Karnataka High Court
Golappa S/O Basappa Danashetti vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 October, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 107724 OF 2024 (CS-EL/M)
BETWEEN:
GOLAPPA S/O. BASAPPA DANASHETTI,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRIYUTHS. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ANAND D. BAGEWADI,
SHIVANAND MALASHETTI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
Digitally signed
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA 2. THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
Location: HIGH ELECTION AUTHORITY BENGALURU,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE RETURNING OFFICER
PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,
HULAKUND, AT: HULAKUND,
TALUK: RAMADURG, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591114.
4. THE PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH
NIYAMIT, HULAKUND,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
AT: HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN- 591114.
5. SRI. RAMESH S/O. LAXMAPPA NINGARADDI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN -591114.
6. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-580001.
7. NINGAPPA S/O. SHANKARAPPA CHINCHALI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
8. CHANNAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA HUNDEKAR,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
9. MAHADEVI W/O. PADEPPA PATIL,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
10. MAHADEV S/O. SHEKHARAPPA JAMKHANDI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
11. PARAMANAND S/O. FAKIRAPPA METRI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
12. PANDAPPA S/O. HANMANTAPPA MIRJI,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
DIST. BELAGAVI.
13. HANUMANTH S/O. KRISHNAPPA KULAGOD,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
14. RAMESH S/O. HANAMANT SINGADI,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
15. LAKKAVVA W/O. RUDRAPPA JADAGI,
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
16. IRANNA S/O. GUDDAPPA GANGI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULAKUND, TALUK: RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRIYUTHS. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1 AND R6;
G.V. BHARAMAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;
VIJAYKUMAR B.HORATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
MAHANTESH R. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R16)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 1. TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION
LETTER/ ORDER DATED 16/12/2024 IN NO.DRL/ELECTION/350/2024-
25 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT I.E., DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETY BELAGAVI, VIDE ANNEXURE-E. 2. TO ISSUE
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS
TO DELETE THE NAME OF 5TH RESPONDENT IN THE LIST OF
CANDIDATES AND ETC.,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 11.09.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
1. To issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash
impugned communication letter/ order dated
16/12/2024 in no.DRL/ELECTION/350/2024-25
issued by the 6th respondent i.e., Deputy Registrar of
Co-Operative Society Belagavi, vide ANNEXURE-E.
2. To issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing
the respondents to delete the name of 5th
respondent in the list of candidates.
3. To issue any other order or directions as deems fit to
the circumstances of the above case.
2. Respondent No.4 is stated to be a Primary Cooperative
Society registered under the Karnataka Cooperative
Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
KCS Act', for short). Initially when the petition was
filed, it was stated that the petitioner and respondent
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
No.5 are members of the 4th respondent Cooperative
Society, but subsequently respondent Nos.7 to 16,
who are also members of the Cooperative Society
have been brought on record by way of impleadment.
3. The facts in brief are:
3.1. The Returning Officer was appointed to conduct
the election to the Committee of Management
of the Cooperative Society and a list of eligible
and ineligible voters was published. Thereafter,
the Returning Officer had published the
calendar of events on 19.11.2024.
3.2. The petitioner and other eligible candidates had
submitted their respective nomination papers,
which were accepted by the Returning Officer.
Symbols were allotted, and the list of
contestants was published on 16.12.2024.
3.3. Respondent No.5, being one of the contestants,
the petitioner had submitted his objections
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
stating that Respondent No.5 is a defaulter in
Sri.Veman Cooperative Society and requested
the Returning Officer to reject his nomination.
The said nomination came to be rejected on
15.12.2024.
3.4. Respondent No.5 thereafter submitted a
representation to Respondent No.6, Deputy
Registrar of Cooperative Societies (D.R.C.S.),
challenging the order passed by the Returning
Officer on 16.12.2024. On the very same day,
the D.R.C.S. addressed a letter to the Returning
Officer directing him to accept the nomination
paper. Hence, the name of Respondent No.5
also came to be included in the list of
contestants.
3.5. It is challenging the same that the petitioner is
before this Court.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. This Court, vide its order dated 20.12.2024, permitted
the petitioner and Respondent No.5 to contest the
elections. The votes cast in favour of the Respondent
No.5 were directed to be kept in a separate sealed
cover, and the results of the elections were directed
not to be declared without the leave of the Court. It is
thereafter that the impleading applications had been
filed by Respondent Nos. 7 to 16, which were allowed
on 29.07.2025. By way of the order dated
22.08.2015, the Returning Officer was directed to
count the votes cast and submit the results in a sealed
cover. The same was furnished on 08.09.2025 and
thereafter, the matter was taken up for hearing.
5. The submission of Sri. Shivaraj P. Mudhol, learned
Counsel for the petitioner, is that;
5.1. Admittedly, Respondent No.5, being a defaulter
in Veman Cooperative Society, could not have,
firstly, been declared to be an eligible voter,
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
and secondly, he could not have been permitted
to contest elections.
5.2. He relied upon Section 29-C(1)(a) of the KCS
Act, which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
29C. Disqualification for membership of the
[board].- (1) No person shall be eligible for being
elected or appointed or continued as a member of
the [board of any co-operative society], if,--
(a) he is in default to that society or any other co-
operative society in respect of any dues from him as
borrower;]
(b) he is interested directly or indirectly in any
contract made with such co-operative society or in
the sale or purchase made by such co-operative
society privately or in auction or in any contract or
transaction of the co-operative society (other than
investment and borrowing) involving financial
interests in that contract, sale, purchase or
transaction;
(c) he [XXX] carries] on a business of the kind
carried on by such co-operative society or by a co-
operative society of which such co-operative
society is a member;
(d) he is employed as legal practitioner on behalf of
such co-operative society or accepts employment as
legal practitioner against such co-operative society;
(e) he is a paid employee [other than the chief
executive] 1 of such co-operative society or of its
financing bank;
[x x x]
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
(f) he is a near relation of a paid employee of such
co-operative society.
[Explanation.--For the purpose of [this clause
[XXX] ] 'near relation' means,--
(i) husband, wife and unmarried daughter;
(ii) father, mother, undivided son, undivided brother
and unmarried sister; and
(iii) such other relations as may be prescribed to be
a near relation.
[x x x]
g) he was a paid employee of a co-operative society
and was dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired
from service of a co-operative society;
(h) he is disqualified to be a member of the society
or to vote as such member;
(i) he has been convicted for an offence punishable
under section 153A or section 171E or section 171F
or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 505
of the Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) or
under section 39J or clause (b) of sub-section (2) of
section 39K of this Act, unless a period of six years
has elapsed from the date of such conviction;
(j) he has been convicted by a Court in India for any
offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of
not less than two years, unless a
period of five years has elapsed from the date of his
release;
(k) he is found guilty of corrupt practice within the
meaning of section 39C unless a period of six years
has elapsed from the date on which he was found
guilty;
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
(l) he has failed to remit to any co-operative society
any amount (other than a loan) retained by him in
contravention of the provisions of this Act, rules or
bye-laws;
(m) he is a representative of a co-operative society
which is in default to a financing bank or to any co-
operative society in respect of any dues by the co-
operative society which he represents, for a
continuous period of one year:
Provided that the disqualification under this
clause for being continued as a member of the
*board* shall apply to a co-operative society which
has defaulted in payment of an amount exceeding
thirty percent of such dues;
(n) he was a member of the *board* which failed to
make arrangement for election within the time limit
specified in section 39A.]
(o) XXX
(p) he has absented himself for three consecutive
meetings of the board of such society , without leave
of absence.]
(2) No person including a person elected by a co-
operative society as a member of a [board] of
another co-operative society of which such co-
operative society is a member shall be a [President
or Chairperson, Vice-President or Vice-Chairperson
or other office bearer] of more than two co-operative
societies.
(3) If the board of a cooperative society fails,-
(a) to assist the cooperative Election Commission for
conducting elections as per section 39A and section
29F; or
(b) to call the annual general meeting under section
27 or special general meeting when required under
section 28; or
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
(c) to present the audited accounts and annual
report in the annual general meeting,
every member of such defaulting board shall be
disqualified for being elected or appointed or
continued as a member of the board of the society
for a period of five years from the date of the order
of disqualification]
4) Nothing in sub-section (2) shall apply,--
(i) to any person who is appointed by the State
Government or the Registrar as the President or
Chairperson, Vice-President or the Vice-
Chairperson; or
(ii) to any person who is merely a member of the
[board.]
(5) In the case of co-operative marketing societies,
consumers co-operative societies and such class or
classes of co-operative societies as may be specified
by the State Government, by notification in the
official Gazette, no member shall be eligible for being
appointed or elected as a member of the *board* of
such co-operative society if he does not fulfill the
minimum qualifications relating to his transactions
with the co-operative society upto such monetary
limits as may be specified from time to time in such
notification.
(6) There shall be no representative of individual
members on the [board] of a District Central Co-
operative Bank or an Apex Co-operative Bank or
such other classes of co-operative banks as may be
prescribed.
(7) Any question as to whether a member of the
[board] was or has become subject to any of the
disqualifications mentioned in this section shall be
decided by the Registrar after giving the person
concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
(8) If any member of a [board] of a co-operative
society during the term of his office,--
(a) becomes subject to any disqualifications specified
in sub-sections (1), (2) and (5); or
(b) has acted or has been acting fraudulently or with
gross negligence or in contravention of the
provisions of this Act, the rules or the bye-laws of
the co-operative society or without the sanction of
the [board] of the co-operative society where such
sanction is necessary or contrary to the resolution of
the co-operative society or its [board] or in any way
prejudicial
to the interest of the co-operative society; or
(c) has acted or has been acting persistently against
the directions or orders issued under this Act, rules
or bye-laws; or
(d) is not discharging his duties satisfactorily; the
Registrar may either on a report made to him or
otherwise, by order remove such member, and in
cases falling under clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of
this sub-section disqualify him from holding any
office in the co-operative society for such period not
exceeding five years, as may be specified in such
order:
Provided that no order shall be made under this
sub-section unless a reasonable opportunity of being
heard, is given to the person against whom the order
is to be made.
(9) A copy of the order made under sub-section (8)
shall be communicated to the member and the co-
operative society concerned.
(10) No director of a cooperative society shall be
eligible for being elected or appointed or continued
as a delegate of another society, if he suffers from
any disqualification mentioned in sub-section (1).
The provisions of sub- section (8) shall, mutatis-
mutandis, apply.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
(11) No member of a cooperative society shall be
eligible for being elected or appointed or continued
as a representative, if he suffers from any
disqualification mentioned in sub-section (1) other
than clauses (m) and (n) thereof. The provisions of
sub-section (8) shall, mutatis-mutandis, apply]
5.3. By relying on Section 29C(1)(a) of the KCS Act,
he submits that no person shall be eligible to be
elected to be a member or continue as a
member of the Board of any Cooperative
Society, if he is in default to that Society or any
other Cooperative Society in respect of any
dues to him as borrower.
5.4. By relying on the above, he submits that the
petitioner, admittedly being a defaulter in
Sri.Veman Cooperative Society in making
payment of dues to the said Society as a
defaulter, even such default would have to be
taken into consideration, since in terms of
Section 29C, no person shall be eligible for
being elected or appointed or continued as a
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
director, which would include contesting the
elections of Respondent No. 4 Society.
5.5. This aspect has not been considered at the time
of preparing the list of eligible and ineligible
voters, since at that time, it is only the default
to Respondent No.4 Society which was taken
into consideration. At the time when the
nomination of Respondent No. 5 to the elections
to the Respondent No.4 Society was filed, the
aspect of the default of the petitioner to
Sri.Veman Cooperative Society, having been
brought to the notice of the Returning Officer,
the Returning Officer had rightly rejected the
nomination.
5.6. The D.R.C.S. has no power to set aside the
order passed by the Returning Officer. Hence
the question of respondent No.5 approaching
the D.R.C.S. and the D.R.C.S. passing the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
impugned order dated 16.12.2024 is completely
contrary to the applicable law, and on that
basis, he submits that Respondent No.5 having
been permitted to contest, the votes cast in
favour of Respondent No.5, having been kept in
a separate ballot box, Respondent No.5 ought
to held to be ineligible to contest elections and
as such discard the votes cast in favour of
respondent No.5.
5.7. He relies on the decision of the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Sri.Vinod S.
Salian Vs. The State of Karnataka and
Others1, more particularly paras 9 and 11
thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
"9. In the present case, Section 70(2)(C) of
the Act provides for adjudication of Election
disputes by the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies. This Court in number of cases has
already held that the rejection of the
1 W.P.No.21814 of 2019 dated 21.05.2019
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
WP No. 107724 of 2024
HC-KAR
nomination paper requires to be adjudicated
under Section 70 of the Act and has relegated
the petitioner/s to avail the remedy available
under Section 70 of the Act.
11. However, in view of the categorical finding
of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Court
exercising the power under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution has to exercise the discretion
to entertain the writ petition, this Court is of
the view that the rejection of the nomination
paper based on the factual aspect requires to
be considered by the Registrar in terms of
Section 70 of the Act, the machinery provided
for determination of dispute arising out of
elections more particularly, the right to vote,
contest or dispute election being a statutory
right regulated by statutory provisions. Hence,
the writ petition filed by the petitioner by-
passing the statutory remedy available under
the Act cannot be entertained. On these
grounds, the writ petition deserves to be
rejected. Hence, the following:
ORDER
Writ petition stands dismissed with
liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of
settlement of disputes available under Section
70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies
Act, 1959, in accordance with law.
5.8. The Coordinate Bench in Vinod Salian's case
(supra), has categorically held that, if any
contestant was aggrieved by the rejection of the
nomination paper, he has to raise the dispute
under Section 70(2)(c) of the KCS Act. There is
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
no provision for Respondent No.5 to have
approached the DRCS.
5.9. He relies upon the decision in the case of
Gangappa Nagappa Danannavar and
another Vs. The Malaprabha Cooperative
Sugar Factory Ltd., and others2, more
particularly para 11 thereof, which is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
11. Mr. Mandagi has, however, contended that
even if it were to be assumed that the order at
Ext. R1 disqualifying the Society is said to be
in force, a detailed examination of the order
itself would disclose that the disqualification
pertains in respect of the Society mentioned in
the order, that is to say that the
disqualification prevents the petitioner-Society
the from having a representation for a period
of one year from the date of the order to the
Belgaum District Central Co-operative Bank
Ltd., and by that order, Shri Ninganagouda
Basanagouda Patil, was removed from the
Committee of Management of the said District
Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and the
disqualification would not extend to any other
society to which the petitioner Society may
seek representation on its Managing
Committee. For this contention he relies upon
the language of S. 29-C(1)(a) of the Act,
which is as follows:
2 1979 (Vol.29) ILR 1461
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
29-C: Disqualification for membership of the
Committee: (1)No person shall be eligible for
being elected or appointed or continued as a
member of the committee if,-
(a) he is in default to any Co-operative Society
in respect of any dues from him either as
borrower or as surety.
Provided that a member of the Committee who
has ceased to hold office as such under this
clause shall not be eligible for a period of one
year from the date on which he ceased to hold
office for re-election or appointment as
member of the committee of such Co-
operative society or of election or appointment
to the committee of any other Co-operative
society.
(b) ........................................................."
It is Mr. Mandagi''s contention that the proviso
set out above clearly indicated that the
disqualification would be operative for a period
of one year from the date on which he ceased
to hold office for re-election or appointment as
a member of the Committee of such Co-
operative Society; his emphasis is on the
clause ""of such Co-operative Society"", and
on the basis of such an interpretation, he said
that the order is confined only in relation to
the aforementioned Belgaum District Central
Co-operative Bank Ltd., and therefore would
not act as a disqualification for the 1st
respondent-Society in the present writ
petition. Such a construction, in my opinion, is
ex facie untenable having regard to what
follows, the clause on which Mr. Mandagi has
emphasised. The clause, "such Co-operative
Society" is followed by "or of election or
appointment to the Committee of any other
Co-operative Society" and this has to be read
disjunctively forming part of the proviso. Thus
read, the inevitable conclusion would be that
the statutory disqualification under Sec. 29-
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
C(1) extends not only to the specific Society
in. respect of which the disqualification order
has been passed by the Registrar, but also the
disqualification would extend to election or
appointment to the Committee of any other
Co-operative Society, If this interpretation is
not put on the proviso, then it would lead to
the anomalous situation that a member who
suffers from disqualification under Sec. 29-C,
is capable of holding office or to be eligible for
appointment as a member of the Committee of
Management of another Society in spite of the
disqualification incurred on account of his
being a defaulter in any Co-operative Society
under Sec. 28-C (1) (a) of the Act, This could
not have been the intention of the Legislature,
because, the person is disqualified to hold a
post on the Committee of Management of a
Society to which he is a defaulter, that
disqualification on the language of the proviso
would extend and must extend to all Co-
operative institution in which he seeks
appointment or lection to the Committee of
Management.
5.10. Relying on Gangappa Nagappa
Danannavar's case (supra), he submits that
Section 29C(1)(a) of the KCS Act extends not
only to the specific society in respect of which
the disqualification order has been passed by
Registrar, but also to the disqualification to the
extent of elections or appointment to the
Committee of any other Cooperative Society.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
On that basis, he submits that disqualification
would extend to Respondent No.4 also.
5.11. He relies upon the decision in the case of Syed
Yakoob Vs. K. S. Radhakrishnan3 more
particularly para 7 thereof, which is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
"7. The question about the limits of the
jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of
certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently
considered by this Court and the true legal
position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A
writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting
errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior
courts or tribunals; these are cases where
orders are passed by inferior courts or
tribunals without jurisdiction, or in excess of it,
or as a result of failure to exercise
jurisdictions. A writ can similarly be issued
where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on
it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or
improperly, as for instance, it decides a
question without giving an opportunity to be
heard to the party affected by the order, or
where the procedure adopted in dealing with
the dispute is opposed to principles of natural
justice. There is, however, no doubt that the
jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a
supervisory jurisdiction and the Court
exercising it is not entitled to act as an
appellate Court. This limitation necessarily
means that findings of fact reached by the
inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of the
appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened
3 AIR 1964 SC 477
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of
law which is apparent on the face of the record
can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of
tact, however grave it may appear to be. In
regard to a finding of fact recorded by the
Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it
is shown that in recording the said finding,
the. Tribunal had. erroneously refused to
admit admissible and material evidence, or
had erroneously admitted inadmissible
evidence which has influenced the impugned
finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based
on no evidence, that would be regarded as an
error of law which can be corrected by a writ
of certiorari. In dealing with this category of
cases, however, we must always bear in mind
that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal
cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ
of certiorari on the ground that the relevant
and material evidence adduced before the
Tribunal was' insufficient or inadequate to
sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or
sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the
inference of fact to be drawn from the said
finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be
agitated before a writ court. It is within these
limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the
High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of
certiorari can be legitimately exercised
(vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmed
Ishaque(1), Nagendra Nath Bora v. The
Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals,
Assam(2), and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar
Singh(3)."
5.12. By relying on Syed Yakoob's case (supra), his
submission is that, whenever there is an error
in the exercise of jurisdiction, this Court ought
to exercise jurisdiction to render justice.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
5.13. He relies upon the the decision in the case of
Babi werghese Vs. Bar Council, Kerala4,
more particularly para 31 thereof, which is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"31. It is the basic principle of law long
settled that if the manner of doing a particular
act is prescribed under any Statute, the act
must be done in that manner or not at all. The
origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in
Taylor vs. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch.D 426 which was
followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad vs.
King Emperor 63 Indian Appeals 372 = AIR
1936 PC 253 who stated as under :
"Where a power is given to do a certain thing
in a certain way, the thing must be done in
that way or not at all."
5.14. By relying on Babi Werghese's case (supra),
he submits that if the manner of doing a
particular act is prescribed under any statute,
the act must be done in that manner or not at
all. In the present case, he submits the DRCS
did not have the power to direct the acceptance
of the nomination.
4 1999(3) SCC 422
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
5.15. He relies upon the decision in the case of Joint
Action Committee of Air Line Pilots Assn. of
India Vs. DG of Civil Aviation5, more
particularly paras 3, 7, 27 and 28 thereof,
which are reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
3.The Appellants challenged the Circular dated
29.5.2008 before the High Court on the
grounds, inter-alia, that even if CAR 2007 is
kept in abeyance, the AIC 28/92, which stood
obliterated, could not be revived; the CAR
2007 had been kept in abeyance by the order
of the Authority, which did not have the
competence to interfere in the functioning of
the DGCA, respondent No. 1. The statutory
authority i.e. DGCA alone is competent to pass
the appropriate order in the matter. The
Circular dated 29.5.2008 has seriously
jeopardised the safety of passengers and the
same was passed in flagrant violation of the
principles of natural justice. However, the High
Court did not accept the submissions of the
appellants, rather rejected the same in an
elaborate judgment. Hence, this appeal.
7. It may be necessary to make reference to
relevant provisions of the Aircraft Act,
1934 (hereinafter referred to as `Act
1934'). Section 4A of the Act 1934 provides for
safety oversight functions that the DGCA shall
perform the safety oversight functions in
respect of matters specified in this Act or the
rules made thereunder. Section 5 empowers
the Central Government to make
5 2011(5) SCC 435
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
rules. Sections 5(2) and 5-A of the Act 1934
read as under:
"5 (2) Without prejudice to the
generality of the foregoing power, such
rules may provide for-
(m) the measures to be taken and the
equipment to be carried for the purpose
of ensuring the safety of life.
5-A. Power to issue directions.-(1)
The Director- General of Civil Aviation or
any other officer specially empowered in
this behalf by the Central Government
may, from time to time, by order, issue
directions, consistent with the provisions
of this Act and the rules made
thereunder, with respect to any of the
matters specified in clauses (aa), (b),
(c), (e), (f),(g), (ga), (gb), (gc), (h), (i),
(m) and (qq) of sub-section (2) of
section 5, to any person or persons
using any aerodrome or engaged in the
aircraft operations, air traffic control,
maintenance and operation of
aerodrome, communication, navigation,
surveillance and air traffic management
facilities and safeguarding civil aviation
against acts of unlawful interference, in
any case where the Director-General of
Civil Aviation or such other officer is
satisfied that in the interests of the
security of India or for securing the
safety of aircraft operations it is
necessary so to do.
(2) Every direction issued under sub-
section (1) shall be complied with by the
person or persons to whom such
direction is issued."
27. Similar view has been re-iterated by this
Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v.
Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC
16; Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia & Ors., AIR 2004 SC
1159; and Pancham Chand & Ors. v. State of
Himachal Pradesh & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 1888,
observing that an authority vested with the
power to act under the statute alone should
exercise its discretion following the procedure
prescribed therein and interference on the part
of any authority upon whom the statute does
not confer any jurisdiction, is wholly
unwarranted in law.It violates the
Constitutional scheme.
28. In view of the above, the legal position
emerges that the authority who has been
vested with the power to exercise its discretion
alone can pass the order. Even senior official
cannot provide for any guideline or direction to
the authority under the statute to act in a
particular manner.
5.16. By relying on Joint Action Committee's case
(supra), his submission is that, it is only the
authority who is vested with a particular power
who can act and discharge such obligation in
the procedure prescribed thereunder. If the
same is done in a different manner than that
provided, this Court ought to intercede in the
matter.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
5.17. He relies upon the decision in the case of Shaji
K. Joseph Vs. V. Viswanath and Others6
more particularly paras 15, 16, and 17 thereof,
which are reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
15. In our opinion, the High Court was not
right in interfering with the process of election
especially when the process of election had
started upon publication of the election
program on 27th January, 2011 and more
particularly when an alternative statutory
remedy was available to Respondent no.1 by
way of referring the dispute to the Central
Government as per the provisions of Section
5 of the Act read with Regulation 20 of the
Regulations. So far as the issue with regard to
eligibility of Respondent no.1 for contesting
the election is concerned, though prima facie it
appears that Respondent no.1 could contest
the election, we do not propose to go into the
said issue because, in our opinion, as per the
settled law, the High Court should not have
interfered with the election after the process of
election had commenced. The judgments
referred to hereinabove clearly show the
settled position of law to the effect that
whenever the process of election starts,
normally courts should not interfere with the
process of election for the simple reason that if
the process of election is interfered with by the
courts, possibly no election would be
completed without court's order. Very often,
for frivolous reasons candidates or others
approach the courts and by virtue of interim
orders passed by courts, the election is
6 (2016) 4 SCC 429
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
delayed or cancelled and in such a case the
basic purpose of having election and getting an
elected body to run the administration is
frustrated. For the aforestated reasons, this
Court has taken a view that all disputes with
regard to election should be dealt with only
after completion of the election.
16. This Court, in Ponnuswami v. Returning
Officer (supra) has held that once the election
process starts, it would not be proper for the
courts to interfere with the election
process. Similar view was taken by this Court
in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami
(Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak
Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra (supra).
17. Thus, in view of the aforestated settled
legal position, the High Court should not have
interfered with the process of election. We,
therefore, set aside the impugned judgment
and direct that the result of the election should
be published. We are sure that due to interim
relief granted by this Court, Respondent no.1
must not have been permitted to contest the
election. It would be open to Respondent no.1
to approach the Central Government for
referring the dispute, if he thinks it proper to
do so. No issue with regard to limitation will be
raised if Respondent no.1 initiates an action
under Section 5 of the Act within four weeks
from today.
5.18. By relying on Shaji K. Joseph's case (supra),
he submits that once the election process is
started, the courts ought to refrain from
interfering with such an election process. The
nomination having been rejected, the DRCS
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
also ought not to have interceded in the matter,
but ought to have permitted the election
process to continue.
5.19. He relies upon the judgment of the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh
Laxmappa Ningaraddi Vs. The State of
Karnataka and Others7, filed by Respondent
No. 5 herein, more particularly para 3 thereof,
which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that
pursuant to a representation dated 16.12.2024
(Annexure-E to the writ petition) made by him to
the 3rd respondent Deputy Registrar, the 3rd
respondent issued a communication dated
16.12.2024 to the 4th respondent directing him
to accept the nomination of the petitioner. The
4th respondent not having accepted the same,
the petitioner has filed the present writ petition
seeking for appropriate relief.
5.20. By relying on Ramesh Laxmappa Ningaraddi
case, he submits that Respondent No.5, having
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
approached this Court challenging the order of
rejection of nomination and the non-
consideration of the representation submitted
by the petitioner, the same having been
rejected by this Court, vide its aforesaid order
dated 18.12.2024, the DRCS could not have
directed the Returning Officer to include the
name of the petitioner to accept the nomination
of the petitioner.
5.21. On the basis of the above submission, he
submits that the writ petition is required to be
allowed.
6. Sri.Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.5 would submit that;
6.1. This Court having allowed the Petitioner and
Respondent No.5 to contest, Respondent No.5
having contested the election, this Court ought
not to decide the matter, but ought to relegate
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
the parties to Section 70 of the KCS Act. The
Returning Officer did not have any authority to
reject the nomination of the respondent No.5.
6.2. In this regard he relies on Rule 14-B(2) of the
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960
(hereinafter referred to as 'the KCS Rules', for
short). By relying on the same, he submits that
the said Rule does not provide any power to the
Returning Officer to reject the nomination on
the ground that he is a defaulter in any other
Cooperative Society.
6.3. Rule 14-B (1) and (2) of the KCS Rules are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"14-B. Scrutiny of Nominations.- (1) On
the date fixed for scrutiny of nominations, the
candidates or their proposers, may be present
at such time and place as the returning officer
may appoint, and the returning officer shall
[provide them an opportunity to give
objections] within the time and in the manner
laid down in this rule for satisfying themselves
about their correctness, eligibility and
completeness.
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
(2) The returning officer shall then examine
the nomination papers and shall decide all
objections which may be made to any
nomination and may, either on such objection
or on his own motion, after such summary
enquiry as he thinks necessary, reject any
nomination on any of the following grounds,
namely:-
(i) that the candidate either is not qualified or
is disqualified for being elected as a director of
the board / representative under the
provisions of the Act, the rules and the bye-
laws;
(ii) that the signature of the candidate or the
proposer on the nomination paper is not
genuine.
Provided that the nomination of a
candidate shall not be rejected merely on the
ground of an incorrect description of his name
or of the name of his proposer or of any other
particulars in regard to the candidate or his
proposer as entered in the electoral roll (list of
the members/representatives/delegates) if the
identity of the candidate or proposer, as the
case may be, is established.
Provided further that the returning officer shall
not reject any nomination paper on the ground
of any defect which is not of a substantial
character.
(iii) that the nomination paper has been
delivered or received after the date and time
fixed for the receipt of the nomination.
(3) The returning officer shall endorse on each
nomination paper his decision accepting or
rejecting the same and if the nomination paper
is rejected, shall record in writing a brief
statement of his reasons for such rejection.
(4) Immediately after all the nomination
papers have been scrutinized and decision
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
accepting or rejecting the same have been
recorded, the returning officer shall prepare a
list containing the names in the alphabetical
order in Kannada and addresses as given in
the nomination papers of validly nominated
candidates in Form XIV that is to say
candidates whose nominations have been
found valid and affix it on the notice board of
his office. A copy of the said list shall also be
published on the notice board of the society on
the same day."
6.4. The Respondent No.5 had approached this
Court in W.P.No.107701/2024, challenging the
rejection of the nomination. This Court, vide
order dated 18.12.2024, dismissed the writ
petition on the ground that the election process
has already commenced. For the very same
reason, the elections having already been
completed, the present writ petition is not
maintainable, more so, when this Court vide
interim order dated 20.12.2024, has permitted
the Respondent No.5 to contest the election.
6.5. There is no dispute as regards Respondent No.4
being a Primary Cooperative Society and the
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
petitioner and Respondent No.5 being the
members of Respondent No.4Society.
6.6. His submission is that, respondent No.3 did not
have any authority to reject the nomination of
respondent No.5, and this is what has also been
opined by respondent No.6, and in pursuance of
the said opinion, respondent No.3 - Returning
Officer has accepted the nomination. It is only
an opinion expressed by respondent No.6.
There is no order which has been passed by
respondent No.6.
6.7. This Court granted permission to the petitioner
to contest the election by way of interim order
dated 20.12.2024, however, directed
declaration of results to be stayed. The
petitioner, as also respondent No.5, filed two
separate writ appeals. Respondent No.5 had
filed W.A.No.100027/2025, and the petitioner
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
had filed W.A.No.100041/2025. The Honourable
Division Bench, after considering the matter,
disposed of the same by order dated
27.01.2025. He places reliance on paras 5 and
6 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
5. This Court is of the considered view that the
concerned questions must be considered by
the Writ Court in WP No.107724/2024, as it is
still seized of such petition. The Writ Court will
have to decide, amongst others, whether the
Returning Officer could indeed have rejected
the fifth respondent's application, whether the
concerned Deputy Registrar could have issued
a direction to accept the nomination, whether
the results must be now announced if there
are multiple candidates to the position for
which both the appellant and the fifth
respondent are contesting.
6. This Court must opine that these questions,
and even other question, except insofar as the
consequence of the Petition in WP
No.107701/2024 must be examined
independent of any observation either in the
order of dismissal of the Writ Petition or in the
interim order. The disposal of the fifth
respondent's petition is rendered
inconsequentially with the fifth respondent also
being permitted to contest the election. In the
light of the afore, the Writ Appeals stand
disposed of subject to observation as
aforesaid.
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
6.8. His submission is that the direction issued by
the Division Bench would have to be considered
by this Court to take the necessary decision.
6.9. By referring to Rule 14-B of the KCS Rules, he
submits that the same provides for examination
of nomination papers, and after holding
enquiry, the Returning Officer can reject the
nomination. The same would require an enquiry
to be held. Without enquiry, the nomination
papers cannot be rejected.
6.10. A nomination cannot be rejected without there
being a defect of a substantial character. Rule
14-B of the KCS Rules does not provide for
rejection of nomination on the ground of default
in some other Society. The name of the
respondent No.5 being found in the list of
eligible voters, there cannot be a rejection of
the nomination made.
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
6.11. Insofar as Section 29C(1) of the KCS Act is
concerned, his submission is that the said
embargo would come into operation only upon
election to the Board of Management and not
prior thereto, in that only upon a person being
elected and occupying the post of director
would the question of disqualification apply. Not
yet being elected, the disqualification under
Section 29C(1) of the KCS Act would not be
applicable insofar as Respondent No.5 is
concerned. The disqualification could only be
incurred after Respondent No.5 is elected and
not before.
6.12. He refers to Section 29C(7) of the KCS Act and
submits that, any question as to whether the
member of the Board was, or has become
subject to any disqualification would have to be
decided by the Registrar and not by the
Returning Officer.
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
6.13. Section 29C(7) of KCS Act is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
29C. Disqualification for membership of
the committee.
(7) Any question as to whether a member of
the committee was or has become subject to
any of the disqualifications mentioned in this
section shall be decided by the Registrar after
giving the person concerned a reasonable
opportunity of being heard.
6.14. Respondent No.6 DRCS is not acting merely as
a DRCS, but as the District Election Officer in
order to conduct the elections in a proper
manner. The DRCS, being aware of the
illegality, has directed the Returning Officer to
accept the nomination so that the illegality does
not persist.
6.15. He relies upon the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court dated 22.10.2019 passed in
W.A.No.2366/2019 and other connected matter
in the case of Sri.K. Eregowda Vs. The State
of Karnataka and Others, more particularly
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
para 12 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder
for easy reference:
12. Sub-section (1) of Section 29-C lays down
Disqualification for membership of the board.
Clause (h) thereof lays down that no person
shall be eligible for being elected or appointed
or continued as a member of the board, if he is
disqualified to be a member of the society or
to vote as such member. Sub-sections (2) to
(6) are not applicable. The order of Assistant
Registrar is specifically passed under sub-
section (8) of Section 29-C. Under sub-
section(8), in the cases falling under clauses
(a) (b) (c) and (d), the Registrar has power to
disqualify a member of the Board from holding
any office in the co-operative society for such
period not exceeding five years. As far as sub-
section(8) is concerned, on its plain reading, it
becomes applicable, if any member of a board
or a co-operative society during the term of his
office, becomes subject to any disqualification
as specified in sub-sections (1), (2) and (5) or
commits acts to which clauses (b) to (d) of
sub-section (8) are applicable. Thus, on its
plain reading, sub-section (8) is applicable
when either disqualification is incurred or acts
covered by clauses (b) to (d) thereof are
committed by the member of a board during
the term of his office. Thus, sub-section (8)
cannot apply to the acts committed or
disqualification incurred prior to election of a
member.
6.16. By referring to K. Eregowda's case (supra), he
submits that it is only after following the
procedure under Section 29-C of the KCS Act
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
that the Registrar has the power to disqualify a
member of the Board.
6.17. The procedure not having been followed, the
enquiry not having been held, the opportunity
not having been granted to Respondent No.5,
the order of rejection of nomination was
improper on the ground that Respondent No.5
was allegedly disqualified.
6.18. He relies upon the decision of the Coordinate
Bench of this Court dated 05.09.2024 in
W.P.No.17366/2024 in the case of H. S.
Shivashankar and Others Vs. The State of
Karnataka and Others, more particularly
paras 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 22 thereof,
which are reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
15. The question therefore is whether the
Returning Officer is empowered to declare a
member of the society as ineligible, ignoring
the approved list of eligible and ineligible
members?
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
16. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 13E provides for the
functions of the Returning Officer. Clause 6 of
sub-rule (2) of Rule 13E enumerates the
general duty of the Returning Officer at an
election. Accordingly, the Returning Officer is
duty bound to issue notice inviting the
nominations; receive and scrutinize the
nomination papers; publish list of candidates
eligible to contest, etc. Rule 14B provides for
scrutiny of nominations. Sub-rule (2)
empowers the Returning Officer to examine
the nomination papers and to decide all
objections which may be made to any
nominations. He is empowered to reject any
nomination, either on the basis of any
objections or on his own motion on the ground
enumerated in clause (i) or (ii) of sub-rule(2)
of Rule 14B. For easy reference, sub-rule(2) of
Rule 14-B is extracted herein below:
"14-B (2). Scrutiny of Nominations.-
(1) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
(2) The returning officer shall then
examine the nomination papers and
shall decide all objections which may be
made to any nomination and may,
either on such objection or on his own
motion, after such summary enquiry as
he thinks necessary, reject any
nomination on any of the following
grounds, namely-
(i) that the candidate either is not
qualified or is disqualified for being
elected as a director of the board /
representative under the provisions of
the Act, the rules and the bye-laws;
(ii) that the signature of the
candidate or the proposer on the
nomination paper is not genuine:
Provided that the nomination of a
candidate shall not be rejected merely
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
on the ground of an incorrect description
of his name or of the name of his
proposer or of any other particulars in
regard to the candidate or his proposer
as entered in the electoral roll (list of
the members/
representatives/delegates) if the identity
of the candidate or proposer, as the
case may be, is established:
Provided further that the returning
officer shall not reject any nomination
paper on the ground of any defect which
is not of a substantial character."
17. It was argued on behalf of the respondents
that the Returning Officer is empowered under
this provision to reject any nomination on the
ground that the candidate is either not
qualified or disqualified for being elected,
under the provisions of the Act, the Rules and
the Bye-laws.
6.19. By relying on H.S.Shivashankar's case
(supra), he submits that the Returning Officer is
not empowered to declare a member of the
society as ineligible, ignoring the approved list
of eligible and ineligible members. As such, the
Returning Officer would not be empowered to
reject the nomination.
6.20. On all the above basis, his submission is that
the rejection of the nomination of the
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
respondent No.5 by the Returning Officer, being
bad in law, the DRCS has exercised its
supervisory power, being the District Election
Officer, by directing the Returning Officer to
accept the nomination, in pursuance of which
he was permitted to contest by this Court.
6.21. As such, after all the above having occurred, it
would be but required for the election results to
be announced by dismissing the writ petition.
7. Learned AGA supports the order of the DRCS by
contending that the DRCS has acted in its capacity as
the District Election Officer and, as such, no fault could
be found therewith.
8. Heard Sri.Shivaraj P. Mudhol, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri.Ramesh B. Chigari, learned AGA for
respondent Nos.1 and 6, Sri.G. V. Bharamagoudar,
learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3,
Sri.Vijaykumar B. Horatti, learned counsel for
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
respondent No.4, Sri.Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel
for respondent No.5 and Sri.Mahantesh R. Patil,
learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 16. Perused
the papers.
9. The points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether, for incurring disqualification
under Section 29C(1)(a) of the KCS Act, the
person ought to have already been elected
to the Board of Management?
2. Whether a disqualification or a default in
payment of dues in any other cooperative
society would lead to automatic
disqualification in terms of Section
29C(1)(a) of the KCS Act?
3. Whether the Returning Officer was right in
rejecting the nomination form of
respondent No.5?
4. Whether the DRCS, as the District Election
Officer or otherwise, could have directed
the Returning Officer to accept the
nomination form of Respondent No.5?
5. Whether, in the above circumstances, this
Court is required to direct the
announcement of results including that of
Respondent No.5 by counting the votes kept
in a separate ballot box?
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
6. What order?
10. I answer the above points are as under;
11. Answer to point No.1: Whether, for incurring
disqualification under Section 29C(1)(a) of the
KCS Act, the person ought to have already been
elected to the Board of Management?
11.1. What is being sought to be made out by
Sri.Srinivas B. Naik., learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.5 that until and unless a
person is already a director, the question of
disqualification under Section 29-C of the KCS
Act would not arise. The logic of his arguments is
that only if a person is qualified and appointed as
a director could he be disqualified. Hence, a
person who is not elected as a director would not
incur the disqualification under Section 29-C of
the KCS Act.
11.2. I am unable to accept his submission inasmuch
as Sub-section (1) of Section 29-C of the KCS
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
Act would categorically indicate that no person shall be
eligible for being elected or appointed or continued as a
member of the board of any
Co-operative Society, if he is in default to that society or
any other Co-operative Society in respect of any dues from
him as a borrower, etc.,
11.3. Thus, the operative words are "being elected or
appointed", which would include a stage prior to
a person being appointed as a director and as
such the disqualification under Section 29-C of
the KCS Act would extend to even a person who
is not already a director of a Co-operative
Society.
sssssw
11.4. Thus, I answer point No.1 by holding that
for incurring disqualification under Section
29-C (1)(a) of the KCS Act, the person need
not be an elected director of the Board of
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
Management. A person who even seeks to
be elected or appointed as a director would
be covered under Section 29-C including 29-
C (1)(a) of the KCS Act.
12. Answer to point No.2: Whether a disqualification
or a default in payment of dues in any other
cooperative society would lead to automatic
disqualification in terms of Section 29C(1)(a) of
the KCS Act?
12.1. Section 29-C(1)(a) of the KCS Act is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
29C. Disqualification for membership of the
[board].-
(1) (a) he is in default to that society or any
other co-operative society in respect of any dues
from him as borrower;]
12.2. A perusal of Section 29-C (1)(a) of the KCS Act
would indicate that no person shall be eligible
for being elected or appointed as a member of
the board, if he is in default, to that society or
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
any other Co-operative Society in respect of any
dues from him as a borrower.
12.3. Sri.Shivaraj P. Muhdol, learned counsel for the
petitioner by relying on Gangappa Nagappa
Danannavar's case has contended that the
disqualification under Section 29-C(1)(a) of the
KCS Act is automatic so long as there is a
default made by a person to that society or any
other Co-operative Society in respect of any
dues from him as a borrower. The
disqualification would be incurred by such
person under Sub-section (1) of Section 29-C of
the KCS Act automatically and in that regards
he submits that there being no dispute as
regard to default of respondent No.5 in respect
of payment of his dues to Veman Co-operative
Society. Respondent No.5 has automatically
incurred disqualification.
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
12.4. What would however have to be seen is Sub-
section (7) of Section 29-C of the KCS Act,
which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference;
29C. Disqualification for membership of the
[board].-
(7) Any question as to whether a member of the
[board] was or has become subject to any of the
disqualifications mentioned in this section shall be
decided by the Registrar after giving the person
concerned a reasonable opportunity of being
heard.
12.5. A perusal of Sub-section (7) of Section 29-C of
the KCS Act would indicate that any question as
to whether a member of the Board was or has
become the subject to any of the
disqualification mentioned in Section 29-C of
the KCS Act shall be decided by the Registrar
after giving the person concerned a reasonable
opportunity of being heard. Thus, Sub-section
(7) of Section 29-C of the KCS Act makes it
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
mandatory for a notice to be issued and for the
Registrar to decide on the disqualification.
12.6. The condition of disqualification being contained
in Sub-section (1), (2) and (3) of Section 29-C
of the KCS Act. The methodology of
disqualifying is only after issuing a notice
and/or a person being heard in terms of Sub-
section (7) of Section 29-C of the KCS Act. The
reason for the same is not far to see in as much
as disqualification would bring about several
disentitlements on part of a person and the
disqualification being penal in nature, it is but
required that the concerned person is heard
before such an order is passed.
12.7. Thus, it cannot be said that the disqualification
under Sub-section (1) of 29-C including Clause
(a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 29-C or 29(2)
or 29(3) of the KCS Act is automatic.
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
Necessarily an order would have to be passed
by the Registrar by following the procedure
prescribed under Sub-section (7) of Section 29-
C of the KCS Act.
12.8. Hence, I answer point No.2 by holding that
a disqualification of a default in payment
of dues in any other Co-operative Society
would not lead to automatic
disqualification in terms of Section 29-C
(1)(a) of the KCS Act 1959. The procedure
under Sub-section (7) of Section 29-C of
the KCS Act would have to be followed for
declaring a person to be disqualified.
13. Answer to point No.3; Whether the Returning
Officer was right in rejecting the nomination
form of respondent No.5?
13.1. The Returning Officer after accepting the
nomination of respondent No.5 rejected the
same on the basis of the complaint filed by the
petitioner that there is a default made by
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
respondent No.5 as regards his dues to Veman
Co-operative Society. As on the date on which
the nomination of respondent No.5 was rejected
by the Returning Officer, there was no order
which had been passed under Sub-section (7)
of Section 29-C of the KCS Act.
13.2. Thus, on record there is no disqualification of
respondent No.5 which has occurred in any of
the proceedings by following the due process of
law. Though there might have been a ground
for disqualifying respondent No.5, the fact
remains that there is no order of disqualification
which had been passed in respect to respondent
No.5.
13.3. Hence, I answer point No.3 by holding that
the Returning Officer was not right in
rejecting the nomination Form of
respondent No.5 without there being a
disqualification order passed by the
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
Registrar in terms of Sub-section (7) of
Section 29-C of the KCS Act.
14. Answer to point No.4: Whether the DRCS, as the
District Election Officer or otherwise, could have
directed the Returning Officer to accept the
nomination form of Respondent No.5?
14.1. The DRCS in the present matter is not only
acting as a Deputy Registrar but as a District
Election Officer. Thus, there is a duty cast on the
District Election Officer to see to it that the
elections are conducted in a proper manner.
14.2. Though the reasons are not forthcoming from the
orders of the DRCS, the fact remains that the
Returning Officer could not have rejected a
nomination form of Respondent No. 5 since there
is no disqualification order passed in terms of
Sub-section (7) of Section 29-C of the KCS Act.
14.3. Thus, on an objection raised by the petitioner,
when the Returning Officer has rejected the
nomination form, the action on part of the
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
District Election Officer in directing the
acceptance of the nomination form, in my
considered opinion cannot be found fault with.
More so, as indicated supra, there being no
order of disqualification of Respondent No. 5.
14.4. The application which had been filed by
Respondent No. 5 before the District Election
Officer, is only to bring to the notice of the
District Election Officer about the order passed
by the Returning Officer and pointing out that
the nomination form could not have been
rejected on that ground.
14.5. Hence, I answer point No.4 by holding that
the DRCS, acting as a District Election
Officer was right in directing the Returning
Officer to accept the nomination form of
respondent No.5.
15. Answer to point No.5: Whether, in the above
circumstances, this Court is required to direct
the announcement of results including that of
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
Respondent No.5 by counting the votes kept in a
separate ballot box?
15.1. In view of my answers to points No.1 to 4, it
being clear that respondent No.5 is not
disqualified, there is no automatic
disqualification in terms of Section 29-C(1)(a)
of the KCS Act. Though the grounds for
disqualification may be available, the same
would require the Registrar to pass specific
orders after issuing notice to the concerned
person in terms of Sub-section 7 of Section 29-
C of the KCS Act. The results of the elections
would have to be declared by counting the
votes cast in favor of respondent No.5 as also
announcing the results insofar as respondent
No.5 is concerned.
15.2. Hence, I answer point No.5 by holding that
the results of the elections are required to
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14238
HC-KAR
be declared including that of respondent
No.5.
16. Answer to point number 6: What order?
16.1. In view of my finding above, no grounds being
made out the petition stands dismissed.
16.2. Respondents are directed to announce the
results within seven days from today.
16.3. Liberty is however reserved to any aggrieved
party to file dispute under Section 70 of the
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, if
so advised.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
GAB,SR
