[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri P K Siddegowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:17870
WP No. 9312 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.9312 OF 2026 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. P.K. SIDDEGOWDA
S/O S KARUGUNDE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
MEMBER OF SOGALAPALYA MILK
PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
R/AT SOGALAPALYA VILLAGE.
VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI.
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562138.
2. SRI. P.S. CHANDRA SHEKAR
S/O SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
MEMBER OF SOGALAPALYA MILK
Digitally signed PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
by CHAYA S A
Location: HIGH R/AT SOGALAPALYA VILLAGE,
COURT OF VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI,
KARNATAKA
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT- 562138.
3. SRI. EREGOWDA
S/O CHIKAMASTHI GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
MEMBER OF SOGALAPALYA
MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LTD.,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:17870
WP No. 9312 of 2026
HC-KAR
R/AT SOGALAPALYA VILLAGE,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT- 562138.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.R. RAJGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. THILAKRAJ S.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES
RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION,
RAMANAGARA,
BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT-562159.
3. THE ADMINISTRATOR,
SOGALAPALYA MILK PRODUCERS
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
SOGALAPALYA,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA SOUTH DISTRICT-562138.
4. THE SECRETARY,
SOGALAPALYA MILK PRODUCERS
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
SOGALAPALYA, CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA SOUTH DISTRICT-562138.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:17870
WP No. 9312 of 2026
HC-KAR
5. SRI. HEMALINGE GOWDA,
S/O KUNNNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
SOGALAPALYA MILK PRODUCERS
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
SOGALAPALYA, CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA SOUTH DISTRICT - 562138.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL DATED 24/02/2026 ON IA NO. 1 IN C- OPERATIVE
APPEAL NO. 360/2025 AS PER ANNEXURE -M; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts
notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioners are
assailing (i) the order dated 24.02.2026 passed on
I.A. No. 1 in Co-operative Appeal No. 360 of 2025
NC: 2026:KHC:17870
HC-KAR
(Annexure-M), and (ii) the order dated 21.11.2025
passed in Dispute No. 80/2022-23 (Annexure-J) by
respondent No. 1. The petitioners have, inter-alia,
sought for a direction to the authorities to restore the
order of dismissal of respondent No.5 from the post of
Secretary of respondent No.3-Society.
3. Heard Sri M. R. Rajgopal, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for learned counsel Sri. Thilakraj
S.V., for the petitioners, and Sri. Yogesh D. Naik,
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for
the respondent-State.
4. Sri M. R. Rajgopal, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners, submits that the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has erroneously
dismissed I.A. No. 1 filed by the petitioners seeking to
challenge the award dated 21.11.2025 passed by
respondent No. 1. It is contended that the petitioners
NC: 2026:KHC:17870
HC-KAR
have substantial interest in the respondent-Society
and that any loss incurred by the Society would
adversely affect the rights of its shareholders,
including the petitioners herein.
5. It is further contended that the petitioners
are "persons aggrieved" and are entitled to challenge
the impugned award in view of the law declared by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jasbhai Motibhai
Desai vs. Roshan Kumar reported in (1976) 1 SCC
671. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the
provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies
Act, 1959 requires a liberal construction to safeguard
the interests of the members of the Society, and
therefore, seeks interference of this Court. It is also
argued that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has not
properly appreciated the law laid down by the
NC: 2026:KHC:17870
HC-KAR
Constitution Bench referred to above and as such
sought for interference of this Court.
6. Per contra, Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, learned
Additional Government Advocate submits that an
Administrator has already been appointed to the
respondent-Society and Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
is managing its affairs. It is therefore contended that
the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has considered the
contentions of the petitioners in detail and rightly
dismissed the application and as such sought for
dismissal of the writ petition.
7. In the light of the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in
dispute that the petitioners have challenged the award
passed by respondent No.2 before the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 360 of 2021. The core
question that arises for consideration is whether the
NC: 2026:KHC:17870
HC-KAR
members of the respondent-Society have the locus
standi to challenge the impugned award before the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
8. In this regard, Section 29(G)(4)(j) of the
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 provides
that the CEO is the competent authority to sue and be
sued on behalf of the Society. It is also not in dispute
that the State has appointed an Administrator to
manage the affairs of the respondent-Society.
9. A perusal of the impugned order at
Annexure-M, particularly paragraph 18, indicates that
the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has considered the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jasbhai
Motibhai Desai (supra) and has rightly concluded
that the appellants therein do not have locus standi to
challenge the impugned award.
NC: 2026:KHC:17870
HC-KAR
10. Further, paragraph 34 of the aforesaid
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarifies the
concept of locus standi in invoking jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present
case, the petitioners, being members of the Society,
cannot be construed as "aggrieved persons" to
independently challenge the award, especially when
the statute confers the authority to represent the
Society upon the CEO, and the affairs of the Society is
being presently under the control of Administrator.
11. In that view of the matter, and having
regard to the detailed consideration made by the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, this Court is of the
opinion that the petitioners cannot be treated as
aggrieved parties. The CEO and the Administrator are
competent to safeguard the interest of the
respondent-society.
NC: 2026:KHC:17870
HC-KAR
12. However, it is to be noted that, the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has safeguarded the
interests of the petitioners by granting liberty to them
to approach the CEO/Administrator with regard to
their grievances as urged in I.A. No. 1.
13. In view of the above, this Court do not find
any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Annexure-M.
Accordingly, with the above observations, the writ
petition is disposed of.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
