(BY SRI. B.T. BANUPRAKASH., AAG A/W
SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH., AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR., SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. M.L. SUVARNA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DT: 08-10-2025 BEARING NO. DRB-4/SOR-02/23/2025-26 PASSED
BY RESPONDENT NO.2 MARKED AS ANNEXURE 'C' AND THE ORDER
DT: 03-11-2025 BEARING NO. CO 297 CSR 2025 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 MARKED AS ANNEXURE "G" AND THE LETTER
DT: 4-11-2025 BEARING NO.-NIL- ISSUED BY THIRD RESPONDENT
MARKED AS ANNEXURE 'H" AND THE CALENDAR OF EVENTS DT: 05-
11-2025 BEARING NO. -NIL- ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 MARKED
AS ANNEXURE 'J" BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI AND ETC.
1. CHANDRANAYAR G
S/O. LATE GOVINDANAYAR,
AGE 71 YEARS
RETIRED SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, KPTCL,
R/O. B2, HOME TECH ICON,
2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, S.G. PALYA,
C.V. RAMAN NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560093.
2. M. SHANMUKH,
S/O. MALLESHAPPA,
AGE 75 YEARS,
RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL,
R/O. NO.21, 2ND STAGE, 3RD BLOCK,
NAGARBHAVI,
BENGALURU-560072
.... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN., ADVOCATE)
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001
2. DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES &
DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES,
4TH ZONE, BENGALURU CITY,
SAHAKARA SOUDHA, 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN,
8TH CROSS ROAD, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU-03
3. ADMINISTRATOR,
KEB ENGINEERS' ASSOCIATION, (R)
(REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA SOCIETIES
REGISTRATION ACT)
SILVER JUBILEE BUILDING,
NO.28, RACE COURSE CROSS ROAD,
A.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560009.
4. RETURNING OFFICER,
KEB ENGINEERS' ASSOCIATION(R).
(REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA SOCIETIES
REGISTRATION ACT)
SILVER JUBILEE BUILDING,
NO.28, RACE COURSE CROSS ROAD,
A.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560009.
5. KEB ENGINEERS' ASSOCIATION(R).
(REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA SOCIETIES
REGISTRATION ACT)
SILVER JUBILEE BUILDING,
NO.28, RACE COURSE CROSS ROAD,
A.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560009.
BY ITS SECRETARY
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.T. BANUPRAKASH., AAG A/W
SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH., AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR., SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. M.L. SUVARNA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DT: 08-10-2025 BEARING NO. DRB-4/SOR-02/23/2025-26 PASSED
BY RESPONDENT NO.2 MARKED AS ANNEXURE 'C' AND THE ORDER
DT: 03-11-2025 BEARING NO. CO 297 CSR 2025 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 MARKED AS ANNEXURE "G" AND THE LETTER
DT: 4-11-2025 BEARING NO.-NIL- ISSUED BY THIRD RESPONDENT
MARKED AS ANNEXURE 'H" AND THE CALENDAR OF EVENTS DT: 05-
11-2025 BEARING NO. -NIL- ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 MARKED
AS ANNEXURE 'J" BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND
HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.11.2025, THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
3. The facts in both matters are one and the same, and
as such, are detailed hereunder:
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
3.1. M/s.KEB Engineers' Association (R), who is
Petitioner No.12 in W.P.No.33814/2025 and
Respondent No.5 in W.P.No.33855/2025, is a
Society registered under the Karnataka
Societies Registration Act, 1960 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the KSRA, 1960' for short) with
its area of operation extending to all over
Karnataka and in such places, where KEB
Engineers Employees operate. Its members are
engineers working in the Karnataka Electricity
Board residing throughout Karnataka State.
The said Society is managed by the office
bearers and the Central Executive Committee
elected from its members. It consists of a
President and 38 members duly elected by the
General Body consisting of representation from
each of the cadres, i.e., Superintending
Engineers, Executive Engineers, Assistant
Executive Engineers, Assistant Engineers, two
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
Zonal/Regional representatives duly elected by
the respective Zonal/Regional centre, out of
which one shall be the Secretary of the
Zonal/Regional Centre and members to the
Chief Executive Committee ('CEC' for short),
10 members out of which 6 members are
retired engineers.
3.2. The elections to the Chief Executive Committee,
Zonal Executive Committee, Regional
Executive Committee and Divisional Executive
Committee are required to be held once in
three years to elect new committees and office
bearers in accordance with the provisions of
Bye-laws 10 and 11 of the Society.
3.3. The election to the existing CEC was held on
12.10.2022, where the requisite number of
office bearers had been elected. One Sri.
Sudhakar Reddy T.N., was the General
Secretary of the Society, not cooperating with
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
the remaining office bearers in the functioning
of the Society. In the meeting held on
29.05.2025, he was removed from the said
post, which was confirmed by the General
Body in its meeting held on 10.10.2025.
3.4. Some of the members of the Society who lost in
the election tried to start a parallel association
in the name of 'Karnataka Power Engineers'
Academy'. It is alleged that Sri. Shivaprakash
and Sri.Sudhakar Reddy T.N., who had been
removed from the post of General Secretary,
had misappropriated the funds of the Society
to the tune of Rs.83 lakhs.
3.5. It is alleged that with an intention to avoid
taking of any action, the disgruntled members
of the Society filed a complaint before
Respondent No.2-District Registrar of Societies
and Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies
('DRCS' for short), stating that the term of the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
present Body would come to an end on
11.10.2025 and no action had been taken for
conducting of election.
3.6. It is on that basis that Respondent No.2-DRCS
had issued a notice on 10.09.2025 to the
Petitioners, which was replied to by the
Petitioners on 03.10.2025, explaining the delay
caused by not taking steps to hold the next
election. The said reasons allegedly not being
considered by the DRCS, he passed an order
on 08.10.2025 directing the Petitioners to take
steps for publishing a calendar of events within
seven days and for holding an election within
30 days and restricted the members of CEC
from spending money of the Society on items
other than statutory expenses, daily expenses
and election expenses.
3.7. The Petitioners stated that they have conducted
a meeting of the CEC on 17.10.2025 when
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
steps were taken to hold election and to
appointment of Returning Officer and it was
resolved that the voters list would be prepared
by issuing notices and publishing draft voters
list on 16.11.2025, final voters list on
16.12.2025 and hold election on 05.01.2026
by appointing Smt.H.V. Sandhya, a retired
Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies as a
Returning Officer. This came to be informed by
the Petitioners to the DRCS vide letter dated
17.10.2025. The DRCS is stated to have sent a
proposal on 28.10.2025 to the Government to
appoint an Administrator. The Government
vide order dated 03.11.2025 appointed an
Administrator who assumed charge on
04.11.2025 and appointed Respondent No.4 as
a Returning Officer, alleging that the said
Returning Officer had issued a calendar of
events dated 05.11.2025 to hold elections on
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
29.11.2025 without hearing the Petitioners,
which is in violation of the principles of natural
Justice. The term of the current CEC continues
to be in place and would continue till the end
of 31.03.2026, being the financial year, the
Petitioners are before this Court seeking for
the aforesaid reliefs.
4. Sri M.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the Petitioners in W.P.No.33814/2025 submits
that:
4.1. The Petitioners were elected as the office
bearers of the Society on 12.10.2022, and in
terms of Bye-law 12 of the Society, the term
shall be for a period of three years, but they
will continue to hold the office till a new
Committee is elected in their place. He submits
that until the three-year period is completed
and/or a new Committee is elected, the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
existing Committee will continue to function,
and no elections can be held.
4.2. His submission is that the term 'year' has been
defined under Clause (f) of Section 2 of the
KSRA, 1960, which is reproduced hereunder
for easy reference:
"2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires,--
(a) xxx..
(b) xxx..
(c) xxx..
(d) xxx...
(f) 'year' means the year ending on the 31st day of
December or in the case of any society or class of
societies the accounts of which are made up to any
other date with the previous sanction of the
Registrar, the year ending with such date."
4.3. By referring to Clause (f) of Section 2 of KSRA,
1960, he submits that the term 'year' means
the year ending on 31st December or, in the
case of any Society or class of Societies the
accounts of which are made up by any other
date with the previous sanction of the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
Registrar, the year ending with such date. On
that basis, he submits that the term of three
years of CEC can only end on 31st day of
December since the accounts are to be
fifinalisedy the end of the financial year, i.e.,
31st March of every year.
4.4. By relying on Bye-law 6 of the Society, he
submits that the year of the Association being
the financial year, the term of the CEC shall
continue until 31.03.2026 and would not end
with the expiry of three years from the date of
election.
4.5. His submission is that when year has been
categorically defined in Clause (f) of Section 2
of KSRA, 1960 and bye-law 6 of the Society
refers to the financial year, both of them read
in conjunction can only result in a situation
where the term of the existing Committee
would have to continue till 31.03.2026 and any
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
interpretation otherwise would militate against
the bye-laws and the Act. The bye-law, which
is a contract between the members and the
statute, namely KSRA, 1960.
4.6. The complaint having been filed by disgruntled
members prior to 31.03.2026, no notice could
have been issued by the DRCS on 10.09.2025.
The Petitioners, having replied to the DRCS on
03.10.2025 seeking a six-month extension to
conduct the election, to ensure a smooth
transition and to fulfil the current obligation to
the members. The said aspect has not been
considered by the DRCS. The reasons
furnished by the petitioners, namely, that the
audit was pending and would have to be
completed before a new committee is elected,
there were ongoing projects which include
completion of the Golden Jubilee building
works in Peenya, building construction work in
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
Bidar, Raichur, construction of sports complex,
Mangaluru Zonal Center, and completion of
construction works in Mysore. If an election is
held before the said projects are completed,
there would be a disruption in the completion
of the projects.
4.7. There are various discrepancies in the voters'
list which have been identified, and the same
would require review and rectification to
ensure a fair and accurate election. The new
identity cards and welfare scheme certificates
are required to be issued, and until such cards
are issued, elections cannot be held, there
being various discrepancies in the welfare
schemes, and there being a loss of around
Rs.83 lakhs by the previous Committee. These
needed to be addressed before a new
committee takes charge.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
4.8. Lastly, he submits that, since a census/survey
was initiated by the Government of Karnataka,
in which the majority of the members were
deputed to carry out the enumeration activity,
elections could not be held. In that
background, a request had been made by the
President of the Society seeking an extension
of time until 12.04.2026 to enable the
completion of the aforesaid and conduct the
election smoothly.
4.9. His submission is that when there are so many
grounds which have been stated by the
Committee, none of these grounds have been
considered by the DRCS, Instead, the DRCS,
vide its order dated 08.10.2025 at Annexure-
C, has mechanically, without application of
mind directed the calendar of events to be
published within seven days and elections to
be held within 30 days thereafter. He submits
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
this is completely impractical inasmuch as the
voters' list is required to be finalised, identity
cards are required to be issued, and
identification of members required to be made,
which could not be made within the time
prescribed.
4.10. His submission is also that, as soon as the order
dated 08.10.2025 was received by the Society,
the Society on 17.10.2025 had written to the
DRCS stating that there are 6,800 members to
the Society. Since the Respondents insist for
the election to be held immediately, efforts
would be made by the Society to publish the
draft voters list by 16.11.2025, the time for
filing objections would be granted until
30.11.2025, which shall be considered by
15.12.2025, the final list of voters would be
published by 16.12.2025, and elections would
be held on 05.01.2026.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
4.11. By relying on the said letter dated 17.10.2025,
his submission is that the Society and its
officers bearers have established their
bonafides to conduct the elections by
05.01.2026. This undertaking by the
Committee/Society has not been considered by
DRCS. The DRCS ought to have provided an
opportunity to the Petitioners to explain the
same; instead of doing so, the DRCS has not
considered the submissions made by the
petitioners namely, the notices issued by the
Society, the appointment of Smt.H.V.Sandhya,
a retired Deputy Registrar of Co-operative
Societies as Returning Officer and the steps
taken by the Society to update the member
contact details etc. and the notices which have
been issued to the members. Without
considering all these aspects, the State
Government has also issued the impugned
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
order bearing No.CO 297 CSR 2025 Bengaluru
dated 03.11.2025, appointing an administrator
under Section 27A of the KSRA, 1960. This
action on part of the DRCS and the State
Government is contrary to the applicable law.
4.12. Section 27A (1) of the KSRA is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
"27A. Appointment of Administrator.-
Notwithstanding anything in this Act,--
(1)(a) where any society on account of the
pendency of litigation or otherwise has not held
or is unable to hold the annual general meeting;
or
(b) where the term of office of the members of
the governing Body of a society has expired and
a new governing body has not for any reason
been constituted; or
(c) where on a report made by the Registrar or
otherwise, on enquiry, the State Government
considers it necessary in public interest so to do,
the State Government may, by order published
in the official Gazette, appoint an Administrator
for such Society for such period, not exceeding
six months, as may be specified in the order, to
manage the affairs of the Society:
Provided that for reasons to be recorded in
writing, the State Government may, by like
order, [extend either prospectively or
retrospectively, the said period] 1 by any further
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
periods not exceeding six months at a time, so
however subject to the provisions of clause (5),
the aggregate period shall not extend beyond 2
[four years];
4.13. By relying on Section 27A (1) of the KSRA,
1960, he submits that an appointment of an
Administrator can be made only after
conducting an enquiry on the report received
from the Registrar, which enquiry has to be
held in terms of Section 25 of the KSRA, 1960,
without an enquiry being held, no
Administrator could be appointed. This
distinguishes from the methodology of
appointment of an Administrator under the
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959,
(hereinafter referred to as 'the KCSA, 1959'
for short), more particularly, Section 28A (5)
thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
"28A. Management of co-operative societies
vest in the *board*.-
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
(1) ...
(5) If the new *board* is not constituted under
section 29A, on the date of expiry of the 1 [term of
office of the *board* or if the elections are not held
within the time limits specified in Section 39A,] 1
the Registrar or any other officer within whose
jurisdiction the Society is situated, and who is
auauthorisedy the Registrar, shall be deemed to
have assumed charge as Administrator and he
shall, for all purposes function as such *board* of
management. The Administrator shall, subject to
the control of the Registrar, exercise all the powers
and perform all the functions of the *board* 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 cooperative
Society. 1. Substituted by Act 6 of 2010
w.e.f.03.11.2009.
[Provided that the Registrar shall appoint an
administrator to a Co-operative Society or each of
the co-operative Societies formed after
amalgamation or rereorganisationr division in
accordance with section 14 for a period of three
months and the Administrator so appointed shall
arrange for holding elections to a *board* of such
Co-operative Society or Societies as the case may
be] 1 1. Inserted by Act 13 of 2004 w.e.f.
22.03.2004.
4.14. By referring to Sub-Section (5) of Section 28A
of KCSA, 1959, he submits that under the
scheme of KCSA, 1959, if a new Board is not
constituted under Section 29A as on the date
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
of expiry of the term of 'office' of the Board or
if the election is not held within time limit
specified under Section 29A of KCSA, 1959,
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 and
he shall for all the purposes function as such
Board of Management.
4.15. His submission is that Section 27A of the KSRA,
1960, when juxtaposed to Sub-Section(5)
Section 28A of the KCSA, 1959, there is a
deemed appointment of an Administrator, if
the term of the 'Board' is expired whereas
under Section 27A of the KSRA, 1960, an
enquiry has to be conducted by the State
Government and thereafter, an Administrator
has to be appointed. Thus, he submits that
without an enquiry being conducted, the
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
impugned order dated 03.11.2025 having been
passed, the same is required to be quashed by
this Court and the Society be allowed to hold
elections in the manner as undertaken by the
Society.
4.16. He relies upon the decision of the Full Bench of
this Court in Guddalli Vs. Registrar of
Co-operative Societies1, more particularly,
paras 13 and 14 thereof, which are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
"13. The learned Counsel for the appellant
submitted that the Decision of the Division Bench in
Rangaiah's case (supra), has wrongly assumed that
Explanation to Section 28A(3) is also applicable to
sub-section (4) thereof. It was contended that the
Legislature has used the term "co-operative year" in
sub-section (3) while it has not repeated the said
term while enacting sub-section (4) and on the
contrary has used the phrase "every year" which
would clearly show a different legislative intention
for governing the term of elected office bearers of
the Society as contra-distinguished from the term of
the Managing Committee itself. In this connection,
your attention was also invited to another Decision
of the Division Bench of this Court in H.N.RAMESH
vs PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE & RURAL
ILR 1993 KAR 2367
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. to show that during the
extended term of the Managing Committee election
of office-bearers has to be held. This election of
office-bearers is not necessarily connected with the
original term of Managing Committee as prescribed
by sub-section (3) of Section 28A of the Act.
Reliance was placed on the Decision of the Supreme
Court in THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE vs
ARTHUR PAUL BENTHALL, and in the case of
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs
M/S EAST WEST IMPORT & EXPORT (P) LTD., for
submitting that when two words of different import
are used in the statute, they must be given their
separate meanings. Placing reliance on the decision
in the case of UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER vs
DEOKI NANDAN AGARWALS, it was contended that
the Court cannot legislate if the words in the statute
are clear. That when the term "year" is used in sub-
section (4), it cannot be read as "co-operative
year", which has a different connotation. It was,
therefore, submitted that on a conjoint reading of
sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) of Section 28A
of the Act, it should be held that the election for the
office bearers of the Society should be held from
amongst the members of the Managing Committee
every year and that the term 'year' being not
defined by the, Act should have the same meaning
as is given by Section 3(43) of the Karnataka
General Clauses Act, 1899 that is, year reckoned
according to the British Calendar. That the
Judgment of the Division Bench in ILR 1992(4) KAR
3784 (supra), must be held to be not laying down
good law. The learned Counsel for the 3rd
respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the
word 'co-operative year' is directly connected with
the working of the co-operative societies under the
Act, and that Explanation to sub-section (3) of
Section 28A is for the purpose of the entire Section
28A, which would include sub-section (4) thereof. It
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
was also contended that sub-section (4) of Section
28A does not control the term of the office bearers
at all. All that it has enjoined is that members of the
Committee shall elect every year the office bearers
from among themselves. Mr S.R.Nayak, learned
Government Advocate, also supported the
contentions of the contesting respondents and
submitted that life of the Managing Committee itself
is circumscribed by three co-operative years, as
indicated in sub-section (3) of Section 28A of the
Act. If that is so, the office bearers who are to be
elected from amongst the Managing Committee
members, cannot have for their term a different
yardstick of twelve calendar months as contended
by the learned Counsel for the appellant. That the
term "co-operative year" is defined artificially in the
Act, and that would govern the terms of various
committees of the co-operative societies. That the
term of the office bearers cannot be beyond that of
the Committee.
14. Having given our anxious consideration to the
rival contentions, we find that in the light of clear
language of sub-section (4) of Section 28A, it is not
possible to accept the contentions of the learned
Counsel for the respondents that the term 'year' as
employed by sub-section (4) must have the same
meaning as the term 'co-operative year' employed
by sub-section (3). When the Legislature in one of
the sub-sections used the term 'co-operative year'
for denoting the term of the Managing Committee
and advisedly used the term "every year" in sub-
section (4) while dealing with the election of office
bearers of the Society to be elected from amongst
the members of the Managing Committee, it
becomes obvious that the term of the office bearers
was linked up with actual year and not with a co-
operative year. It is true that Explanation to sub-
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
section (3) starts by saying that it is for the purpose
of the Section. But the remaining part of the
Explanation clearly indicates the limited field on
which it operates, namely, for the purpose of
computing the term of the office of the Committee
and it cannot be projected any further by any
process of interpretation, as that would amount to
legislating on the topic. It is also to be kept in view
that the term 'year' is not defined by the Act, and
hence we can certainly fall back upon the provisions
of the Karnataka General Clauses Act. Section 3(43)
of that Act, defines the term 'year' to mean, year
reckoned according to the British calendar. That
means, 12 months computed according to British
calendar. There is nothing in the Act, which makes
this meaning of the term 'year' repugnant to the
context for delimiting the term of the elected office
bearers. This result also flows from the express
language of sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) of
Section 28A of the Act. Reconciling the two
provisions, it becomes obvious that once a
Managing Committee has been elected, its life will
be three co-operative years only. But within that
span of life the Managing Committee every year is
called upon by sub-section (4) of Section 28A of the
Act, to elect the office bearers including the
President from amongst its members. It is of course
true that while undertaking such yearly exercise for
election of office bearers from amongst its
members, the Managing Committee may find that
the last Body of the elected office-bearers may not
get the full span of twelve months life as the
Managing Committee's own term may come to an
end by the end of the third co-operative year. But
that would happen not because of sub-section (4) of
Section 28A of the Act, but because of the fact that
parent body itself ceases to exist at the end of the
third co-operative year, taking with it the office
bears elected from amongst its own members who
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
have to vacate their offices as Managing Committee
members at the end of the third co-operative year.
Reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the
respondent on Section 29A of the Act, also is of no
avail as that refers to the commencement of the
term of the office of the Managing Committee. That
has nothing to do with the term of office of the
elected office bearers from amongst the members
of the Managing Committee as laid down by sub-
section (4) of Section 28A. The learned Counsel for
the respondent No.3 had also placed strong reliance
on Section 63, especially sub-section (4A) thereof.
Even this provision is of no avail to the respondents
for resolving the present controversy for the simple
reason that for audit, inquiry, inspection and
surcharge, accounts have to be made up for each
co-operative year and therefore, the statement
showing the receipts and disbursements, profit and
loss and the balance sheet etc., would naturally
refer to that co-operative year. The term 'year' as
employed in the latter part of sub-section (4A) of
Section 63 must necessarily take colour from the
term 'each co-operative year' as employed in the
beginning of that sub-section. Such is not the case
with sub-section (4) of Section 28A which covers
entirely a different field independent of the field
covered by sub-section (3) of Section 28A. Reliance
placed on Section 27 of the Act, is also of no avail
for deciding the present question as all that it
mandates is that annual general meeting of a co-
operative society has to be held once in a year.
That year has nothing to do with the term of the
office bearers of a co-operative society that are to
be elected as per Section 28A(4). A faint attempt
was also made by the learned Counsel for
respondent No.3 to rely upon the bye-laws of the
Society to indicate a different intention. But it is
well settled that bye-laws cannot cut across the
mandatory scope of the Section. Hence, this
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
attempt was also a futile attempt. To recapitulate,
sub-section (4) of Section 28A enjoins the members
of the Managing Committee to elect from amongst
themselves, the officers of the co-operative Society
every year. It thus implicitly prescribes the term of
the earlier elected Body of office bearers to be one
year, while sub-section (3) of Section 28A deals
with the term of office of the Managing Committee
itself, which is laid down to be three co-operative
years. Thus both these provisions deal with
different topics and are enacted for catering to the
requirement of different facts situations. It is true
that sub-section (4) of Section 28A nowhere
expressly provides for term of the officers of the co-
operative Society, who are elected from amongst
the members of the Managing Committee. But it is
clear that the fresh elections to the office bearers of
the Society have to be held after the term of the
earlier elected Body of office bearers expires. We
may, in this connection, usefully refer to the
Decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
H.N.Ramesh vs Primary Co-operative Agriculture &
Rural Development Bank Ltd (supra), wherein the
Division Bench consisting of RAMA JOIS, J, (as he
then was) and MIRDHE, J., speaking through RAMA
JOIS, J., observed in para-5 of the said decision, in
connection with sub-section (4) of Section 28A, as
under:
"(4) The members of the Committee shall, every
year, elect from among themselves the officers of
the co-operative Society. The election for the office
bearers shall be by ballot.
The above sub-section requires that the members
of the Committee elected at a General Body Meeting
shall every year elect from among themselves the
officers of the co-operative Society. There is no
doubt that the bye-laws of the Society with which
we are concerned provide for an election of a
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
President and Vice President. Therefore, under sub-
section (4) of Section 28A of the Act, it is obligatory
for the Board/Committee of Management to elect
the President and Vice President every year. From
this, it follows the terms of office of President and
Vice President, is one year."
We wholly concur with this observation."
4.17. By relying on Guddalli's case, he submits that
though the said decision was with reference to
KCSA, 1959, the Full Bench has dealt with the
definition of 'year' and has come to a
conclusion that the 'year' would have to be
reckoned according to the British calendar,
which is 12 months, which would end on 31st
December 2025. He submits without prejudice
to his contention that under Bye-law 6 of the
Society, insofar as the Society is concerned, is
a financial year which would end on 31st March
2026. Thus, either as a calendar year or as a
financial year, the term of the Committee has
not come to an end as on date. The contention
of the Respondents that the term has come to
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
an end on 12.10.2025 is completely
misconceived, the Petitioners, the elected
managed Committee is required to be
permitted to discharge its duties during the
term for which it was elected, i.e., until
31.03.2026 or until a new Committee is
elected, an Administrator could not have been
appointed under Section 27A of the KSRA
1960.
4.18. He relies upon the decision of a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of
R.Mallikarjunaiah and Others Vs. State of
Karnataka and others2 , more particularly,
paras 3, 5, 6 and 8 thereof, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"3. Petitioners have contended that Act does not
mandate that an association or Society registered
under the Act is to be renewed and it only
mandates that such Society registered under the
Act is required to furnish balance sheet, statement
of audited account of income and expenditure and
2015 SCC Online Kar 9438: (2016) 2 Kant LJ 508
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
also list of members of governing Body after every
annual general meeting and 4th respondent-
Association has been filing aforestated documents
before 3rd respondent immediately after every
annual general meeting and as such impugned
order holding that Society had not been renewed
is without any statutory force and in view of same
Administrator cannot be appointed on that
ground.
5. 3rd respondent has filed statement of
objections supporting the impugned order and
contending inter alia that Petitionershave no locus
standi to file the writ petitions and on account of
complaint received against 4th respondent-
Association that it had committed serious acts of
omission and commission, an enquiry came to be
initiated and it was found in enquiry there has
been non-compliance of mandatory provisions of
the Act viz., Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act and
as such there was no need for issuing any notice
to the 4th respondent-Association or to any other
persons prior to appointment of Administrator. It
is contended that subsequent to enquiry report
submitted by Enquiry Officer as per Annexure-G,
3rd respondent-District Registrar of Societies
forwarded the report to 1st respondent and
recommended for appointing an Administrator by
communication dated 29-1-2015-Annexure-H and
as such 1st respondent in exercise of power
vested under Section 27-A of the Act has
appointed an Administrator to 4th respondent-
Association for a period of six months and there is
no infirmity in the said order whatsoever. Hence,
respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ
petitions.
6. Perusal of the records would indicate that
Petitioners1 and 2 are the Joint Secretaries of 4th
respondent-Association and 3rd petitioner is a
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
member of 4th respondent-Association and he is
also Vice-President of Kho Kho Federation of India
which is the parent body of 4th respondent-
Association. 5th respondent herein is said to have
filed a complaint before 3rd respondent alleging
certain irregularities in the working of 4th
respondent-Association as per Annexure-D. Based
on said complaint third respondent initiated
enquiry and issued notice to 4th respondent-
Association. The Headquarters Assistant, Office of
the District Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru had
been appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into
the allegations made by complainant. 3rd
respondent issued notice on 28-12-2011 to 4th
respondent-Association. During the course of
enquiry 2nd petitioner has appeared on behalf of
4th respondent-Association and has filed the
copies of balance sheet, statement of audited
accounts of income and expenditure of
asAssociationnd also the list of members of
governing Body as was filed before 3rd
respondent from 1975-2010 vide Annexure-F.
Enquiry Officer on perusal of records has
submitted a report on 21-6-2014 Annexure-G.
Said Enquiry Officer who conducted enquiry into
the allegations made in the complaint has arrived
at a conclusion that allegations made against 4th
respondent-Association of not having submitted
the records is not proved by complainant; it is
also held that complainant was fully aware of the
audited balance sheet, income and expenditure
accounts of 4th respondent-Association for the
past 15 years and as such held there was no
material to establish that there has been any
infraction in conducting the affairs of 4th
respondent-Association. Despite such finding
having been arrived at by Enquiry Officer, he has
opined that 4th respondent namely
asAssociationnd its office-bearers have not been
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
able to establish or prove that the contents of
complaint is false and he has further opined that
there is no material to show that as Association
which was registered under the Karnataka
Societies Registration Act as having been renewed
from time to time the delegate of 3rd respondent
has neither enquired into the requirement of
annual renewal of 4th respondent-Association nor
he has called upon 4th respondent to offer its
explanation if any for its non-renewal every year.
Said report having been forwarded by 3rd
respondent to 1st respondent, 1st respondent has
intimated 2nd respondent to tender its opinion as
to whether a Administrator has to be appointed to
4th respondent-Association and called upon the
2nd respondent to submit a report in this regard
by communication dated 24-2-2015 Annexure-J.
On account of alleged report submitted by 2nd
respondent on 2-3-2015 to 1st respondent
impugned order dated 29-4-2015 Annexure-A
appointing Administrator to 4th respondent-
Association came to be passed by 1st respondent.
It requires to be noticed at this juncture itself that
enquiry came to be conducted by delegate of 3rd
respondent was based on a complaint given by
5th respondent and based on said enquiry
conducted in exercise of power vested under
Section 25 of Karnataka Societies Registration
Act, 1960 report dated 21-6-2014 Annexure-G
came to be submitted by the Enquiry Officer, who
has clearly opined that contents of complaint is far
from truth. In other words he has concluded that
documents produced by the 4th respondent-
Association would clearly establish that there is no
merit in the allegations made by 5th respondent
against 4th respondent-Association. It has been
recorded by Enquiry Officer in his report to the
following effect:
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
" ಾ ಗಳ ಮತು ಪ ಾ ಗಳ ಾರ ೆಯ ನಂತರ ಗಂ ೕರ ಸ ರೂಪದ ೆಲವ
ಅಂಶಗಳ ಕಂಡುಬಂ ರುವ ದು ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡಂ'ೆ ಇರುತ)ೆ:
(1) ಪ ಾ ಗಳ *ಾ ರಂಭ ಂದ ತಹ-ವ/ೆ 0ೆ ಸ123ರತಕ4ಂತಹ
)ಾಖ6ೆಗ70ೆ ಸುಳ 8 ಎಂದು :ರೂ;ಸುವ ಬ0ೆ< =ಾಗೂ >ಾತ?ಪ@ಸುವ ಬ0ೆ<
ಾ ಗಳ Aಾವ )ೇ :ಜ ಎಂಬು)ಾC ಸDEFಕ?ಸುವ )ಾಖ6ೆಗಳನುG
ಸ123ರುವ ಲ2.
(2) ಾ ಗಳH ಕೂಡ ಸುIಾರು 15 ವಷK ಂದ ಈ ದೂರು :ೕ@ರುವ Lಂ ನ
Mಾಂಕದವ/ೆಗೂ ಕೂಡ ಸಂಘದ12 ಇವರೂ ಕೂಡ ಒಬP ಸದಸQ/ಾCದುR, ಅ12
ನSೆಯುವ ಖಚುK ೆಚU, ಾEKಕ 6ೆಕ4ಪತ ಅನುVೕದMೆಯ ಬ0ೆ< ಅವ?0ೆ
ಅ? ತು.
(3) ಪ ಾ ಗಳ ಸಂಘದ MೋಂದW ಾX)ೆ, 1960ರ ?ೕ'ಾQ ಕ ಮ
ಜರುCಸುವಂ'ೆ =ೇ7 ೆ :ೕ@ರುವ ದು =ೊರತುಪ@3 ¨ÉÃgÁåªÀ ಸಂಘದವರು
ಸ123ರುವ )ಾಖ6ೆಗYೇ ಸುಳ 8 ಎಂದು =ೇಳ ವ Aಾವ )ೇ ¸Àà¹ÖÃಕ ಸತಕ ಂತಹ
)ಾಖ6ೆಗಳನುG ಸ123ರುವ ಲ2."
8. Undisputedly 1st respondent has exercised
power under Section 27-A of the Act to appoint an
Administrator to 4th respondent-Association based
on the report of Enquiry Officer dated 21-6-2014
Annexure-G. When said report itself does not even
remotely suggest that contents of complaint has
been proved or in other words complaint itself
being meritless 3rd respondent could not have
jumped to a conclusion that Association (4th
respondent) had not obtained renewal of its
registration without any material available before
it. As such based on said report 1st respondent
could not have passed impugned order, that too
without complying with principles of natural
Justice. After receipt of report, Annexure-G from
Enquiry Officer through 3rd respondent, 1st
respondent ought to have extended an
opportunity to 4th respondent-Association to reply
to said report and only after hearing 4th
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
respondent or its office-bearers or its authorised
representative, 1st respondent could have taken
steps to pass impugned order."
4.19. By referring to R.Mallikarjunaiah's case, his
submission is that when a report of the
Registrar is submitted, an enquiry is required
to be conducted under Section 25 of the KSRA,
1960. No such enquiry having been conducted,
an Administrator under Section 27A of KSRA,
1960, could not be appointed. On the above
basis, he submits that W.P.No.33814/2025 is
required to be allowed and the relief sought to
be granted.
5. Sri Mahesh R. Uppin, learned Counsel appearing for
the Petitioners in W.P.No.33855/2025 submits that:
5.1. He adopts the arguments of Sri M.R.Rajagopal,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners in W.P.No.33814/2025.
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
5.2. He reiterates that he does not ascribe to the
definition of calendar 'year' but contends that
the term would end on the financial year after
finalisation of accounts on 31.03.2026 and no
Administrator could be appointed until
31.03.2026.
5.3. He also reiterates that without an enquiry under
Section 25 of KSRA, 1960, no Administrator
could be appointed under Section 27A of KSRA,
1960.
5.4. His further submission is that the entire action
having been initiated, at the behest of
disgruntled members, this Court ought to take
notice of the said fact and quash the
appointment of an Administrator permitting the
executive members of Board of Management to
conduct the election.
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
6. Sri.V.G.Bhanu Prakash, learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the State in both the matters,
would submit that:
6.1. The contentions of the Petitioners are
completely misconceived, inasmuch as, the
appointment of an Administrator has been
made under Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of
Section 27A of KSRA, 1960, on account of the
term of the 'office' of the members of the
governing Body of a Society having been
expired and a new governing body has not
been constituted.
6.2. Insofar as exercise of powers under Clause (b)
of Sub-Section (1) of Section 27A of KSRA,
1960, he submits that no enquiry is required
to be held, it is only when a report is made by
the Registrar. On enquiry, if the State
Government considers it necessary in public
interest to do so where a report has been
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
made by Registrar or otherwise, if the State
Government were to excise powers under
Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 27A of
KSRA, 1960, then would an enquiry under
Section 25 of the KSRA, 1960 be required,
those could be for any other reasons including
misappropriation, maladministration or the
like. When powers under Clause (b) of Sub-
Section (1) of Section 27A of KSRA, 1960,
there is no requirement for any enquiry to be
held.
6.3. Insofar as the term of 'office' of the Committee
is concerned, by referring to the reply of the
Petitioners dated 03.10.2025, he submits that
the Petitioners themselves accepted that the
term for the current executive Committee was
slated to expire on 12.10.2025 and a request
was made for a six months extension. The said
fact of expiry of the term was reiterated in the
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
letter of the Managing Committee dated
17.10.2025. Hence, the contention now urged
that the term would have to be considered with
reference to the year, namely the British
calendar year ending on 31.12.2025 or by
referring Bye-law 6 of the Society that the
financial year would end on 31.03.2026 is
completely misconceived and is an
afterthought.
6.4. His submission is that once a managing
Committee has been elected for a fixed term of
three years, the said period of the Committee
would have to be calculated from the date on
which the election took place and not any
other date.
6.5. On the above basis, he submits that the term of
the Committee which was elected and took
office on 12.10.2022 expired on 12.10.2025,
no new Committee having been constituted
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
exercising powers under Clause (b) of Sub-
Section (1) of Section 27A of KSRA, 1960, the
order dated 03.11.2025 has been passed
appointing an Administrator. The existing
Committee cannot insist that it will hold the
election to the Society after its term expires;
the existing Committee loses its standing after
the expiry of the term, which occurred on
12.10.2025. On that basis, he submits that a
calendar of events having already been issued
in terms of Annexure-J produced along with
the petitions, the list of eligible voters having
already been finalised, the elections now being
proposed to be held on 29.11.2025, this Court
ought not to interfere with the election process
which have already commenced and ought to
permit the election to be completed. If the
Petitioners have any grievance as regards the
election to be held, they could always approach
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
the appropriate forum seeking an appropriate
relief.
7. Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel, who
appears for the intervener, being certain other
members of the Society, submits that:
7.1. He reiterates the arguments of the learned
Additional Advocate General and submits that
if the contention of the Petitioners were to be
accepted, then irrespective of the date of
which the election were to be held, the term
would come to an end either at the end of the
calendar year on 31st December of that year or
the ending of the financial year. He gives an
example by stating that if the term were to
come to an end on 15.04.2025, the
interpretation of the Petitioners were to be
accepted, the term would stand extended till
31.12.2025, if the calendar year is taken into
account or 31.3.2026, the financial year were
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
to be taken into account, thus providing one
extra year to the Committee to function, which
is not what is envisaged.
7.2. His submission is also that the Committee,
having been elected and come into being on
12.10.2022, the said term expired on
11.10.2025 and there can be no extension of
the term by referring to an artificial definition
of the calendar year or financial year.
7.3. Insofar as bye-law 12 of the Society is
concerned, he submits that the Society, having
been registered nearly 60 years ago, the said
Bye-law was one which was agreed upon
between the members before the introduction
of Section 27A of KSRA, 1960 by way of an
amendment in the year, 1976. Thus, the bye-
law cannot override the statute and extend the
term of the elected Committee.
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
7.4. On the above basis, he submits that the writ
petitions are required to be dismissed and the
election process be required to continue.
8. Heard Sri.M.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel for
the Petitioners in W.P.No.33814/2025, Sri Mahesh R.
Uppin, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in
W.P.No.33855/2025, Sri.V.G.Bhanuprakash, learned
Additional Advocate General for respondent Nos.1 to
4 and Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel
for for the intervenor in both the matters.
9. The points that would arise for consideration are:
1) In a Society registered under the
Karnataka Societies Registration Act,
1960, whether the term of 'office' of the
elected Committee would end on the
expiry of the term mentioned in the bye-
laws or would it stand extended by
referring to the definition of 'year' under
Clause (f) of Section 2 of the Karnataka
Societies Registration Act, 1960 to be a
calendar year ending on 31st December, of
that year or by reference to any bye-law of
the Society where the financial year ends
on 31st March of that year, or would the
Committee continue to be in office until
new Committee is elected?
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
2) Whether, while exercising powers under
Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section
27A of KSRA, 1960, the principles of
natural Justice have to be followed,
providing an opportunity for the existing
Committee to be heard before an order of
appointing an Administrator is passed?
3) Whether, while exercising powers under
Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section
27A of KSRA, 1960, an enquiry under
Section 25 of the KSRA Act, 1960, is
required to be conducted before the
exercise of such power.
4) In the present case, is the appointment of
an Administrator proper and correct, or
does it require any interference of this
Court?
5) What order?
10. I answer the above points as under;
11. ANSWER TO POINT NO.1: In a Society
registered under the Karnataka Societies
Registration Act, 1960, whether the term of
'office' of the elected Committee would end on
the expiry of the term mentioned in the bye-
laws or would it stand extended by referring to
the definition of 'year' under Clause (f) of
Section 2 of the Karnataka Societies
Registration Act, 1960 to be a calendar year
ending on 31st December, of that year or by
reference to any bye-law of the Society where
the financial year ends on 31st March of that
year, or would the Committee continue to be in
office until new Committee is elected?
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
11.1. The submission of Sri. M.R. Rajagopal, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners
firstly, is that the accounts of the Society being
finalised on 31st March of every year for the
purpose of calculation of the year, it is this 31st
March, which needs to be taken into
consideration, on that basis the contention is
that if the term were to expire before 31st
March, it will stand extended until 31st March.
11.2. In the alternative, his submission is that in
terms of Clause (f) of Section 2 of the KSRA,
1960, the year would end on 31st day of
December, on that basis the contention is that
if the term were to expire before 31st
December, it will stand extended until 31st
December.
11.3. Lastly, he submits that in terms of by-law 12,
the term of the office of the Managing
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
Committee is for a period of three years, and
the Committee shall hold office till a new
Committee is elected. On that basis, his
submission is that, the election not having
been held until election is held and a new
Committee takes charge, the present
Committee would continue to hold office or in
the alternative the financial year ending with
31st March, the Committee shall continue to
hold office until 31.03.2026 or in the
alternative at the least his contention is that
the Committee shall hold office until 31st
December, 2025.
11.4. The submissions of Sri. B.G.Bhanuprakash,
learned Additional Advocate General and
Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the impleading applicant, who
was allowed to come on records as an
intervener, are that the term being a fixed
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
period of three years when the three years
term get over, the term would come to an end
and before such term coming to an end
election is to be held.
11.5. It is in the context of these two sets of
submissions that this Court would have to
decide the above issue.
11.6. Reliance having been placed on Clause 12 of
the Bye-law of the Society, which is extracted
hereunder for easy reference:
"12. Term
The term of the C.E.C., Z.E.C., R.E.C., and
D.E.C., shall be for a period of 3 years, but they
will continue to hold the office till new committee
is elected in their place."
11.7. A perusal of Clause 12 of Bye-law of Society
would indicate as if that the term of the
Committee would be till the new Committee is
elected and takes charge. However, what is to
be considered is that these Bye-laws were
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
drafted prior to the amendment to the KSRA,
1960, introducing Section 27A. The said
Section 27, having been introduced by way of
the amendment Act 65 of 1976, which came
into force on 02.07.1976, that is to say,
Section 27A came to be introduced post the
registration of the Society in question.
11.8. The explanatory note regarding Amending Act
65 of 1976 is hereunder reproduced for easy
reference:
"Amending Act 65 of 1976:-- When general
body meeting is not or cannot be held and a new
governing body is not or cannot be elected, the
affairs of a society constituted under the
Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 will
go into stalemate. Where the Society is, for
example one which has been given large
Government aid by way of land or cash, or is
running big educational institutions, a stalemate
in the top management body would cause much
hardship or harm to many and would affect
public interest very considerably. When such a
stalemate arises, there is no remedy in the
existing Karnataka Societies Registration Act,
1960; there is no provision in the Karnataka
Societies Registration Act for the appointment of
an Administrator to temporarily manage the
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
affairs of such a Society until a valid election is
held and a new governing body takes charge.
It was therefore considered necessary to amend
the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960
to provide of an administrator in the above
mentioned situation. Provision is made in
general terms that where any society has not
held or is unable to hold the annual general body
meeting or where the terms of office has been
expired and a new governing body has not been
constituted or where the State consider it
necessary in public interest so to do, an
Administrator may be appointed for a short
period. It is further provided that the
Administrator should take steps to convene the
general body meeting and hold elections for the
constitution of the new governing Body before
his term expires. In other words the whole thing
is a shop-gap arrangement. Hence the
Ordinance was promulgated by insertion of new
Section 27-A after section 27 of the Karnataka
Societies Registration Act, 1960."
11.9. A perusal of the said note would indicate that
the insertion of the said Section was
necessitated on account of the fact that, when
a General Body Meeting is not or cannot be
held, and a new Governing Body is not or
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
cannot be elected, the affairs of the Society
constituted under the Act will go into a
stalemate. Thus, the situation which is
contemplated was exactly contrary to bye-law
12 of the Society inasmuch as earlier the
Society is used to have such a Clause and the
governing Board would continue to be in power
without holding a meeting, and it is in that
background that the legislature in its wisdom,
thought it fit to introduce Section 27A and
provided for appointment of an Administrator
when the term of the 'governing body' had
expired and a new governing body had not
been elected, providing authority to the
Administrator to take steps to convene the
General Body Meeting and hold election for the
constitution of the new governing Body before
his term expires.
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
11.10. Section 27A has been reproduced herein
above. A perusal of Clause (a) of Sub-Section
(1) of Section 27A of KSRA, 1960, would
indicate that where any Society, on account of
pendency of litigation or otherwise, has not
held or is unable to hold the Annual General
Meeting, an Administrator could be appointed.
11.11. In terms of Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of
Section 27A of KSRA, 1960, where the term of
office of the members of the governing Body of
a Society has expired, and a new governing
body is not for any reason being constituted,
an Administrator could be appointed.
11.12. In terms of Clause (c) of Sub-Section (1) of
Section 27A of KSRA, 1960, where on a report
made by the Registrar or otherwise, on
enquiry, the State Government considers it
necessary in public interest so to do, an
Administrator could be appointed.
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
11.13. The Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-Section (1)
of Section 27A of KSRA, 1960, are separated
by the disjunctive "or" i.e, in each of the above
situations, an Administrator could be
appointed, each of them being independent of
the other.
11.14. The submission of Sri M.R. Rajagopal, learned
Senior Counsel, is that, before the
appointment of an Administrator, a hearing is
required to be provided, inasmuch as the State
Government has to consider it necessary in the
public interest that an Administrator is required
to be appointed.
11.15. He contradistincts this with Clause 5 of Sub-
Section 28A of KCSA, 1959, which has been
reproduced herein above and submits that the
appointment of an Administrator under the
KCSA, 1959 is automatic on the expiry of the
term, whereas under Section 27A of the KSRA,
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
1960, the State Government must pass an
order and whenever any order is required to be
passed, it would necessarily require principles
of natural Justice to be followed.
11.16. I am unable to agree with the said submission
of the learned Senior Counsel inasmuch as, as
indicated above Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of
Sub-Section (1) of Section 27A of KSRA, 1960,
are disjunctive in nature. Clause (c) of Sub-
Section (1) of Section 27A of KSRA, 1960, is
not aptly worded inasmuch as Clause (c)
consists of two different portions. The first
portion being, "where on a report made by the
Registrar or otherwise, on enquiry, the State
Government considers it necessary in public
interest so to do" and the second portion
being, "the State Government may, by order
published in the official gazette, appoint an
Administrator for such Society for such period,
- 56 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
not exceeding six months, as may be specified
in the order, to manage the affairs of the
Society:".
11.17. The above, in my considered opinion, are two
distinct portions, inasmuch as the second
portion extracted above would apply to all
clauses, i.e., (a), (b) and (c), and not only to
Clause (c) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 27A of
KSRA, 1960. In that background, if Clause (c)
were to be looked at, then it is only in terms of
Clause (c) where a report has been made by
the Registrar or otherwise, on enquiry, the
State Government considers it necessary in
public interest to do so, that is to say, it is only
in terms of Clause (c) that the State
Government has to consider it necessary to do
so. There is no such requirement in Clause (a)
and Clause (b) above.
- 57 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
11.18. The second portion, as indicated supra, would
be applicable to all three clauses inasmuch as
the second portion only deals with, the
procedure of the State Government may by
order published in the Official Gazette appoint
an Administrator for such Society for such
period not exceeding six months. Thus, there
being no requirement for the State
Government to consider it necessary in terms
of Clause (a) or Clause (b), in the event of the
happening of any of the events contemplated
in Clause (a) or Clause (b), an Administrator is
required to be appointed. In my considered
opinion the same is automatic inasmuch as the
explanation which has been extracted herein
above indicates that the amendment was
required to cater to a mischief where, despite
the expiry of the term elections were not held
and new governing Body did not take office.
- 58 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
11.19. If the interpretation of Sri. M.R.Rajagopal,
learned Senior Counsel, is accepted, then the
very purpose of bringing about an amendment
to introduce Section 27A would be lost, so also
the purpose would be lost if the interpretation
of financial year and calendar year as
submitted by him were to be accepted. Thus,
in terms of Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of
Section 27A of KSRA, 1960, where the term of
'office' of the members of the governing Body
of a Society has expired and a new governing
body has not for any reason being constituted,
an administrator would necessarily have to be
appointed by the State Government,
empowering the Administrator to conduct the
election within the term of his appointment.
11.20. The interpretation now sought to be given is
also an afterthought inasmuch as in the
correspondence which had been exchanged
- 59 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
between the governing Body of the Society and
the DRCS as far back on 03.10.2025, the
governing Body, the President had clearly
stated that the term of the current executive
Committee is slated to expire on 12.10.2025
and had sought for an extension of a period of
six months. The fact that the President had
sought for an extension of six months, which is
the subject of the said letter, namely "request
for a six-month extension for conducting
election.-reg." would categorically establish
that even according to the President, the term
was to expire on 12.10.2025 and not on
31.12.2025 or 31.03.2026 or until the new
Committee were to take over.
11.21. This is again reinforced by the further letter of
the President of the Society dated 17.10.2025,
when he had again categorically stated that
the term had expired on 12.10.2025 but had
- 60 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
indicated that the election process would be
commenced from 16.11.2025 and completed
by 05.01.2026.
11.22. Thus, on law, facts as also, there being an
admission on the part of the President that the
term of the governing Body expired on
12.10.2025, the interpretation now sought to
be given, and the arguments now sought to be
advanced are not sustainable.
11.23. Hence, I answer point No.1 by holding that a
Society registered under Karnataka Societies
Registration Act, 1960, the term of office of the
elected Committee would end on the expiry of
the term i.e., the number of years calculated
from the date on which, the Committee was
elected and took office, there would be no
requirement to include or refer to the definition
of year under Clause (f) of Section 2 of the
KSRA, 1960, to provide for an artificial
- 61 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
definition of a calendar year or nor would there
be a requirement for making a reference to the
bye-law of the Society to include the definition
of financial year. If bye-laws were to have a
provision for the term of the governing body to
continue until a new governing body is elected,
the same cannot be resorted to in view of the
statutory requirement under Section 27A which
will override any bye-law contrary to the
statutory requirement.
12. ANSWER TO POINT NUMBER 2: Whether, while
exercising powers under Clause (b) of Sub-
Section (1) of Section 27A of KSRA, 1960, the
principles of natural Justice have to be
followed, providing an opportunity for the
existing Committee to be heard before an order
of appointing an Administrator is passed?
12.1. Some of the aspects relating to this have been
dealt with in answer to point No.1 as indicated
supra, the contention of Sri.M.R. Rajagopal,
learned Senior Counsel is that if an
Administrator were required to be appointed
- 62 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
under Section 27A of the KSRA, 1960, notice
has to be issued to the existing Committee and
the existing Committee has to be heard before
an order appointing an Administrator is
passed. This he submits for the reason that
when a show cause notice had been issued by
Respondent No.2, indicating that the elections
have to be held before the term expired, the
governing body had categorically indicated that
there were several works which were
remaining to be completed, namely audit was
pending, ongoing projects which included
completion of the Golden Jubilee building
works in Peenya, building construction works in
Bidar, Raichur, construction of Sports Complex,
Mangaluru Zonal Center, completion of
construction works in Mysore were pending,
and these facts having mean brought to the
notice of the DRCS, the DRCS ought to have
- 63 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
appreciated these aspects provided a hearing
to the Managing Committee and extended the
term. His submission is that if all the works
were not completed before elections were held,
then the new Committee would not know what
is to be done, and the handover cannot happen
properly.
12.2. He relies on the second portion of Clause (c) of
Sub-Section (1) of Section 27A of KSRA, 1960,
to contend that on enquiry the State
Government, if it considers it necessary in
public interest to do so, would include an
enquiry under Section 25 of the KSRA, 1960
and as such, notice has to be issued to the
governing body/ existing Committee, to be
heard before an order of appointment of an
Administrator is passed.
12.3. I am unable to agree with this submission also
inasmuch as that enquiry is related to the
- 64 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
circumstances covered under Clause (c) of
Sub-Section (1) of Section 27A of KSRA, 1960,
and not to that covered under Clause (b) of
Sub-Section (1) of Section 27A of KSRA, 1960,
inasmuch as there is no further enquiry to be
made when the term of the governing body of
a Society has expired and a new governing
body has not for any reason been constituted.
Inasmuch as, admittedly, the term expired on
12.10.2025 (actually 11.10.2025), by which
date no elections were held and no new
governing body/Management Committee had
taken charge.
12.4. The explanation which has been offered by the
existing Committee that there will be
disruption of work and/or handover cannot be
made properly is only an excuse on part of the
Committee to extend its term inasmuch as the
Committee was always aware that the term
- 65 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
would expire on 11.10.2025 and it ought to
have made necessary arrangements for audit,
for completion of work or the like. Be that as it
may, even if there are works which are
pending, the new Committee could continue
and complete those works, which cannot be a
ground for extending the term of the existing
Committee.
12.5. Hence, I answer point No.2 by holding that
while exercising powers under Clause (b)
of Sub-Section (1) of Section 27A of
KSRA, 1960, the principles of natural
Justice are not required to be followed,
the existing Committee is not required to
be heard, if the term of the existing
Committee has come to an end and a new
Committee has not taken charge in terms
of Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of
Section 27A of KSRA, 1960, an
- 66 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
Administrator would have to be
appointed, the only formality being an
order to be passed by the state
government, which is required to be
published in the official Gazette.
13. ANSWER TO POINT No.3: Whether, while
exercising powers under Clause (b) of Sub-
Section (1) of Section 27A of KSRA, 1960, an
enquiry under Section 25 of the KSRA Act,
1960, is required to be conducted before the
exercise of such power.
13.1. Having answered point No.2 above, the
principles of natural Justice are not required to
be followed. Hence, the question of enquiry
under Section 25, is also not required since I
have already rejected the contention of
Sri.M.R.Rajagopal, learned Counsel that on
enquiry, the State Government, must consider
it necessary in public interest to do so, would
not apply to Clause (a) and (b), but it is only
- 67 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
integral and restricted to Clause (c) of Sub-
Section (1) of Section 27A of KSRA, 1960.
13.2. Hence, I answer point No.3 by holding that
while exercising powers under Clause (b) of
Sub-Section (1) of Section 27A of KSRA,
1960, no enquiry under Section 25 of the
KSRA, 1960, is required to be conducted.
14. ANSWER TO POINT NO.4. In the present case, is
the appointment of an Administrator proper and
correct, or does it require any interference of this
Court?
14.1. The facts being very clear that the term of the
existing Committee having come to an end on
12.10.2025, it also being well established that
there is no election has been held, the existing
Committee had initially sought an extension by a
period of six months and subsequently, had
indicated that the election process would be
commenced and completed by 05.01.2026. I am
of the considered opinion that no attempt having
been made by the existing Committee to conduct
- 68 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50374
HC-KAR
elections within the term of the Committee, the
same would come under mischief of Section 27A,
namely the very purpose of introducing Section
27A was to avoid such kind of a situation where
the existing Committee were to seek to continue
in office, the appointment of an Administrator
being a formal order required to be passed, the
same has been so passed and published in the
official Gazette which therefore cannot be found
fault.
15. Answer to Point No.5: What order?
15.1. In view of my answers to point Nos.1 to 4 above,
no grounds being made out, the petitions stand
dismissed.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
KTY
List No.: 4 Sl No.: 1
