Karnataka High Court
Hulekal Seva Sahakari Sangha Niyamita vs The Karnataka District Central ... on 24 November, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16259
WP No. 106745 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 106745 OF 2025 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
HULEKAL SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA,
HULEKAL-581336, TAL-SIRSI U. K. DISTRICT
REP. BY ITS
OCC: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AGE: 47 YEARS.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H M DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE
BANK LTD, NEW MARKET YARD, SIRSI
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. SANDESH SEETARAM BHAT
A/A 35 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST
R/O. BAROOR, TAL-SIRSI
Digitally signed by UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
RAKESH S
HARIHAR ... RESPONDENTS
Location: High
Court of Karnataka, (BY SRI.A.P. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-SERVED)
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE BEARING NO. 6273/2025-
26 IMPUGNED ORDER ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED. 08-08-
2025 (ANNEXURE-A) and to PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON
BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE INCLUDING THE AWARD OF COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16259
WP No. 106745 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the
following prayer:
"I) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari by Quashing the
Bearing No.6273/2025-26 impugned order issued by
Respondent No.1 dated. 08-08-2025 (Annexure-A).
II) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit
under the facts and circumstances of the case
including the award of costs in the interest of justice
and equity."
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
respondent No.1 in unison would submit the issue in the lis
stands covered by judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of
this Court in W.P. No.104276 of 2023, disposed off on 4TH
October 2023. The Coordinate Bench, held as follows:
"The captioned writ petition is filed by the President
and vice President of 2nd respondent/society assailing the
impugned order passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-B
in nominating 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent/society.
2. The petitioners have questioned the impugned
order vide Annexure-B passed by 1st respondent in
appointing 3rd respondent as a nominee to 2nd
respondent/Society. The petitioner's grievance is that the 3rd
respondent could not have been appointed as a nominee to
the Board of 2nd respondent/Society. The petitioners claim
that in term of definition of nominee as per Section 2(f-3) of
Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short 'the
Act') it is only members of a Board or official of the Co-
operative Society appointed by the Board can represent as a
nominee in other Co-operative Societies. Petitioners claim
that 3rd respondent is just a member of 2nd
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16259
HC-KAR
respondent/Society and he is not the member of the Board
of 1st respondent/Society nor he is an official of respondent
No.1. On these set of grounds, the order passed by 1st
respondent in appointing 3rd respondent as a nominee is
challenged.
3. The 1st respondent to counter the grounds
urged in the writ petition have filed the statement of
objection. The 3rd respondent is appointed as a nominee of
1st respondent to 2nd respondent/Society has not chosen to
contest the proceedings.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned HCGP and learned counsel appearing for 1st
respondent/Society.
5. Perused the material on record.
6. On perusal of Annexures-C and D it is clearly
evident that 3rd respondent is not the member of Board of 1st
respondent/Society. On perusal of Annexure-D it is
forthcoming that he is just a member of 2nd
respondent/Society.
7. Before I proceed further it would be useful for
this Court to cull out the definition of nominee as defined
under Section 2(f-3) of the Act and the same reads as
under;
"[(f-3) 'nominee' means a member of a board
or official of the Cooperative society appointed
by the board to represent that Co-operative
society in other Co-operative societies.]"
8. If the appointment of 3rd respondent who is the
nominee to 2nd respondent/Society on behalf of 1st
respondent is examined in the light of the definition, I am of
the view that the impugned order passed by the 1st
respondent vide Annexure-B is not sustainable. The
definition of nominee clearly indicates that it is only the
member of Board or official of the Co-operative Society who
can be appointed as nominee to the other Co-operative
Societies. The 3rd respondent is not the member of Board of
1st respondent/Society which is evident from Annexure-C
and therefore does not possess the eligibility to be appointed
as a nominee to 2nd respondent/Society. He is also not an
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16259
HC-KAR
official of 1st respondent/society and even on this count
respondent No.3 does not possess the requisite eligibility to
be appointed as a nominee to 2nd respondent/society. The
impugned order passed by 1st respondent in appointing 3rd
respondent as a nominee runs contrary to the definition of
nominee culled out supra. Therefore, the impugned order
vide Annexure-B passed by 1st respondent in appointing 3rd
respondent as a nominee to 2nd respondent/society is liable
to be set-aside.
9. For the reasons stated supra, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order passed by 1st
respondent, dated 23.06.2023 vide
Annexure-B is set-aside."
3. The issue in the lis is also akin to what is decided by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment.
4. In that light, the petition is allowed in the same
terms that the afore-quoted petition stood disposed.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
VNP / CT: ANB
