Karnataka High Court
Anand T vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 May, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18267-DB
WA No. 760 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MAY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT APPEAL NO. 760 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M)
BETWEEN:
ANAND T
S/O THIMME GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT HUSKUR, ARALUMALLIGE
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION
Digitally signed M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001
by SHAKAMBARI
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
BELLARY ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 01
3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIE
SOCIETIES, ALI ASKAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
4. THE BENGALURU RURAL AND
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE
MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION
BENGALURU HALL
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18267-DB
WA No. 760 of 2025
DR. M.H. MARIGOWDA ROAD
D.R.COLLEGE POST
BENGALURU-560 029
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
5. ELECTION OFFICER AND JOINT REGISTRAR
OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
ALI ASKAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
6. RETURNING OFFICER
APPOINTED FOR ELECTION OF
BENGALURU, BENGALURU RURAL
AND RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
BENGALURU-560 001
7. ASST. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
8. HUSKUR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY, HUSKUR
ARALUMALLIGE, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL-561 203
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
9. ANJINAPPA R
S/O RAMAKRISHNA
MAJOR, R/AT HUSKUR, ARALUMALLIGE
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
10. MUNIRAJU R
S/O NARAYANAPPA
MAJOR
R/AT HUSKUR, ARALUMALLIGE
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
11. RAMESH H.K
S/O KRISHNAPPA
MAJOR
R/AT HUSKUR, ARALUMALLIGE
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:18267-DB
WA No. 760 of 2025
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
12. RAJANNA
S/O HUCHCHPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT HUSKUR, ARALUMALLIGE
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
13. MUNIRAJAA
S/O THIMMAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT HUSKUR, ARALUMALLIGE
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
14. MANJUNATH C
S/O GANGADHARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT HUSKUR, ARALUMALLIGE
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
15. YELLAPPA
S/O DODDA MALLARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT HUSKUR, ARALUMALLIGE
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
16. MANJUNATHA B
S/O CHIKKABACHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT HUSKUR, ARALUMALLIGE
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
17. SMT. VENKAMMA
W/O NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT HUSKUR, ARALUMALLIGE
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:18267-DB
WA No. 760 of 2025
18. ASHWATHAPPA
S/O RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT HUSKUR, ARALUMALLIGE
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
19. NAGARAJU H.M
S/O LATE MUNNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT HUSKUR, ARALUMALLIGE
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
20. JAYARAMAIAH
S/O SAMPANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT HUSKUR, ARALUMALLIGE
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
21. ASHWANI
W/O ANAND MURTHY
MAJOR
R/AT HUSKUR, ARALUMALLIGE
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 15.05.2025 NOTICE
TO R2 TO R21 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
26.04.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN WP No.12804/2025 (CS-EL/M) AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WP FILED BY THE APPELLANT BY
GRANTING THE RELIEFS AS PRAYED FOR THEREIN AND GRANT
SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:18267-DB
WA No. 760 of 2025
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also
the counsel appearing for the State. This Writ Appeal is
filed against the order passed by the Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.12804 of 2025 wherein the Single Judge made
an observation that similar petitions are filed by the other
Directors. But the fact is that the present petitioner has
not moved any Writ Petition before this Court. An
observation is made that already petition filed seeking for
the relief being a gross abuse of the process of the Court,
the present petition cannot be entertained by this Court
and as such, the above petition is dismissed by imposing
the cost to be payable by the petitioner to the Karnataka
Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru.
NC: 2025:KHC:18267-DB
2. The counsel would vehemently contend
that, when the co-option was challenged before the
Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (for short,
'ARCS') and the same was stayed and as a result the
petitioner was unable to participate in the election and
cast his vote and merely because other Directors have
filed the petition and the same were dismissed and the
same cannot be a ground to dismiss the petition with
exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only).
The counsel also would submit that even after disposal of
this Writ Petition also, in view of the observations made by
the Single Judge, an application was moved before the
ARCS to consider his grievances and even application was
filed on 29.04.2025 itself and for advancing the case as
well as vacating the interim order, but no such applications
are considered. The counsel also would submit that
matter is adjourned to 16.05.2025, but election date is
fixed on 25th of May 2025 and last date for filing
nomination is 17.05.2025. The counsel also would submit
that, the modus operandi also can be considered, fixing
NC: 2025:KHC:18267-DB
the date on 16.05.2025 and counsel submits that if even
the applications are considered, no opportunity will be
given to the appellant to move the matter before the
appropriate Court since 18.05.2025 is holiday. Hence, the
counsel submits that, he may be permitted to file
nomination and cast the vote subject to the result of the
matter which is pending before the ARCS.
3. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the
State would submit that, the copy is served in the early
morning at 10.30am and could not be able to get the
instructions. And also counsel submits that not aware of
the reason for not considering the matter for vacating the
interim order as soon as applications are filed, but not
disputes the fact that application was filed before the
ARCS for advancement and vacating the interim order
granted by the ARCS.
4. The counsel appearing for the appellant
also brought to notice of this Court that earlier petition
was filed on 26.04.2025, wherein the parties are same and
even subsequent petition on earlier petition No.6/2024-25,
NC: 2025:KHC:18267-DB
Anjanappa and Muniraju were also parties and in the other
matter also they were the parties along with other
Directors and hence, such being the case two petitions
have filed before the ARCS and also to be taken note of.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the
appellant and also the counsel appearing for the
respondent/State and also taking into note of the order
passed by the Single Judge in WP.No.12804/2025, this
Court by the Single Judge take a note of the relief sought
in the Writ Petition and the reason mentioned in paragraph
No.5 of the order, it is clear that, it is for the petitioner to
move the matter before the ARCS and contest the matter
before the ARCS. In fact, there is no relief, which has been
sought as regards the order passed by the ARCS except to
contend that the said order is illegal, arbitrary and without
application of mind. Having considered this order, it is very
clear that an opportunity is given to approach the ARCS
and also it is important to note that an observation is
made that instead of approaching the ARCS, filed the Writ
Petition before this Court and hence, comes to the
NC: 2025:KHC:18267-DB
conclusion that it is a gross abuse of process of the Court
and apart from that in paragraph No.6, an observation is
made that once earlier, the other Directors who had co-
opted the petitioner had approached this Court without
making the petitioner a party, challenging the said order,
which was also been dismissed by this Court. The manner
in which the earlier Writ Petition had been filed has also
the present petition seeking for the aforesaid relief being a
gross abuse of the process of the Court.
6. Having considered this reasoning of
paragraph No.5 wherein an observation is made that
petitioner ought to have been approached the ARCS, but
in subsequent paragraph No.6 comes to the conclusion
that the same is an abuse of process of Court. Admittedly
this petitioner had not filed any Writ Petition earlier and
when he was not a party the earlier petition if any, filed by
the other co-opted Directors in WP.No. 8198/2025 is not
binding on the petitioner and hence, the very observation
made by the Single Judge that it is an abuse of process
and imposing of cost is erroneous and once the appellant
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18267-DB
is not a party to the earlier proceedings, such observation
ought not to have been made and if he is a party, then if
he has approached the Court again, then it would amount
to an abuse of process but, the very approach of Single
Judge is erroneous and the Single Judge failed to take
note of the said fact into consideration as well as when the
observation is made, ought to have been approached the
ARCS and accordingly after the disposal of the matter also
an application was filed before the ARCS for consideration
of advancement as well as for vacation of the interim
order already granted and when such attempt was made
by the appellant before the ARCS and the same was not
taken up and instead of taking up the matter when the
application was filed on 29.04.2025 itself, adjourned the
matter to 16.05.2025 and hence the ARCS fails to take
note of exigency in the matter and when the date is fixed
for filing of nomination on 17.05.2025 and adjourning the
matter to 16.05.2025, it is nothing but not considering the
grievance of the appellant and when such being the case it
is appropriate to pass an order to set aside the order
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18267-DB
passed by Single Judge by imposing the cost as well as in
coming to the conclusion that, it was an abuse of process.
However, it is made clear by disposing of this Writ Appeal
that, appellant is permitted to file nomination and contest
the election by casting the vote and the same is subject to
the result of decision to be taken by the ARCS in future.
With these observations Writ Appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
AM
