than the Registrar in
terms of Subsection (3) of Section 2A and it is
that appointment which could be made either
by the State Government directly or a
recommendation could be made by a State
Government to the Registrar for appointment.
It is exercising such power that the State
Government recommended that the Regional
Commissioner be appointed as an
Administrator. The Registrar, accepting the
recommendation, appointed the Regional
Commissioner as the Administrator of respond
- 62 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
No. 4 society. In that view of the matter, I am
of the considered opinion that the decision in
Gurudayal Singh's case (supra) relied upon
by Sri. M.R. Rajagopal, learned Senior ounsel
would not be applicable. Firstly, for the reason
that there are no malafides which have been
alleged against the Regional Commissioner, let
alone established, secondly, the apprehension
on part of Sri. M.R. Rajagopal that the election
will be postponed is negated by the statement
of the learned Additional Advocate General that
the election will be held as per the calendar of
events submitted before the Contempt Court.
21.14. The decision in Sanjay Nagaraj's case (supra)
relied upon by Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil would
also be of no assistance to the Petitioners
inasmuch as under Subsection (3) of Section
2A, the State Government has the power to
directly appoint such officer as may be
- 63 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
required. Subsection (5) of Section 2A not only
refers to the Registrar but "or any other officer
within whose jurisdiction the society is
situated". The power of appointment under
Subsection (3) of Section 2A read with the
jurisdiction under Subsection (5) of Section 28A
would indicate that any other person apart from
the Registrar could also be appointed as an
Administrator.
21.15. Though it is contended by Sri. Jayakumar S.
Patil that there is no nexus in the appointment
of Regional Commissioner, as could be seen
from the flood of litigations relating to
Respondent No.4-society, almost all aspects
relating to Respondent No.4-society have been
litigated by one party or the other. There have
been several factions, the conduct of the
election is on the face of the record a
challenging task and it is for that reason that
- 64 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
the State Government has probably thought it
fit to appoint the Regional Commissioner.
21.16. In fact, all the directions which have been
issued by this court in the earlier matters in
W.P. No. 23677 of 2023 were issued to the
State Co-operation Election Authority,
Regional Commissioner, Bangalore division
and the Apex Co-operative Society Election
Officer. In WP 15653 of 2024 it had been issued
to the State Co-operative Election Authority,
Regional Commissioner Bangalore division
and the Apex Co-operative Societies Election
Officer and it is in furtherance thereof, that the
Secretary, Co-operation Department by his
letter dated 29.07.2024 recommended that the
Regional Commissioner, Bangalore region be
appointed as the Administrator. It is not that
the Regional Commissioner has no nexus with
Respondent No. 4-society or its election. In
- 65 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
fact, it is under the jurisdiction of the Regional
Commissioner that both Kolar and
Chikkballapura lie, and therefore, the Regional
Commissioner, being one of the top officers of
the said region, has been identified by the State
Government as an Administrator. I do not
therefore, find any basis to accept the
contention of Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil that the
Regional Commissioner is not associated with
or that the Regional Commissioner has no
nexus to the election of Respondent No.4-
society.
21.17. In my considered opinion, the Regional
Commissioner, being the top functionary in the
said region would have an obligation to ensure
that the elections are conducted in a proper and
required manner. It is not always that a junior
officer can assist a senior officer, the form of
assistance can be in several methods, manners
- 66 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
and modes. Assistance does not in all cases
mean by a sub-ordinate officer to a superior
officer, a superior officer can also be assistance
to a sub-ordinate officer when circumstances so
demand it. In the present cases though the
matter relates to elections of a federal Co-
operative soceity, there is apparently no Co-
operation amongst the members, which has
resulted in large scale disputes over all kinds of
matters. Fortunately our country being
governed by the principles of Rule of Law, most
of those disputes are agitated accordingly
before the appropriate forum.
21.18. I'am therefore of the considered opinion that
there being no allegations or malafides alleged
against the Regional Commissioner who has
been appointed, to the contra all the counsels
having expressed their faith in him, there would
be nothing wrong in the Regional Commissioner
- 67 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
being of Assistance to the sub-ordinate
Registrar of Co-operative societies for the
purposes of conducting of a free, fair and
transparent election in a democratic manner.
21.19. Hence, I answer point No.1 by holding that in
terms of Subsection (3) of Section 2A, the
State Government can suggest and or nominate
any particular officer to be an Administrator so
long as such officer by the nature of post held
by him/her as on that date exercises
jurisdiction over the area of operation of the co-
operative society and if such a suggestion or
recommendation is made by the State
Government, the Registrar would have to
consider the same positively and pass
necessary orders by following and
implementing such a
request/suggestion/recomendation.
- 68 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
22. Answer to Point No. 2: Would the term 'any
other officer' in section 28A(5) mean only an
officer of the Co-operative Department or an
officer outside the Co-operative Department?
22.1. This aspect has been considered in detail in
answer to point No. 1. As indicated above, any
other officer mentioned in Subsection (5) of
Section 28A would not only include an officer of
the Co-operative department but would also
include an officer outside the Co-operative
department inasmuch as the Regional
Commissioner within whose jurisdiction the
society functions would also be any other officer
within the meaning of Subsection (5) of Section
28.
22.2. This court taking into consideration the manner
in which the litigations have been filed can well
appreciate the intention of the State
Government to appoint a senior officer to be an
Administrator for the limited purposes of
- 69 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
conducting and completing the Electro process,
the said senior officer being a Regional
Commissioner coming within the definition of
"any other officer" under Subsection (5) of
Section 28.
22.3. As held by this court in Gadikeri milk
Producers' case (supra), it is the State
Government's obligation and duty to monitor
the financial condition of the DCC Bank, namely
Respondent No.4-Society which should have an
impact on the residents of Kolar and
Chikkaballapura, apart from the State of
Karnataka. In my opinion, the State
Government has sought to discharge the
obligation by appointing a high-ranking official,
such as the Regional Commissioner as an
Administrator.
- 70 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
22.4. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Airline
Pilots Association's case (supra) unless there
are malafides which have been attributed and
or there are personal allegations made against
the officer in question which in the present case
has not been made, the State Government
would have to be given a long rope, full
freedom and full liberty for safeguarding the
interest of its citizens. Merely on the allegation
that there is bias on part of the State
Government without any allegation against the
concerned officer and merely on the ground
that the elections may be postponed, this Court
is not required to intercede in the
circumstances of appointment of the Regional
Commissioner as the Administrator.
22.5. As such I answer point No. 2 by holding that
any other officer in Subsection (5) of Section
28A would not only mean an officer of the Co-
- 71 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
operative Department but also an officer
outside the Co-operative Department, subject
however, to such officer having jurisdiction over
the area of operation of the Co-operative
Society.
23. Answer to Point No. 3: Can an officer senior in
cadre to the Registrar be appointed as an
Administrator, or can only a junior officer in
cadre be appointed?
And
Answer to Point No. 4: Whether the order of
appointment of the Regional Commissioner as
an Administrator is proper and correct?
23.1. Much has been made out by Sri. M.R.
Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel and Sri.
Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel as
regards the ranking of the Regional
Commissioner, to contend that the Regional
Commissioner, being senior in cadre to
Registrar, cannot be appointed as the
Administrator. The Administrator has to be
- 72 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
lower in cadre to the Registrar inasmuch as the
Administrator shall be under the control of the
Registrar. It is on that basis that it is contended
that the Regional Commissioner cannot act
under the control of the Registrar, as he is
superior in rank. This submission will not hold
this Court much longer inasmuch as the
Regional Commissioner has jurisdiction over
both Kolar and Chikkaballapura, where the
society functions.
23.2. The decision relied upon by both Sri. M.R.
Rajagopal and Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil in Airline
Pilots Association's case (supra) to contend
that the Registrar could not have acted under
the instruction of a superior authority and
further that a superior authority cannot be
appointed as Administrator is negatived by the
dicta laid down in the very same decision in
para 31 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has
- 73 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
categorically held that public authority must be
given a long rope, full freedom and full liberty
and thus, the decision in Airline Pilots
Association would enure to the benefit of the
Society and to the petitioners.
23.3. What is required is for the Administrator to
discharge his duties effectively and for the
elections to be conducted in a proper manner.
There being no allegation against the proposed
Administrator, the Administrator being a senior
ranking IAS officer holding a post of Regional
Commissioner having jurisdiction over both
Kolar and Chikkaballapura, merely because the
usage of the words "subject to the control of
the registrar" is used under Subsection (5) of
Section 28A would not mean that the
Administrator would always be under control of
the Registrar. The duties of the Administrator
are clear enough for the Administrator to
- 74 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
discharge. In the present case, the State
Government being of the considered opinion
that the Regional Commissioner would be a fit
person to be appointed as Administrator and
has done so, the Administrator would have to
discharge his duties in terms of the KCS Act
1959 and the KCS Rules 1960, which is what
the Registrar would have to do. Thus, both the
Registrar and the Regional Commissioner being
bound by the KCS Act, 1959 and KCS Rules
1960, all the actions of the Administrator being
required to be taken in terms of the above, it
cannot be said that the Regional Commissioner
would have to be under the control of the
Registrar, both the Regional Commissioner and
the Registrar being under the control of the Act
and Rules. In my opinion, the Regional
Commissioner and all other officers involved in
the electoral process would have to act as a
- 75 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
WP No. 20877 of 2024
C/W WP No. 23569 of 2024
team to ensure the conduct of free, fair and
transparent elections.
23.4. Thus, I answer point Nos.3 and 4 by holding
that an officer, senior in rank or cadre to the
Registrar can be appointed as an Administrator,
so long as such officer exercises jurisdiction
over the area of operation of the society. In the
present case, the appointment of a Regional
Commissioner as an Administrator in terms of
Subsection (5) of Section 28A of KCS Act, is
proper and correct and cannot be faulted with.
24. Answer to Point No. 5: What Order?
24.1. In view of my answers to Point Nos. 1 to 4, I
pass the following;
ORDER
i. Writ Petition Nos. 20877/2024 and 23569/2025
are dismissed.
- 76 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18132
ii. The Administrator is directed to conduct the
elections as expeditiously as possible in terms of
the calendar of events filed before the contempt
court and ensure that the election is carried out
and conducted in a free, fair, transparent, lawful
and peaceful manner.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
