AND 1 OTHER
member society to supply a minimum of 150 kilograms of milk for
270 days during the preceding cooperative year. Chapter 13 of the
bye-laws prescribed the rights and responsibilities of member
societies, including the obligation under bye-law 13.1(a) to supply,
on average, 150 kilograms of quality milk per day to the District Milk
Union for at least 270 days in each cooperative year. Additionally,
bye-law 13.1(e) mandates that member societies shall supply pure
milk, without any adulteration, to the District Milk Union every day.
9. Chapter 15 of the bye-laws deals with ineligibility to vote in
the Annual General Body Meeting and to participate, contest, and
vote in the election of the Directors of the District Milk Union. The
grounds for ineligibility included:
(1) failure to attend two out of five last general
body meetings;
(2) failure to supply milk for minimum 270 days in
every cooperative year on an average of 150
kilograms of milk to the Union as per the
terms and conditions;
(3) failure to utilize minimum services or facilities
as specified in the bye-laws for any two
cooperative years;
(4) supply of milk to other dairies or private
dairies in any of the previous three
cooperative years;
- 14 -
AND 1 OTHER
(5) the member society being continuously
defunct for 90 days or its board of
management being rescinded or liquidated;
(6) default in repayment of loan or payment of
any other dues; and
(7) becoming a member of the Union within
twelve months immediately prior to the date
of the meeting or election.
10. Subsequently, the bye-laws of the District Milk Union were
further amended and registered on 07.05.2024. The registration
order for the said amended bye-laws was passed on 27.05.2024.
The amended bye-law No. 15.2 provided that a member society
that fails to supply milk to the District Milk Union for a minimum of
270 days in each cooperative year, on average 150 kilograms per
day, would be ineligible to vote and participate in elections. Bye-law
15.2 of the bye-laws of the District Milk Union as amended and
registered on 07.05.2024 is set out below:
"failure to supply milk for minimum 270 days in
every cooperative year on an average of 150
kilograms of milk to the Union as per the terms
and conditions."
11. The term of the Managing Committee of the District Milk
Union expired, and an Administrator was appointed in 2023 to
manage its affairs pending fresh elections. During the period, while
- 15 -
AND 1 OTHER
the affairs of the District Milk Union were under the administration
of the Administrator, the District Milk Union initiated the process of
preparing the voters' list for the elections by issuing notices to
member societies under Rule 13-D(2) of the KOS Rules.
12. Between December 2023 and October 2024, the District Milk
Union and the election authorities issued multiple show cause
notices to the appellant societies under Rule 13-D(2-A) of the KOS
Rules, calling upon them to explain why their names should not be
included in the list of ineligible voters. The notices dated
21.12.2023, 29.01.2024, 01.07.2024, 08.08.2024, and 16.10.2024
alleged that the appellant societies had failed to attend two General
Body Meetings out of the last five, and had not utilised the minimum
services prescribed under Bye-laws 15.1, 15.2, and 15.3 of the bye-
laws of the District Milk Union for two cooperative years.
13. The appellant societies submitted replies to the said show
cause notices, explaining the circumstances that led to any shortfall
in milk supply. The appellants also claimed that they had
consistently supplied more than 150 kilograms of milk for 270 days
during the last five cooperative years (2018-2023). They further
contended that certain milk quality readings, particularly the Solids-
- 16 -
AND 1 OTHER
Not-Fat (SNF) value, were deliberately manipulated by staff at the
District Milk Union's chilling centres, who acted in collusion with the
Union's Director to reduce the SNF value below the prescribed
standard of 8.5%. The appellants averred that the erring employees
had been placed under suspension by the District Milk Union, and
criminal proceedings arising from this incident were in progress.
They contended that this fact demonstrated that the fault lay with
the Union's staff and not with the appellant societies.
14. The appellants also cited exceptional circumstances that
temporarily affected milk production, including the outbreak of
Lumpy Skin Disease among cattle in Pavagada Taluk between
August 2022 and March 2023, which resulted in the large fatalities
amongst cattle in the region. Additionally, the appellant societies
claimed that, being situated in drought-prone regions where cattle
rearing is inherently difficult, they faced challenges due to extreme
summer and winter conditions that naturally reduce milk yield and
quality. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic during 2019-20 and
2020-21 was also cited as a factor that affected milk production and
supply. However, the said contentions were not accepted, and the
names of the appellant societies were listed in the list of ineligible
- 17 -
AND 1 OTHER
voters. The elections to the District Milk Union's Managing
Committee were notified. However, it was subsequently postponed.
The decision to postpone the elections was challenged in
W.P.No.24015/2023. The same was dismissed by this Court by an
order dated 22.01.2024. The appeal preferred against the said
order, being W.A.No.280/2024, was also rejected by an order dated
27.06.2024.
15. On 21.10.2024, respondent No.4 (the Returning Officer)
issued a fresh notification for the conduct of elections to the District
Milk Union, scheduling the election for 10.11.2024. The elections
were notified for the term 2024-25 to 2028-29.
16. Aggrieved by their inclusion in the ineligible voters' list, the
appellant societies and other similarly situated primary societies
filed writ petitions before this Court, seeking to quash the
endorsements that included them in the ineligible voters' list and to
direct that they be permitted to participate in the scheduled
elections. Apart from the writ petitions from which these appeals
arise, there are other connected writ petitions raising similar
challenges.
- 18 -
AND 1 OTHER
17. The learned Single Judge passed interim orders in several
writ petitions - orders dated 23.10.2024, 05.11.2024 and
08.11.2024 - permitting the petitioner societies in their respective
petitions, including those from which the present appeals arise, to
cast their votes in the elections for the Board of Directors of the
District Milk Union to be held on 10.11.2024. The appellant
societies also participated in the elections and cast their votes
through their authorized representatives. Thereafter, by an order
dated 07.01.2025 (in W.P.No.27139/2024 clubbed with
W.P.No.29615/24 and W.P.No.30054/24), the learned Single Judge
directed the Returning Officer to count the votes cast, including of
the societies that were held to be ineligible to participate in the
elections. The votes were counted on 09.01.2025, and the
Returning Officer declared the election results. Pursuant to the
same, the New Managing Committee of the District Milk Union was
constituted and is functioning.
18. After the declaration of election results, the writ petitions
were heard on merits by the learned Single Judge and were
disposed of by two common orders dated 26.09.2025 and
13.10.2025.
- 19 -
AND 1 OTHER
19. By the impugned order dated 26.09.2025, passed in W.P.
No. 29044/2024 and connected matters (including W.P. No.
29163/2024, W.P. No. 29182/2024, W.P. No. 29189/2024, W.P.
No. 29192/2024, W.P. No. 29195/2024, and W.P. No. 29377/2024),
the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. The learned
Single Judge observed that one of the conditions prescribed for a
primary society to be eligible to vote at the election to the federal
society was that it should have supplied a minimum quantity of 150
kilograms of milk during the previous cooperative years. The Court
noted that many petitioners contended that though notices were
issued to them stating that they had failed to supply the minimum
quantity of milk, they had replied explaining their difficulty in
supplying the required quantity owing to Covid-19 and other
reasons. However, the Court held that such explanations could not
be considered by the Election Officer, whose duty was only to
ascertain whether the petitioners had, in fact, supplied the requisite
quantity of milk or not.
20. The learned Single Judge further observed that the primary
milk-producing societies were not only bound to supply the
minimum quantity of milk but also to ensure that the milk supplied
- 20 -
AND 1 OTHER
met the quality prescribed by the Apex Milk Union, which mandated
an SNF of 8.5%. The Court noted that the petitioners who were
treated as ineligible on account of not supplying quality milk had not
denied that the milk supplied by them did not meet the prescribed
quality, but only contended that someone at the chilling centre had
adulterated the milk. The Court characterised this as an "omnibus
defence" without justifiable material.
21. The learned Single Judge observed that all the petitioners
had accepted payment from the District Union, which had
considered the milk supplied by them to be of substandard quality
and had proportionately reduced the volume based on the fat
percentage. The Court noted that none of the petitioner societies
had raised any dispute against the District Milk Union, claiming that
someone else at the chilling centre had adulterated the milk and
that they were not liable.
22. By a supplementary order dated 06.11.2025, the learned
Single Judge observed that while disposing of the writ petitions by
order dated 26.09.2025, the Court had inadvertently not directed
the Returning Officer to exclude the votes cast by the petitioners.
Accordingly, the Court added a direction that the Returning Officer
- 21 -
AND 1 OTHER
shall recount the votes after excluding the votes cast by the
petitioners and issue a fresh declaration by counting the eligible
votes cast within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of the said order.
23. By the impugned order dated 13.10.2025 passed in W.P.
No. 27139/2024 and connected matters (including W.P. No.
29615/2024, W.P. No. 30054/2024, and W.P. No. 1415/2025), the
learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions essentially, for the
same reasons as articulated in the impugned order dated
26.09.2025.
24. The Court also referred to the judgments of coordinate
benches in H.S. Raju Vs. State of Karnataka and others1,
Mohammad Beary and Others vs. The State of Karnataka and
Others (W.P. No. 29271/2023 and connected matters), and Sri
B. Ganganna and others vs. The State of Karnataka and
Others2, and observed that any dispute regarding the constitution
of a Managing Committee of a Cooperative Society has to be
worked out before the competent authority under Section 70(2)(c)
(2022) 4 AKR 775
ILR 2024 KAR 1901
- 22 -
AND 1 OTHER
of the KOS Act. The Court held that the exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution was for the limited purpose of
ascertaining whether the procedure prescribed in law for treating a
member as ineligible was followed. The District Milk Union and
Election Officer had issued appropriate notices under Rule
13-D(2-A) of the KOS Rules, and the petitioners had replied,
thereby demonstrating compliance with the procedural
requirements.
25. The learned Single Judge has directed the Returning Officer
to exclude the votes cast by the petitioners and issue fresh
declaration by counting the eligible votes cast within fifteen days
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The Court
further directed that if any petitioner had contested the election, the
Returning Officer shall reject its candidature and proceed to issue a
fresh declaration after excluding the votes cast by the petitioners.
26. Although the appellants have raised several grounds of
challenge, Mr. S.S. Naganand, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellants confined the challenge in the writ
appeals to the interpretation of clause (a-v) of Sub-section (2) of
Section 20 of the KOS Act.
- 23 -
AND 1 OTHER
27. He submitted that a member or a representative who has
availed the minimum services for a period of two years out of five
co-operative years would be eligible to vote. He contended that
undisputedly, all the appellants had supplied the requisite quantity
of milk, that is, 150 kilograms, for a period of 270 days during three
of the five co-operative years, that is, from 2018 to 2023. He
submitted that in order to attract the disqualification of non-supply
of the requisite quantity of milk, must exceed two co-operative
years out of the previous five years. However, the respondents
were penalising the appellants, notwithstanding that the appellants
had supplied the minimum quantity for three of the five previous
cooperative years. Further, he submitted that the non-supply of the
requisite quantity of milk must be for consecutive years.
REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS
28. As noted at the outset, the learned Senior Counsel had
confined the challenge in the present appeals only to the question
of the interpretation of clause (a-v) of Sub-section (2) of Section 20
of the KOS Act. It is important to note that in the writ petition, some
of the appellants had also challenged the manner of computing the
quantity of milk supplied. According to them, the quantity of milk
- 24 -
AND 1 OTHER
supplied could not be determined by excluding milk that did not
meet the minimum SNF of 8.5%. Additionally, some of the
appellants had also challenged the application of bye-laws
regarding the minimum quantity of milk (150 kgs for 270 days
during the co-operative year) where there were extenuating
circumstances, including conditions of drought and outbreak of
lumpy skin disease during the period August 2022 to March 2023,
resulting in fatalities amongst cattle. However, as noted at the
outset, the learned Senior Counsel confined the challenge only to
the interpretation of clause (a-v) of Sub-section 2 of Section 20 of
the KOS Act. He neither disputed the manner of computing the
quantity of milk supplied nor canvassed the rigours of the bye-laws
that were required to be relaxed on the ground of extenuating
circumstances/force majeure events.
29. We may note that the appellants had challenged Bye-law
15.2, as amended on 27.05.2024. In terms of the said bye-law,
failure to supply the specified quantity of milk for a minimum period
of 270 days "every co-operative year" would render the Society
ineligible to participate, contest, and vote in the election of Directors
of the District Milk Union. The said amendment was challenged on
- 25 -
AND 1 OTHER
the ground that it was ultra vires Section 20(2)(a-v) of the KOS Act.
Additionally, the said amendment could not have any retrospective
application.
30. The contesting respondents do not dispute that clause (a-v)
of Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the KOS Act is applicable, and
the question whether a primary society is ineligible to participate,
contest and vote in the election of Directors of the District Milk
Union is required to be determined on the basis of the said clause.
Clause (a-v) of Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the KOS Act as in
force prior to 05.10.2021, reads as under:
"20. Votes of members.-(1) No member, no
representative or no delegate] of a society shall have
more than one vote in the general meeting or in the
election of the members of the board of the co-
operative society:
(2) The following shall not have the right to vote at a
general meeting or an election of the members of the
board of the co-operative society in which they are
members, namely.-
[(a) xxx
(a-i) xxx
(a-ii) xxx
(a-iii) xxx
(a-iv) xxx
(a-v) a member or a representative who has failed to
utilise such minimum services or facilities in a co-
operative year as may be specified in the bye-laws
for three consecutive co-operative years:
- 26 -
AND 1 OTHER
Provided that in case of members in clauses (a-iv)
and (a-v), such members shall not have the right to
vote at a general meeting or an election of members
of the Board for a period of three years."
31. The said clause was amended by virtue of clause Section
the Karnataka Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2021.
Clause (a-v) of Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the KOS Act and
the proviso thereto was substituted by Section 5(iii) of the said
amendment Act and the proviso to clause (a-v) of Sub-section (2)
of Section 20 of the KOS Act was amended by Section 4(iv) of the
same Act.
32. Clause (a-v) of Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the KOS Act
as in force with effect from 15.10.2021, reads as under:
"20. Votes of members.-(1) No member, no
representative or no delegate of a society shall have
more than one vote in the general meeting or in the
election of the members of the board of the co-
operative society:
(2) The following shall not have the right to vote at a
general meeting or an election of the members of the
boardof the co-operative society in which they are
members, namely.-
(a) xxx
(a-i) xxx
(a-ii) xxx
(a-iii) xxx
(a-iv) xxx
- 27 -
AND 1 OTHER
(a-v) a member or a representative who has failed to
utilise such minimum services or facilities in a co-
operative year as may be specified in the bye-laws
for any two co-operative years out of the last five Co-
operative years.
Provided that in case of members in clauses (a-iv)
and (a-v), such members shall not have the right to
vote at a general meeting or an election of members
of the Board for a period of one years."
33. A plain reading of clause (a-v) of Sub-section (2) of Section
20 of the KOS Act, indicates that if the minimum services or
facilities had not been utilized for three consecutive co-operative
years, the member society would be ineligible to participate in the
elections for a period of three years. The said condition of
ineligibility was substituted. Post the amendment, a failure to utilize
the services "for any two consecutive years out of the last five
cooperative years" would render the society ineligible to vote.
However, the disqualification was confined to a single year instead
of three years as posited prior to the amendment coming into force.
34. Language of clause (a-v) of Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of
the KOS Act is unambiguous. Thus, if there is a failure to utilize the
minimum services "for any two Co-operative years out of last five
Co-operative years", the society would be ineligible. There is no
- 28 -
AND 1 OTHER
requirement that the default should be for consecutive cooperative
years for the disqualification to apply.
35. The contention that the said clause would be satisfied if the
appellants had supplied the requisite quantity for three co-operative
years out of five is also unmerited.
36. The words of clause (a-v) of Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of
the KOS Act are unambiguous. The test is whether there was a
failure to utilise the service for two of the past five cooperative
years. This means that if there was a failure in one of the five years,
the co-operative society would not be disqualified. However, if the
failure exceeded to two or more years, the same would apply. The
milk supply data mentioned in the writ petitions clearly indicates
that the appellants had failed to supply average of 150 kgs for 270
days in two co-operative years or more out of the past five
cooperative years.
37. In the given circumstances, it is not necessary to examine
whether the amended bye-laws are applicable retrospectively or
are required to be read down to conform to Section 20 of the KOS
Act. Since the data provided - on the basis of which the
- 29 -
AND 1 OTHER
submissions were advanced - clearly establishes that the
requirement of clause (a-v) of Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the
KOS Act is applicable; that the appellants were ineligible to contest
or vote in the election in question.
38. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
KPS
