[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri M Babu vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 February, 2026

                                          -1-
                                                        NC: 2026:KHC:11655
                                                  WP No. 29487 of 2025


              HC-KAR




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                     DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                       BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
                       WRIT PETITION NO.29487 OF 2025 (CS-RES)
              BETWEEN:

              1.    SRI. M. BABU
                    S/O LATE M MUNISWAMI REDDY
                    AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
                    HENNAGARA
                    HENNAGARA POST
                    BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560105.
                                                             ...PETITIONER
              (BY SRI. ANAND P., ADVOCATE)

              AND:

Digitally
signed by     1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
SUNITHA K S         DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION
Location:
HIGH COURT          MS BUILDING
OF
KARNATAKA           DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
                    BENGALURU - 560 001
                    REPD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.


              2.    THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF
                    CO-OPERATIVE SOCITIES
                    BENGALURU REGION
                             -2-
                                      NC: 2026:KHC:11655
                                    WP No. 29487 of 2025


HC-KAR




     SAHAKRA SOUDHA
     3RD FLOOR MARGOSA ROAD
     MALLESHWARAM
     BENGALURU - 560 003.


3.   THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF
     CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
     (C & M) OFFICE OF
     THE REGISTRAR OF
     CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN
     KARNATAKA NO.1
     ALI ASKER ROAD
     BENGALURU - 560 054.


4.   HORTICULTURE PRODUCERS
     CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING
     AND PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD
     (HOPCOMS)
     DR. M H MARIGOWDA ROAD
     LALBAG, BENGALURU - 560 004.
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     MANAGING DIRECTOR.


5.   SMT. H. K. NAGAVENI
     W/O D. CHANDRASHEKAR
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
     DIRECTOR ( HOPCOMS)
                             -3-
                                      NC: 2026:KHC:11655
                                    WP No. 29487 of 2025


HC-KAR




     R/AT SVVN SCHOOL ROAD
     VENKATEAPPA GARDEN
     5TH WARD DOMMASANDRA
     BENGALURU - 562 125.


6.   SRI. A.S. CHANDREGOWDA
     S/O A.V. SHAMANNA GOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
     DIRECTOR (HOPCOMS)
     R/AT MUTHUR MALLUR
     SHIDLAGAHATTA TALUK
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 102.


7.   SRI. N. DEVARAJ
     S/O NAGARAJAIAJ V.
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
     DIRECTOR (HOPCOMS)
     R/AT NO.55, DODDA HAGADE
     ANEKAL, BENGALURU - 562 106.


8.   SRI. G.R. SRINIVASAN
     S/O RAMAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
     DIRECTOR (HOPCOMS)
     R/AT NANDI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
     AND DISTRICT - 562 101.
                             -4-
                                           NC: 2026:KHC:11655
                                      WP No. 29487 of 2025


HC-KAR




9.   SRI. N. GOPALKRISHNA
     S/O GOPALKRISHNA
     AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
     PRESIDENT (HOPCOMS)
     R/AT ARAHALLI
     KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.


10. SRI. B. MUNEGOWDA
     S/O LATE BYREGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
     DIRECTOR (HOPCOMS)
     R/AT NO.23 PALYA, KANNAMANGALA
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 106.



                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MONICA PATIL, C/R5 - R10;
SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 (MA NOT FILED);
SRI. T. DADAKHALANDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO THE
ORDER DATED 16-07-2025 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.ANI(C AND
M)/D3/DAP/03/2024-25 BY THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE   SOCIETIES(C    AND    M),   BENGALURU     I.E.,
RESPONDENT NO.3 HEREIN, VIDE ANNEXURE-M.
                                -5-
                                             NC: 2026:KHC:11655
                                          WP No. 29487 of 2025


HC-KAR




     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI


                        ORAL ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the

following reliefs:

i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 16.07.2025 passed in appeal No. ANI(C and M)/D3/DAP/03/3034-2025 by the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies (C & M), Bengaluru i.e., Respondent No.3 herein, vide Annexure M.

ii. Pass such other direction or order in the writ as may deem fit to this Hon'ble court may kindly be issued.

2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this writ petition

are as follows:

3. The Petitioner is a member, former President and

Director of Respondent No.4 society, the petitioner and

NC: 2026:KHC:11655

HC-KAR

other similarly situated members have submitted a

complaint in the form of representation dated

24-02-2015 to Respondent No.3 and wherein have

made as many 12 allegations concerning the illegalities

and mismanagement committed by the Board of

Management and Officials of the said society, which

were to be looked into by the Authorities by conducting

an enquiry. Respondent No.3 has sent across a

communication dated 03-03-2015 addressed to

Respondent No.2 herein with a request to conduct an

enquiry under Section 64 of the Act regarding the

contents of the complaint submitted by the petitioner

and others. Further, Respondent No.2 has passed an

order dated 07-09-2015 whereby by leveling 12

charges as against Respondent Nos.5 to 10, has

appointed the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative

Societies, South Zone, Bengaluru, as Enquiry Officer

with a direction to conduct the enquiry under Section

NC: 2026:KHC:11655

HC-KAR

64 of the Act within a period of 3 months from the date

of said order to and submit report thereon.

4. On 08.05.2019, Respondent No.2 has sent

communication to the Enquiry Officer for his inaction.

Further, on 28.08.2020, Respondent No.2 was

constrained to pass a fresh order by appointing the

Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 3rd Zone,

Bengaluru Urban District with a direction to conduct

enquiry under section 64 of the Act.

5. The Petitioner and others have filed writ petition No.

18058/2021(CS-RES) before this Hon'ble Court for writ

of mandamus. This Hon'ble Court passed an order

dated 05.10.2021 directing the Enquiry Officer to

accomplish the subject enquiry within an outer limit of

three weeks.

6. On 14.02.2023, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his

findings in the form of report to the appointing

Authority i.e., Respondent No.2 herein. On

NC: 2026:KHC:11655

HC-KAR

10.07.2023, Respondent No.2 has passed the order

under section 68 of the Act directing the Respondent

No.4 society to submit a compliance report within 30

days from the date of receipt of the order.

7. Further, Respondent No.2 initiated suo-moto

proceedings under section 29-C of KCS Act, 1959

against Respondent Nos.5 to 10 and issued a show-

cause notice to that effect. Respondent No.2 submitted

a reply to the show cause notice issued by respondent

No.2. Further, Respondent No.2 has passed an order

dated 30.11.2024 disqualifying the Respondent Nos.5

to 10 for a period of 5 years from holding office of

Respondent No.4 and any other co-operative societies.

Being aggrieved by the order passed by Respondent

No.2, Respondent Nos.5 to 10 have filed an appeal

before Respondent No.3 under section 106(1)(d-2) of

the KCS Act, 1959.

8. Respondent No.3 has passed an order dated

16.07.2025 allowing the appeal filed by Respondent

NC: 2026:KHC:11655

HC-KAR

Nos.5 to 10 and set aside the order of disqualification

dated 30-11-2024 passed by Respondent No.2. Hence,

this petition.

9. Heard the arguments Sri. M.R. Rajagopal, learned

senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Jayakumar S.

Patil, learned senior counsel for the respondents.

10. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits

that, at the instance of the petitioner and others, the

enquiry was initiated under Section 64 of the Act

regarding as many as 12 charges leveled against

respondent Nos. 5 to 10. The enquiry officer submitted

a report to respondent No. 2 and on the receipt of the

same, respondent No.2 has passed an order under

Section 68 of the Act directing respondent No. 4 to

rectify the defects made over in the enquiry and to

submit a compliance report. Respondent No. 4 did not

comply with the directions issued by respondent No. 2.

He submits that respondent No. 2 has passed an order

of disqualification against respondent Nos.5 to 10

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11655

HC-KAR

under Section 29-C of the Act, 1959. However, the

same was assailed in appeal under section 106(2) (d-

2) of the Act before respondent No.3. He submits that

respondent No.3 has set aside the order passed by

respondent No.2 by passing the impugned order. He

submits that respondent No.2 has rightly considered

the materials on record and has passed the order of

disqualification against respondent Nos.5 to 10.

However, he submits that respondent No. 3 without

looking into the gravity of charges leveled against

respondents No. 5 to 10 has passed the impugned

order.

11. Regarding the question of locus in filing the instant

writ petition, the learned senior counsel for the

petitioner submits that, the petitioner has a locus

standi to approach this Hon'ble court under Article 226

of the Constitution of India. He submits that, in

exceptional cases, even a stranger or a person who

was not a party to the proceedings before the

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11655

HC-KAR

authority, but having a substantial and genuine

interest in the subject matter of the proceedings can

knock the doors of this Hon'ble court under Article 226

of the Constitution of India.

12. Further, to buttress his arguments he placed reliance

on the following authorities of the Hon'ble Apex court:

1) Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others reported in (1976) 1 SCC

2) Basudev Dutta v. State of West Bengal and others reported in 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 3616

13. Accordingly, he submits that, the order passed in an

appeal under Section 106 of the KCS Act is without

application of mind. Hence, prays to allow the petition.

14. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the

respondents submits that, Respondent No.2 has passed

an order under section 29-C(8)(b)(c) and (d) and not

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11655

HC-KAR

under Section 29-C(1) of the KCS Act, 1959. He

submits that the petitioner herein was not the party to

the proceedings before Respondent No.2 and

Respondent No.3, therefore he has no locus standi in

filing the present petition. He submits that infringement

of some legal right to some legal interest inhering in the

petitioner is necessary to give him a locus standi in the

matter. He submits that the petitioner was not to

entitled object and be heard before the authority before

it took the impugned action. He submits that the court

is not bound to interfere at the instance of stranger in

entertaining the writ petition. He submits that, the

petitioner herein acted only as the informant/

complainant to the Registrar of the society and it would

not be proper to hold that there exists a lis between

him and the respondents. He submits that the scope of

Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited

unlike Article 226.

- 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11655

HC-KAR

15. To buttress his arguments, he placed reliance on the

following judgments:

A. Vijaykumar And Others V. The State Of

Karnataka in WP No. 17898/2023.

B. S. Srinivas and others v. The State of

Karnataka and others in WP No. 54844-

C. Appa Saheb R. kerakalamatti v. Additional

Registrar of Cooperative Societies in

Karnataka and others reported in AIR 1985

KAR 202

D. Sri. S. P. Dinesh v. the State of Karnataka

and others in W.P. No. 21894 of 2024

E. Parappa v. Nandarayappa and others

reported in 1997 SCC Online KAR 568.

- 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11655

HC-KAR

Accordingly, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the

petition.

16. Perused the records, and considered the submissions

of the learned senior counsel for the parties.

17. It is undisputed that the petitioner and other

similarly situated members have submitted a complaint

in the form of representation dated 24-02-2015 to

Respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 has sent across a

communication dated 03-03-2015 addressed to

Respondent No.2 herein with a request to conduct an

enquiry under Section 64 of the Act. Respondent No.2

the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 3rd

Zone, Bengaluru Urban District with a direction to

conduct enquiry under Section 64 of the Act.

18. Further, on 14.02.2023, the Enquiry Officer had

submitted his findings in the form of report to the

Appointing Authority i.e., Respondent No.2 herein. On

10.07.2023, Respondent No.2 has passed the order

- 15 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11655

HC-KAR

under Section 68 of the Act directing the Respondent

No.4 society to submit a compliance report within 30

days from the date of receipt of the order.

19. Respondent No.2 initiated suo-moto proceedings

under Section 29-C of KCS Act, 1959 and has passed an

order dated 30.11.2024 disqualifying the Respondent

Nos.5 to 10 for a period of 5 years from holding office

of Respondent No.4 and any other Co-operative

societies. Being aggrieved by the order passed by

Respondent No.2, Respondent Nos.5 to 10 have filed an

appeal before Respondent No.3 under Section

106(1)(d-2) of the KCS Act, 1959.

20. Respondent No.3 has passed an order dated

16.07.2025 allowing the appeal filed by Respondent

Nos.5 to 10 and set aside the order of disqualification

dated 30-11-2024 passed by Respondent No.2.

21. This Court deems it appropriate to examine the locus

standi of the petitioner in questioning the impugned

- 16 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11655

HC-KAR

order before going into the merits of the case. It is

pertinent to note that in the instant writ petition, the

petition claims to be the member, former President and

Director of Respondent No.4 society. Looking into the

proceedings initiated before respondent No. 2 and

Respondent No. 3, it is evident that the petitioner was

not a party to the said proceedings i.e., either before

respondent No 2, and respondent No. 3.

22. Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned senior counsel for

the respondents, submits that the petitioner is a

stranger to the proceedings and cannot maintain a writ

petition. He submits that there should be infringement

of some legal right and the petitioner herein was not

entitled to the object and to be heard before the

authorities which passed the impugned order.

23. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Jasbhai

Motibhai Desai Vs. Rohan Kumar, Haji Bashir

Ahmed reported in 1976(1) SCC 671, the authority

relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the

- 17 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11655

HC-KAR

petitioner, also held that a stranger who is not an

aggrieved person cannot maintain a Writ for either

Certiorari or Mandamus. The relevant paragraphs of the

aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is

reproduced hereunder:

"50. While a Procrustean approach should be avoided, as a rule, the Court should not interfere at the instance of a "stranger"

           unless       there             are           exceptional
           circumstances           involving            a     grave

miscarriage of justice having an adverse impact on public interests. Assuming that the appellant is a "stranger", and not a busybody, then also there are no exceptional circumstances in the present case which would justify the issue of a writ of certiorari at his instance. On the contrary, the result of the exercise of these discretionary powers, in his favour, will, on balance, be against public policy. It will eliminate healthy competition in this business which is so essential to raise commercial morality, it will tend to perpetuate the appellant's monopoly of cinema business in the town; and above

- 18 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11655

HC-KAR

all, it will in effect, seriously injure the fundamental rights of Respondent Nos.1 and 2, which they have under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, to carry on trade or business subject to "reasonable restrictions imposed by law".

(Emphasis Supplied)

24. Further, the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Vinoy

Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in

2001 (4) SCC 734 held in para No. 2 as follows :

"2. Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas -corpus or

- 19 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11655

HC-KAR

quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason or poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the Court for relief"

(Emphasis Supplied)

25. Similarly, in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs.

State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2013)

4 SCC 465, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

- 20 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11655

HC-KAR

"9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the authority/court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order, etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can, of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief

- 21 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11655

HC-KAR

prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. [Vide State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [AIR 1952 SC 12] , Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P. [AIR 1954 SC 728] , Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of W.B. [AIR 1962 SC 1044] , Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. [(1996) 5 SCC 460 : AIR 1996 SC 2736] and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. (2) v. S.C. Sekar [(2009) 2 SCC 784].]

10. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved"

does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one whose right

- 22 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11655

HC-KAR

or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York [(1974) 2 SCC 387 : AIR 1974 SC 1719] and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India [(1977) 3 SCC 592 : AIR 1977 SC 1361])

(Emphasis Supplied)

26. Now, the factual matrix of the present case is to be

looked into, in the light of aforesaid authorities laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex court. Looking into the

judgments referred supra, it can be made out that the

Supreme Court emphasized that existence of

enforceable rights of aggrieved parties form the pre-

condition to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the light of

the above, the petitioner is required to satisfy that he is

the aggrieved person by the impugned order passed on

appeal under Section 106 of the KCS Act. Also, he is

required to establish that he is affected by the

impugned order, or whether he falls within the category

- 23 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11655

HC-KAR

of aggrieved persons, or whether he has suffered any

legal injury.

27. Admittedly, the petitioner only made a complaint to

Respondent No.3 regarding the irregularities in the

society. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 directed

Respondent No.2 to hold an enquiry. However, it is

pertinent to note that the proceedings initiated under

Section 29-C of the KCS Act, was initiated suo-moto

and the society was not the applicant therein. Also, the

society / the concerned authorities have not assailed

the impugned order before this court, which ought to

have assailed it. Further, if the register of the

Co-operative society has initiated the proceedings on

the complaint filed by the applicant, in such a situation,

it would not be proper to hold that there is a lis

between the complainant and the directors of the

society. The complaint filed, will only act as a material

for the concerned authority to initiate the action for

disqualification or removal. The applicant cannot claim

- 24 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11655

HC-KAR

to be a party to the proceedings as his rights would not

be in question and therefore, he cannot be termed as

an aggrieved person. The said view is supported by the

judgment of the Co-ordinate bench of this court in the

case of S. Srinivas and others v. The state of

karnataka and others in W.P. No. 54844-849 of 2013

disposed of , on 04-03-2024.

28. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner and

the others are the informants/complainants to the

Registrar and the disqualification proceedings were

initiated suo-moto. Therefore, complaint filed, will only

act as a aid to the concerned authority to initiate the

action for disqualification or removal.

29. The petitioner is required to satisfy that he is the

aggrieved party, however, from the perusal of the

cause title it is crystal clear that the petitioner has

assailed the impugned order in his individual capacity

and the society has not challenged the same. Further,

having reference to the authorities aforementioned, it is

- 25 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11655

HC-KAR

needles to state that there is no public interest involved

in this petition.

30. Further, though learned senior counsel for the

petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Jasbhai Motibhai

Desai (referred supra), supporting his contention that

the petition has locus in filing the present writ petition

since he has a genuine and substantial interest in the

subject in issue. However, as rightly pointed out by the

learned senior counsel for the respondents, the Apex

court while concluding held that the petitioners therein

had no locus.