Karnataka High Court
Sri Thilak Kumar S vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 May, 2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT APPEAL NO.280 OF 2025 (GM-KSR)
CONNECTED WITH
WRIT APPEAL No.234 OF 2025 (GM-KSR)
IN WA NO.280 OF 2025:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI VENUGOPAL C
S/O SRI CHANNAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT NO.158, BYATARAYANAPURA
BEHIND SRI RAMA TEMPLE
SAHAKARANAGAR POST
BENGALURU - 560 092.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI VIVEK REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE
ALONG WITH SRI H. YOGENDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION
M.S. BUILDING
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES
AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF
-2-
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES 2ND ZONE
SAHAKRA SOUDHA, MARGOSA ROAD
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003.
3. KARNATAKA PRADESHA BALIJA SANGHA
1ST MAIN ROAD
CHAMARAJPET
BENGALURU - 560 018
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
4. THE PRESIDENT
KARNATAKA PRADESHA BALIJA SANGHA
1ST MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET
BENGALURU - 560 018.
5. SRI THILAK KUMAR S.
S/O SUBRAMANYA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT NO.13, 1ST STAGE
1ST CROSS, K.R. GARDEN
COX TOWN, JEEVANAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 005.
6. SRI KIRAN KUMAR
S/O MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT NO.16/1, PARK ROAD
COX TOWN, JEEVANAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 005.
7. SRI S. RAMESH
S/O LATE R. SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT No.2360, 1ST 'A' MAIN
C BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR POST
BENGALURU - 560 092.
8. SRI LAKSHMAN
S/O ASHWATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO.133/2, 4TH CROSS
NEAR L AND T FACTORY
BYATARAYANAPURA
-3-
BENGALURU - 560 092.
9. SRI VINAY V.S.
S/O SRI SRINIVAS M.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT NO.171/1
JEEVANAHALLI MAIN ROAD
JEEVAMAHALLI FRASER TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 005.
10. SRI VENKATACHALAPATHI
S/O SRI MUNIRATHNAM
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO.54, 2ND CROSS
SRI RAMA TEMPLE STREET
COX TOWN, JEEVANAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 005.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR R.NOS.1 AND 2;
SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE
ALONG WITH SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE
FOR R.NOS.3 AND 4;
SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE
ALONG WITH SRI P. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR
R.NOS.5 TO 10.)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.3123 OF 2022,
DATED 29TH JANUARY 2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND
ALLOW THE APPEAL IN ITS ENTIRETY.
IN WA NO.234 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI THILAK KUMAR S.
S/O SUBRAMANYA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
-4-
R/AT NO.13, 1ST STAGE
1ST CROSS, K.R. GARDEN
COX TOWN, JEEVANAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 005.
2. SRI KIRAN KUMAR
S/O MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT NO.16/1, PARK ROAD
COX TOWN, JEEVANAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 005.
3. SRI S. RAMESH
S/O LATE R. SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT No.2360, 1ST 'A' MAIN
'C' BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR POST
BENGALURU - 560 092.
4. SRI LAKSHMAN
S/O ASHWATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO.133/2, 4TH CROSS
NEAR L AND T FACTORY
BYATARAYANAPURA
BENGALURU - 560 092.
5. SRI VINAY V.S.
S/O SRI SRINIVAS M.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT NO.171/1, JEEVANAHALLI MAIN ROAD
JEEVAMAHALLI FRASER TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 005.
6. SRI VENKATACHALAPATHI
S/O SRI MUNIRATHNAM
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO.54, 2ND CROSS
SRI RAMA TEMPLE STREET
COX TOWN, JEEVANAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 005.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE
ALONG WITH SRI P. ANAND, ADVOCATE)
-5-
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION
M.S. BUILDING
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES AND
DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
2ND ZONE, SAHAKARA SOUDHA
MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003.
3. KARNATAKA PRADESHA BALIJA SANGHA
1ST MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET
BENGALURU - 560 018
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
4. THE PRESIDENT
KARNATAKA PRADESHA BALIJA SANGHA
1ST MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET
BENGALURU - 560 018.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR R.NOS.1 AND 2;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE
ALONG WITH SRI SURAJ NAIK, ADVOCATE
FOR R.NOS.3 AND 4.)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE DATED 29.01.2025 IN WRIT PETITION
No.3123/2022, ETC.
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, M.I.ARUN J. DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-6-
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N.V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN)
Aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3123 of 2022,
petitioner No.1 therein has preferred Writ Appeal No.280 of
2025 and petitioner Nos.2 to 7 therein have preferred Writ
Appeal No.234 of 2025.
2. Respondent No.3 is a Society registered under the
provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960
('the Act, 1960' for short) and is formed for the welfare of the
persons belonging to 'Balija Community'. Respondent No.2,
who is the District Registrar of Co-operative Societies, by way
of a letter dated 03.01.2022 (vide Annexure-H to the writ
petition) has directed respondent No.3-Society to consider the
request of the petitioners and similarly situated persons for
membership of the Society.
3. As the same has not been acted upon by respondent
No.3, the appellants/petitioners preferred Writ Petition No.3123
of 2022 with the following prayers,
"(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the Respondent No.2 to enforce its
direction issued under the communication
dated 03-01-2022 to Respondent No.3.
(b) Direct the Respondent No.3 to act in
consonance with direction issued under
communication dated 03-01-2022 by the
Respondent No.2 and to provide membership
to Petitioners and others who are eligible to
become members as per rule No.3 of
memorandum of Association of Respondent
No.3 or in alternative to direct the Respondent
No.2 to enroll Petitioners and other similarly
situated persons as members of Respondent
No.3.
(c) Pass such other writ, order or direction that
this Hon'ble Court deems fit to pass in the
circumstances of the case, to meet the ends
of justice."
4. The learned Single Judge on the ground that the term of
the Managing Committee of respondent No.3-Society has
already come to an end, has dismissed the writ petition and
has held that it is for the new Managing Committee to consider
the request of the petitioners to enroll them as members of the
Society and has further directed respondent No.2 to appoint
necessary Election Officer and ensure that elections are held to
the Managing Committee of respondent No.3-Society as
expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the
order. Against the said order, the present writ appeals are
filed.
5. The case of the appellants/petitioners is that they belong
to Balija community and respondent No.3 is formed to uplift the
Balija community and any person who has completed the age
of 18 years belonging to the Balija community can become
members and they are eligible to become members of
respondent No.3-Society. It is submitted that though the
Governing Council has completed its term as on 30.09.2021
itself and the elections were due, the elections have not been
conducted yet for various reasons and the same Governing
Council continues to administer the Society and as per the
bye-laws of the Society, there is no impediment for the Society
to enroll the petitioners and similarly situated persons as
members of the Society and deliberately, the present
Governing Council members have refused to consider the
request of the petitioners and similarly situated persons with
the sole intention of returning to power in the ensuing elections
also.
6. It is submitted that the inaction on part of respondent
No.3-Society, resulted in petitioners approaching respondent
No.2-the District Registrar of Co-operative Societies and upon
verification of the bye-laws of the Society and the law
governing the subject concerned, respondent No.2 has
directed respondent No.3-Society to consider the request of the
petitioners and similarly situated persons in accordance with
law.
7. However, respondent No.3-Society has not acted upon
the same. It is further submitted that as per the bye-laws of the
Society, the Managing Committee once elected continues to be
in office till a new Managing Committee takes over after
elections and is required to perform all the acts that they are
required. It is also submitted that in the instant case the
Managing Committee has not lost its legitimacy and has not
been under suppression. It is submitted that the learned Single
Judge erred in appreciating this particular fact and has
erroneously come to the conclusion that the request of the
appellants/petitioners can be considered only by the new
Managing Committee.
- 10 -
8. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 support the contentions of the
appellants/petitioners and justify the impugned letter issued by
respondent No.2.
9. Per contra, respondent Nos.3 and 4 submit that the
petitioners are seeking to enforce a private right and the writ
petition could not have been entertained under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. They further submit that the dispute
pertains to the membership of the petitioners and this Court
should not exercise its powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the term of the
Managing Committee has already come to an end, the request
of the petitioners cannot be considered, and hence, the
direction issued by respondent No.2 cannot be implemented. It
is also contended that respondent No.2 has issued the
impugned letter dated 03.01.2022 (vide Annexure-H to the writ
petition) without any authority of law.
10. The questions that arise for consideration in these
appeals are as under,
(i) Whether this Court can entertain these writ appeals?
- 11 -
(ii) Whether respondent No.2 could have issued the
impugned letter dated 03.01.2022 (vide Annexure-H
to the writ petition)?
(iii) Given the facts and circumstances of the case,
whether respondent No.3-Society can be directed to
consider the request of the petitioners and similarly
situated persons for membership of the Society and
whether the learned Single Judge erred in holding it
otherwise?
11. Admittedly, the learned Single Judge has entertained the
writ petition, in spite of respondent No.3 raising the question of
maintainability of the writ petition at the first instance.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in U.P.State Cooperative Land
Development Bank Ltd. vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey and
Others reported in (1999)1 SCC 741 in paragraphs 26 and 27
has held as under:
"26. A Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in Sri Konaseema Co-operative Central
Bank Ltd., Amalapuram and another vs. N.
Seetharama Raju [AIR 1990 A.P. 171] was
considering the question whether a writ petition lay
against a cooperative society and if it did, in what
circumstances. After examining various decisions
and treatises on the subject, it was stated that
even if a society could not be characterised as a
'State' within the meaning of Article 12, even so a
- 12 -
writ would lie against it to enforce a statutory
public duty which an employee is entitled to
enforce against the society. In such a case, it is
unnecessary to go into the question whether the
society is being treated as a "person" or an
"authority", within the meaning of Article 226 of the
Constitution. What is material is the nature of the
statutory duty placed upon it and the Court is to
enforce such statutory public duty.
27. In view of the fact that control of the State
Government on the appellant is all-pervasive and
the employees had statutory protection and
therefore the appellant being an authority or even
instrumentality of the State, would be amenable to
writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226
of the Constitution, it may not be necessary to
examine any further the question if Article 226
makes a divide between public law and private
law. Prima facie from the language of Article 226,
there does not appear to exist such a divide. To
understand the explicit language of the article, it is
not necessary for us to rely on the decision of the
English courts as rightly cautioned by the earlier
Benches of this Court. It does appear to us that
Article 226 while empowering the High Court for
issue of orders or directions to any authority or
person, does not make any such difference
between public functions and private functions. It
is not necessary for us in this case to go into this
question as to what is the nature, scope and
amplitude of the writs of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari. They are certainly founded on the
English system of jurisprudence. Article 226 of the
Constitution also speaks of directions and orders
which can be issued to any person or authority
including, in appropriate cases, any Government.
Under clause (1) of Article 367, unless the context
otherwise requires, the General Clauses Act,
1897, shall, subject to any adaptations and
modifications that may be made therein under
Article 372, apply for the interpretation of the
Constitution as it applies for the interpretation of
an Act of the legislature of the Dominion of India.
- 13 -
"Person" under Section 2(42) of the General
Clauses Act shall include any company or
association or body of individuals, whether
incorporated or not. The Constitution in not a
statute. It is a fountainhead of all the statutes.
When the language of Article 226 is clear, we
cannot put shackles on the High Courts to limit
their jurisdiction by putting an interpretation on the
words which would limit their jurisdiction. When
any citizen or person is wronged, the High Court
will step in to protect him, be that wrong be done
by the State, an instrumentality of the State, a
company or a cooperative society or association or
body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, or
even an individual. Right that is infringed may be
under Part III of the Constitution or any other right
which the law validly made might confer upon him.
But then the power conferred upon the High
Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution is so
vast, this Court has laid down certain guidelines
and self-imposed limitations have been put there
subject to which the High Courts would exercise
jurisdiction, but those guidelines cannot be
mandatory in all circumstances. The High Court
does not interfere when an equally efficacious
alternative remedy is available or when there is an
established procedure to remedy a wrong or
enforce a right. A party may not be allowed to
bypass the normal channel of civil and criminal
litigation. The High Court does not act like a
proverbial "bull in a china shop" in the exercise of
its jurisdiction under Article 226."
13. Thus, under the present circumstances, where
respondent No.3-Society is constituted for the welfare of the
entire Balija community and any person who has attained
majority, subject to other disqualifications mentioned in the
bye-laws of the Society, can become a member of the said
Society and given the facts that the activities of the Society are
- 14 -
governed by the Act, 1960 and what is sought to be prayed in
the writ petition and the writ appeals is implementation of a
direction issued by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 and
respondent No.2 being a Government Officer, it has to be held
that the writ petition and writ appeals are maintainable.
14. The membership of a person to a Society registered
under the Act, 1960 is essentially one that of a contract
between the Society and the members on the one hand and
inter se members on the other hand. However, the same is
governed by the bye-laws of the Society and the Managing
Committee of the Society is required to act in accordance with
the bye-laws and if a person eligible for membership makes an
application, the same will have to be considered in accordance
with the bye-laws of the Society and the law applicable.
15. The elected representatives to the Governing Council of
the Society as per the bye-laws shall be elected once in three
years. However, the bye-laws states they shall continue in
office and perform their duties till the next Governing Council is
elected. In other words, as per the bye-laws of the Society,
even after a lapse of three years there is a provision for
- 15 -
extension of the term of the Governing Council under certain
circumstances.
16. Annexure-B to the writ petition is the proceedings of the
Annual General Body meeting of respondent No.3-Society and
it reveals that the term of the Governing Council was extended
by six more months. It is not the case of respondent No.3 that
during the said extended term, the Governing Council
functioned with restricted powers. Thereafter, it is seen that for
various reasons including the reason of COVID, the election to
respondent No.3-Society has not been conducted even today
and the same Governing Council is functioning with full powers
as per the bye-laws.
17. The documents also reveal that there have been
complaints against functioning of respondent No.3-Society and
the same have been made to respondent No.2-District
Registrar of Co-operative Societies by the aggrieved members
with a request to appoint an Administrator. It is also seen that
respondent No.3-Society as a reply to the said complaint has
submitted its justification to respondent No.2 and has
contended that no illegality has taken place.
- 16 -
18. In the meanwhile, it is seen that the petitioners as well as
several other persons have applied for membership to
respondent No.3-Society and there has been inaction in
respect of the said applications on the part of respondent No.3-
Society. It has also been alleged that the present management
with an ulterior motive of clinging on to power, though having
the necessary powers under the bye-laws, has not considered
the applications of the petitioners and similarly situated persons
for membership.
19. Taking all these factors into consideration, respondent
No.2 has written a letter to respondent No.3-Society to
consider the applications of the petitioners and similarly
situated persons for membership and thereafter conduct the
necessary elections.
20. Given the aforementioned fact situation, in our opinion,
respondent No.2 has not committed any illegality in issuing the
impugned letter.
21. The impugned letter issued by respondent No.2 does not
direct respondent No.3-Society to necessarily admit the
petitioners and similarly situated persons to the membership of
the Society. He has merely directed them to consider the
- 17 -
request in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society. The
decision is left to respondent No.3-Society whether to admit
them to the membership or not.
22. The next question that arises for consideration is
whether the Governing Council of respondent No.3-Society has
legitimacy to act on the request of the petitioners or not.
23. It is not the case of respondent No.3 that a 'No
Confidence Motion' is moved against them by majority of the
members which is pending consideration or that an
Administrator or a Committee is appointed by the Registrar to
manage only the day-to-day affairs of the Society or that the
Governing Council of the Society is under suppression and
they do not have power to enroll new members. Admittedly,
the Governing Council of respondent No.3-Society is exercising
all its powers under the bye-laws as on today.
24. The lis pertaining to validity of the Governing Council of
respondent No.3 still functioning as on today is not before this
Court and the same need not be answered.
25. As respondent No.3 has not shown any impediment in
law or on facts that its functioning powers have been curtailed
- 18 -
upon expiry of three years, it has to be construed that it is
obliged to consider the request of the petitioners in accordance
with its bye-laws.
26. The learned Single Judge erred in not taking into
consideration the aforementioned facts and only on the ground
that the original term of three years of the Governing Council
had expired, has dismissed the writ petition. Thus, in our
opinion, for the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned
order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be set
aside.
27. Hence, the following order is passed.
28. Writ Appeal Nos.280 of 2025 c/w 234 of 2025 are hereby
allowed;
(i) The impugned order dated 29.01.2025 passed
by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.3123 of 2022 is hereby set aside;
(ii) Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the
request of the petitioners and similarly situated
persons for membership in accordance with the
bye-laws, as directed by the impugned letter
- 19 -
dated 03.01.2022 (vide Annexure-H to the writ
petition), issued by respondent No.2-District
Registrar of Co-operative Societies and admit
such persons who are eligible for membership
and thereafter conduct necessary elections to
respondent No.3 Governing Council;
(iii) The applications filed by the petitioners and
similarly situated persons for membership shall
be considered within a period of four weeks from
today and necessary voter list shall be prepared
thereafter forthwith and the elections to
respondent No.3 shall be conducted within three
months thereafter;
Pending interlocutory applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(N.V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
hkh.
