Karnataka High Court
Venkatareddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
WRIT PETITION NO. 9978 OF 2025 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. VENKATAREDDY
S/O N.C. NARAYANAPPA
AGED 62 YEARS
PRESIDENT
2. RAJANNA
S/O MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED 60 YEARS
3. RAMANJAPPA N
S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED 68 YEARS
4. T.T. ERAPPA
S/O THIPANNA
AGED 63 YEARS
Digitally signed 5. SRINIVASAPPA
by PRASHANTH S/O MOTHAPPA
NV
AGED 55 YEARS
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 6. RATNAMMA
W/O SUBBAREDDY
AGED 50 YEARS
(PETITIONER NO.1 IS
THE PRESIDENT AND
PETITIONER NO.2 TO 6 ARE THE
DIRECTORS OF KYALANOORU
RESHME BELEGARARA HAGU
RAITHARA SEVA SAHAKARA
SANGHA NIYAMITHA
KYALANOORU VILLAGE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT)
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI: DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION
M.S BUILDING
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
KOLAR - 563 101
KOLAR DISTRICT
3. KOLAR - CHIKKALABALAPURA
DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE
BANK LTD PRABHA TALKIES ROAD
KOLAR - 563 101
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4. KYALANOORU RESHME
BELEGARARA HAGU RAITHARA
SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA
KYALANOORU VILLAGE
KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
5. MADHUSUDHAN
S/O NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
BANK SUPERVISOR
KOLAR BRANCH, KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR - CHIKKALABALAPURA
DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE
BANK LTD., PRABHA TALKIES ROAD
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
KOLAR - 563 101
6. C.V PRAKASH
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
AGE - MAJOR
DIRECTOR, KYALANOORU RESHME
BELEGARARA HAGU RAITHARA
SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA
KYALANOORU VILLAGE
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101
(RESPONDENT NO. 4 ARE REGISTERED
UNDER THE KARNATAKA COOPERATIVE
SOCIETIES ACT-1959)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI: SARAVANA .S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R6
SRI: YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & 2
SRI: KALLESHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3
(R4 & 5 - SD/-)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
RESOLUTION DATED 26.03.2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4
SOCIETY PRODUCED AT ANNXEXURE-K AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 14.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CAV ORDER
The petitioners being the President and Directors are
seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
Resolution dated 26.03.2025 passed by respondent No.4 -
Society produced as per Annexure-K and the Communication
dated 24.03.2025 issued by respondent No.2 produced as per
Annexure-L.
2. Heard Sri Jayakumar S Patil, learned senior
advocate for Sri Devi Prasad Shetty, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Sri Yogesh D Naik, learned Additional Government
Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri Kalleshappa, learned
counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri D R Ravishankar, learned
senior advocate for Sri S Saravana, learned counsel for
caveator-respondent No.6. Perused the materials on record.
3. Learned senior advocate for the petitioners
contended that the election to respondent No.3 - Bank was
scheduled to be held on 29.05.2025 and Notification was issued
in that regard. Respondent No.4 was required to send
delegation on behalf of the Society to participate in the said
election and in that regard a meeting was scheduled on
24.03.2025. There was a galata in the meeting and the
Secretary was unwell and admitted to the hospital. Therefore,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
the meeting could not be held as notified and the same was
postponed without taking any decision.
4. Learned senior advocate contended that some of
the Directors appears to have approached respondent No.2
with a request to delegate the powers of Secretary to hold the
Board meeting for the purpose of finalising the delegation to be
sent to respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 had no authority
under law to permit respondent No.5 to conduct the Board
meeting and to finalise the person to be sent as delegate to
respondent No.3. But however, respondent No.5 was
appointed as Supervisor. On the basis of same, respondent
No.5 appears to have conducted a meeting on 25.03.2025 and
took a decision to appoint respondent No.6 as the delegate to
represent the Society in the election that is scheduled to be
held on 29.05.2025 by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-L.
5. Learned senior advocate contended that the
meeting was originally scheduled by the Secretary on
24.03.2025, but no decision could be taken in the said meeting
and the same was postponed. But on 25.03.2025, respondent
No.2 passed Annexure-L appointing respondent No.5 as the
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
Supervisor to hold the meeting and on the same day, the
meeting is said to have been conducted and respondent No.6
was appointed as delegate. There was no such hurry to bypass
the authority of Secretary of respondent No.4 - Society.
6. Learned senior advocate contended that the
petitioners even though were the President and the Directors of
respondent No.4 - Society were not aware of passing of
Annexure-L by respondent No.2. Therefore, an application IA.2
of 2025 was filed seeking permission to amend the petition for
the purpose of seeking relief in respect of Annexure-L. The said
application was allowed and the petitioners were permitted to
amend the petition. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent
No.6 had preferred Writ Appeal No.774 of 2025. In the said
writ appeal, vide order dated 27.05.2025 the Court permitted
respondent No.6 herein to cast his vote as delegate in the
election that was held on 28.05.2025. The prayer for vacating
the interim order granted in favour of the petitioners was
rejected. However, it was directed that the vote that is to be
cast by respondent No.6 is to be kept in separate sealed box
and the election result of the constituency concerned shall not
be declared without the order in the present writ petition.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
Therefore, learned senior advocate contended that the vote
that is cast by respondent No.6 would be subject to the result
of the present writ petition.
7. Learned senior advocate contended that Section 29-
G of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act is not applicable
to the facts of the present case to authorize respondent No.2 to
appoint respondent No.5 as the Supervisor and to exercise the
power of Secretary of respondent No.4 - Society. The first
proviso to Section 29-G refers to 'co-operative credit structure'
to have an option of getting Chief Executive appointed by
requesting the Government or the Registrar as the case may
be. Second proviso to Section 29-G permits the Society to
appoint the Chief Executive within 3 months. Learned senior
advocate further contended that sub section (4) of Section 29-
G makes it clear that such Chief Executive who shall be the
Chief Administrative Officer of the Society was authorized under
this provision for convening the meeting of the general body,
the Board of management in consultation with the President or
Chair Person.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
8. Learned senior advocate contended that as per
Section 2(b-2) of the Act, 'co-operative credit structure'
includes a Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies.
Respondent No.4 is such a Society and therefore, it is the co-
operative credit structure. Respondent No.2 had no authority
to delegate the power for the purpose of appointing a
Supervisor. Therefore, Annexure-L issued by respondent No.2
appointing respondent No.5 as the Supervisor for respondent
No.4 - Society is without any authority. It in fact directly
affects the right of the petitioners as the President and
Directors of respondent No.4 - Society, while the election for
respondent No.3 was scheduled to be held on 29.05.2025.
There was no urgency for respondent No.2 to act so swiftly and
to appoint respondent No.5, that too, without any authority
under the Act or the Rules. Therefore, Annexure-L issued by
respondent No.2 and Annexure-K - the proceedings dated
26.03.2025 appointing respondent No.6 as the delegate are
required to be quashed. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the
petition.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
9. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 opposing the petition
submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the
petitioners are required to raise a dispute before respondent
No.2 to challenge Annexures-L and K under Section 70 of the
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioners have not
exhausted the said remedy and have approached this Court
seeking quashing of Annexure-K, which is not permissible
under law.
10. Secondly, learned Additional Government Advocate
submitted that the petitioners are not having any locus standi
to maintain the petition. He refers to Section 29-G(4)(j) of the
Act to contend that it is only the Chief Executive or the Chief
Administrative Officer of the Society to sue or to be sued on
behalf of the Co-operative Society. The petitioners being the
President and Directors lack such authority and therefore, the
petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. Learned Additional Government Advocate further
submitted that as per Section 28(2) of the Act, if a meeting
was not called in accordance with the requisition, the Registrar
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
or any person authorized shall have the power to call such
meeting and the meeting shall be deemed to be a meeting
called by the Board. He further submitted that the last date for
sending the delegate was on 26.03.2025 and therefore, there
was urgency in the matter. Hence, respondent No.2 has rightly
passed the order as per Annexure-L on 25.03.2025.
12. Learned Additional Government Advocate places
reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in Kamaganahalli Milk Producers Womens Cooperative
Society Ltd., Rep by its Director Veda S.K. -vs- State of
Karnataka Department of Co-Operation, Rep its Principal
Secretary and Others1, to contend that the Co-ordinate
Bench has categorically held that the Chief Executive Officer
can without any further authorization file any proceedings on
behalf of the Society. But for the President or the Director filing
of such proceedings is required to be accompanied by the
Board Resolution authorizing such person to file the suit or the
proceedings. He referring to Section 29(G)(4)(j) of the KCS Act,
submitted that, it is the exclusive authority of the Chief
Executive Officer to sue or be sued on behalf of the Co-
1
2025 SCC OnLine Kar 1791
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
operative Society, since the petitioners are not authorized in
any manner to file the writ petition, they lack locus standi to
maintain the same.
13. Learned Additional Government Advocate also
submitted that Annexure-R4 issued by respondent No.2
appointing respondent No.5 as the Supervisor discloses that
respondent No.2 has taken into consideration the failure on the
part of Chief Executive of respondent No.4 - Society to convene
the meeting to finalise the delegate. Therefore, there is no
merit in the claim made by the petitioners and hence, prays for
dismissal of the petition.
14. Learned senior advocate for respondent No.6
opposing the petition submitted that respondent No.4 is a
Primary Co-operative Society, which is affiliated to respondent
No.3 has given a direction to respondent No.4 to conduct a
meeting for the purpose of sending the delegate to respondent
No.3 within 26.03.2025 before 5:00 p.m. For the purpose of
finalising the delegate, the Chief Executive Officer of
respondent No.4 had notified the meeting on 20.03.2025 to be
held on 24.03.2025 at 11:30 a.m. under the chairmanship of
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
petitioner No.1 being the President. Subject No.2 in the Agenda
was specifically to finalise and to select the delegate to
respondent No.3. Admittedly, on 24.03.2025, the President, the
Chief Executive Officer and other Directors have came to the
Society for the purpose of attending the meeting. But
strangely, the Chief Executive Officer has affixed a notice in the
notice board that the meeting is adjourned. No reasons are
assigned in the said notice, which is produced by respondent
No.6 as Document No.2. Annexure-D produced by the
petitioners is the representation by the President - petitioner
No.1 herein submitted to the Chief Executive Officer on
24.03.2025 itself, directing him to adjourn or postpone the
meeting on the ground that the meeting notice dated
20.03.2025 was not served on all the Directors. Therefore, it is
clear that the Chief Executive Officer has acted at the instance
of petitioner No.1 and postponed the meeting by notifying in
the notice board that the meeting is postponed, without
assigning any reason.
15. Learned senior advocate contended that as per
Annexure-E, the Chief Executive Officer on the very same day
i.e. on 24.03.2025 had written to the Assistant Registrar of Co-
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
operative Societies-respondent No.2 informing the President
and other Directors, directed him to postpone the meeting. The
reason assigned in the said Communication is that one of the
Directors - Sri. T.T. Erappa of Thippanahalli village, was served
with the meeting notice through WhatsApp. But it is stated
that, he was not intimated about the meeting in accordance
with law and therefore, he was directed to postpone the
meeting. He contended that the Communication (Annexure-E)
further states that the Chief Executive Officer had fell down,
lost consciousness and was admitted to Guru Sparsh Hospital at
Chinthamani. Since there was raise in his Blood Pressure, he
was advised to take treatment and his blood sample showed
that he is suffering from Dengue and Diabetes. Accordingly, he
was advised to be admitted to the Hospital for 3 or 4 days.
16. Learned senior advocate draws the attention of the
Court to Annexure-F1 - the Medical Certificate pertaining to the
Chief Executive Officer issued by one Nakshathra Hospital,
Devanahalli Town, Bengaluru Rural District, according to which,
the Chief Executive Officer - Naveen C., admitted to the
Hospital on 24.03.2025 at 3:15 p.m. with the history of fever
since 5 days with cough, nausea and general weakness since 4
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
days. According to the medical certificate, the Chief Executive
Officer was discharged from the Hospital on 27.03.2025. By
referring to this certificate, learned senior advocate contended
that Annexure-F1 is quite contrary to the contents of Annexure-
E, according to which, the Chief Executive Officer fell
unconscious in the Society due to the altercation that was held
there and was admitted to Guru Sparsh Hospital, Chinthamani
and he was diagnosed with dengue and sugar. No such details
are available in Annexure-F1, which clearly discloses that the
petitioners in collusion with the Chief Executive Officer of the
Society concocted the records with imaginary grounds only for
the purpose of postponing the meeting and avoid sending of
delegate to respondent No.3.
17. Learned senior advocate contended that in view of
this delaying tactics adopted by the President and the Chief
Executive Officer of the Society and since they were not willing
to conduct the meeting as required under law, the same was
brought to the notice of respondent No.2, who in-turn
exercising his supervisory authority under the Act, appointed a
Supervisor only to call for a meeting for the purpose of
finalizing the delegate and to convene the meeting.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
Accordingly, the Supervisor had issued Annexure-G to the
President and other members of the Board informing them that
the meeting that was to be held on 24.03.2025 was re-
scheduled on 26.03.2025 at 11:00 a.m. under the
chairmanship of the President who is petitioner No.1 in the
petition.
18. On receipt of such meeting notice, petitioner No.1 has
submitted Annexure-H raising his objections that no sufficient
opportunity is given before conducting the meeting after issuing
the notice. Learned senior advocate would submit that it was a
special meeting that was convened initially on 24.03.2025 for
the purpose of finalizing the delegate and on appointment of
the Supervisor, he has only notified the members of the Board
about convening the meeting on 26.03.2025 at 11:00 a.m. to
enable the Society to nominate the delegate and forward the
same before 5:00 p.m. fixed by respondent No.3.
19. Learned senior advocate would submit that
Annexure-J is the letter addressed to the President-petitioner
No.1 dated 25.03.2025 requesting him to preside over the
meeting which was postponed from 24.03.2025 and re-
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
scheduled to be held at 11:00 a.m. on 26.03.2025. Therefore,
the Supervisor who was appointed by respondent No.2 except
issuing the meeting notice and requesting the President to
convene the meeting, has not played any role in appointing the
delegate.
20. Learned senior advocate contended that Annexure-K
is the proceedings of the meeting, according to which,
petitioner No.1 being the President and petitioner No.2 being
the Vice-President remained absent. However, out of 13
Directors, 7 Directors were present, and therefore there was
quorum for conducting the meeting and one among them was
appointed by the members as President to chair the meeting.
Accordingly, an unanimous decision was taken to elect
respondent No.6 as the delegate to respondent No.3 - Society,
authorizing him to cast his vote in the election that is to be
held. Since 7 Directors were present and took unanimous
decision to elect respondent No.6 as the delegate, it was with a
simple majority, the Resolution was passed. The said
Resolution - Annexure-K is challenged by the petitioners before
this Court, but the same is not amenable to the jurisdiction of
this Court. Accordingly, the election of the delegate to
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
respondent No.3 was communicated in time and accordingly
the election was held to respondent No.3 - Society in which
respondent No.6 has cast his vote as ordered in
W.A.No.774/2025 in the election that was held on 29.05.2025.
However, the vote cast by respondent No.6 was ordered to be
kept in a separate sealed box and held that the election result
shall not be declared without the order of the Court in this writ
petition.
21. Learned senior advocate contended that as per Rule
14(A)(K)(11), if the President or the Chairperson is unable to
attend the meeting of the Board, the Vice-President or in his
absence any other member of the Board elected by the
Directors present at the meeting from among themselves, is
authorized to preside over the meeting. Therefore, there is no
illegality in the meeting that was held on 28.05.2025 in which
respondent No.6 was elected as the delegate to respondent
No.4 - society. He places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Daman Singh and Others -vs- State of
Punjab and Others2, to contend that once a person becomes
a member of a Co-operative Society, he will not have
2
1985 (2) SCC 670
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
individuality qua the Society and he has no independent rights
except those given to him by the statute and the bye-laws. He
must act and speak through the Society or rather, the Society
alone can act and speak for him qua rights or duties of the
Society as a body.
22. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Khargram Panchayat Samiti and Another -
vs- State of West Bengal and Others3, in support of his
contention that when the statute confers any authority, it is
necessary to carry on the other incidental or ancillary powers.
He contended that when a power is conferred on the statutory
authority, such power will also include other incidental or
ancillary powers without exercise of which the main power
cannot be exercised. Therefore, he contended that, as per
Section 29(G) of the KCS Act, the Government or the Registrar
will have the authority to appoint the Chief Executive Officer for
every Co-operative Society. When the conduct of the
petitioners disclose that they were not willing to conduct any
meeting for the purpose of electing the delegate as required
under law and they wanted to create a checkmate, preventing
3
1987 (3) SCC 82
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
respondent No.4 Society from participating in the election to be
held in respondent No.3, the Registrar will have the power to
convene the meeting either himself or through any other
person. Exercising such power, the Supervisor was appointed
by respondent No.2 only for the purpose of calling the meeting.
23. Learned senior advocate also referred to Section
28(2) of the KCS Act to contend that, if a Special General
meeting of a Co-operative Society is not called in accordance
with law, the Registrar or any person authorized by him in this
behalf shall have the power to call such meeting and that
meeting shall be deemed to be a meeting called by the Board.
If the same analogy is applied to the Board meeting to be
convened by the Chief Executive Officer and if he fails to call for
such meeting, respondent No.2 will definitely have the right to
appoint the Supervisor for the purpose of calling the meeting.
But the meeting was held by the majority of the Directors by
electing one amongst them as the Chairperson to preside over
the meeting. Since the Resolution was passed with simple
majority, the petitioners cannot have any grievance against the
same. The Supervisor has not played any role either in
conducting the meeting or in passing the Resolution. Therefore,
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
the petitioners cannot have any grievance against the
unanimous Resolution that was passed and produced as per
Annexure-K.
24. Learned senior advocate contended that the conduct
of petitioner No.1, being the President and other petitioners
and also the Chief Executive disclose that they were bent upon
in not holding a meeting, and not to send the delegate and
thereby deny the opportunity to respondent No.4 to have its
representative in the election to be held in respondent No.3.
The petitioners cannot frustrate the provisions of the Act and
the Rules and hold the Society for ransom. Therefore, the
petitioners who were not having any bonafides are not entitled
for any reliefs. Therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.
25. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned
counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my
consideration is:
"Whether the petitioners have made out any
ground to quash the Resolution dated 26.03.2025
passed by respondent No.4-society produced at
Annexure-K?"
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the
following:
REASONS
26. The contentions of the parties referred to above
disclose that, the Deputy Commissioner being the Returning
Officer issued the Notification in Form No.11 under Rule 14(1)
of the KCS Act on 13.03.2025 as per Annexure-B, declaring the
election is to be held on 28.05.2025. As per the calendar of
events, 28.05.2025 was the last date for submission of draft
voters' list by respondent No.3. Pursuant to the same,
respondent No.3 directed respondent No.4 to send its delegate
on or before 26.03.2025 by 5:00 p.m. It is with this
background, the Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.4 -
Society notified the special meeting on 20.03.2025 to be held
on 24.03.2025 at 11:30 a.m., under the chairmanship of
petitioner No.1, for the purpose of electing the delegate.
Strangely as per Annexure-D, the President himself addresses a
letter to the Chief Executive Officer that the meeting was called
without following the procedure as contemplated under law and
many of the Directors were not served with the notice and
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
therefore, requested to postpone the meeting that was
scheduled to be held at 11:30 a.m. on 24.03.2025. Pursuant to
the same, the Chief Executive Officer has written to respondent
No.2 on the very same day, as per Annexure-E specifically
stating that he was present in the Society on 24.03.2025 at
9:45 a.m. for the purpose of convening the meeting at 11:30
a.m. under the chairmanship of the President and he received
the objection from the chairman himself. The only objection
referred to in Annexure-E is that, one of the Directors by name
T.T. Erappa of Thippanahalli Village was served with the notice
through WhatsApp and this was according to petitioner No.1,
was not in accordance with law. The Chief Executive Officer
himself gives an explanation that the said T.T. Erappa is not
residing in Thippanahalli and therefore the meeting notice was
sent through WhatsApp. The said T.T. Erappa is petitioner No.4
in the present petition. Strangely, he has not made out any
ground in the petition that he was not served with the meeting
notice through WhatsApp or in other words, he was not
informed about the meeting that was scheduled to be held on
24.03.2025 at 11:30 a.m.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
27. Annexure-E further discloses that there was
altercation amongst the Directors who were present in the
meeting and the President has postponed the meeting notifying
the same in the notice board. The copy of the notice affixed in
the notice board is produced by respondent No.6, according to
which, the meeting that was scheduled to be held on
24.03.2025 was postponed. No reasons are assigned for
postponing the matters in the said notice. Annexure-E further
states that the Chief Executive had fell unconscious and was
admitted to Guru Sparsh Hospital at Chinthamani as he was
having high Blood Pressure. He was diagnosed with Dengue
and Diabetes, and advised to take treatment for 3 or 4 days.
28. Annexure-F1 is the medical certificate issued by
Nakshathra Hospital, Devanahalli Town, Bengaluru Rural
District, pertaining to Naveen C., who is the Chief Executive
Officer. Strangely, according to this medical certificate, he was
admitted to the Hospital on 24.03.2025 at 3:15 p.m., with the
history of fever since 5 days with cough, poor oral intake,
nausea and general weakness since 4 days. This document
does not refer to diagnosing the Chief Executive with Dengue or
he falling unconscious and admitting him to Guru Sparsh
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
Hospital at Chintamani. The reason assigned in Annexure-E is
quite contrary to the reasons found in Annexure-F1. There is no
reasonable explanation for this glaring inconsistency.
29. It is at this stage, the other Directors of respondent
No.4 - Society approached respondent No.2 with a request to
convene the meeting for the purpose of electing the delegate
and he appointed the Supervisor only for the purpose of
convening the meeting of respondent No.4 Society. Annexure-G
is the meeting notice dated 25.03.2025 issued by the
Supervisor scheduling the Board meeting on 26.03.2025 at
11:00 a.m. requesting all the members of the Board to attend
the same.
30. It is also pertinent to note that Annexure-H is the
letter addressed to the Supervisor by petitioner No.1 as
President of respondent No.4 - Society, questioning his
authority to call for the meeting on the ground that atleast 7
clear days notice should have been given to call for the board
meeting and even under emergency, 3 clear days notice is
required to be given. But the meeting notice as per Annexure-G
was issued one day prior to the special meeting i.e. convened
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
and hence, it is not in accordance with law. It cannot be lost
sight of the fact that there was urgency for respondent No.4 -
Society to elect the delegate for the purpose of sending his
nomination to respondent No.3, authorizing him to cast his vote
in the election. The deadline fixed by respondent No.3 was on
26.03.2025 before 5:00 p.m. Under such circumstances, only
on the ground that 7 or 3 clear days notice was not given by
the Supervisor, cannot be a ground to hold that the meeting
itself is not in accordance with law. Moreover, it is to be
noticed that the Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.4 had
already called the special meeting on 24.03.2025 by issuing the
notice on 20.03.2025 produced as per Annexure-C. The
meeting that was scheduled to be held on 26.03.2025 at 11:00
a.m. was the postponed meeting as the meeting on 24.03.2025
could not be held.
31. Annexure-K is the Resolution passed in the special
meeting that was held on 26.03.2025 at 11:00 a.m. This
Resolution makes it clear that even though the meeting was
called under the chairmanship of petitioner No.1, he remained
absent. Even the Vice-President i.e. petitioner No.2 herein
remained absent. Out of 13 Directors, 7 Directors were present
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
in the meeting which constitutes quorum and selected
C.V.Prakash unanimously as the Chairman to conduct the
meeting. They have also unanimously passed the Resolution
selecting said C.V.Prakash who is respondent No.6 herein as
the delegate, authorizing him to cast vote in the election i.e. to
be held in respondent No.3. When 7 Directors out of 13, hold
the meeting and passed the unanimous Resolution to elect
respondent No.6 as the delegate, the same cannot be held to
be illegal or against the provisions of law. The conduct of
petitioner No.1 and the Chief Executive Officer in postponing
the meeting and objecting for holding the meeting on
26.03.2025 giving lame excuses disclose that there was no
bonafides in the contentions raised by them. The reasons
assigned for postponing the meeting and not calling for the
meeting was not justifiable and it do not inspire confidence in
the mind of the Court.
32. I find considerable force in the contentions taken by
the learned senior advocate for respondent No.6 that when
Section 29(G) of the Act authorizes the Registrar to appoint or
to remove the Chief Executives, respondent No.2 can definitely
exercise his authority to nominate a Supervisor only for the
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
purpose of calling for a meeting of the Society. The authority of
respondent No.2 in that regard cannot be questioned.
33. When nomination of the Supervisor for the purpose
of calling for a meeting cannot be held to be illegal, the
meeting so held cannot be dubbed as illegal. The Supervisor
nominated by respondent No.2 has not played any role in
passing the Resolution - Annexure-K, which was unanimously
passed by majority of Directors. Therefore, the same is not
liable to be quashed.
34. On the basis of unanimous Resolution (Annexure-K),
respondent No.6 has cast his vote in the election that was held
by respondent No.3. I do not see any impediment in
considering the said vote for the purpose of declaring the
result. In view of the order passed in W.A.No.774/2025, I deem
it appropriate to direct the Returning Officer to count the vote
cast by respondent No.6 and to declare the election result in
accordance with law.
35. In view of the above, I answer the point in the
'Negative' and proceed to pass the following:
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42930
WP No. 9978 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) The Returning Officer is directed to count the
vote cast by respondent No.6 and to declare
the election result in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
BGN/MKM
CT:VS
