Karnataka High Court
Shankar S/O Gopalkrishna Bhat vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 September, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487
WP No. 107047 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
®
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.107047 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M)
BETWEEN:
SHANKAR S/O. GOPALKRISHNA BHAT,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BIDREMANE, POST: IDAGUNDI,
TALUK: YALLAPUR, DIST. UTTARAKANNADA,PIN 581 337.
MOBILE NO.8762759505.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRIYUTHS. ANAND MANDAGI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
by SHWETHA DEPARTMENT OF CO -OPERATION,
RAGHAVENDRA
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU, PIN 560001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY
3RD FLOOR, TTMC, A BLOCK,
SHANTINAGAR, BANGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 560027.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UTTARA KANNADA
AND RETURNING OFFICER,
THE CANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LIMITED,
SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA, PIN 581301.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487
WP No. 107047 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. THE CANARA DISTRICT CO -OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED
HEAD OFFICE, SIRSI,
TALUK. SIRSI DISTRICT, UTTARA KANNADA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
PIN 581402.
5. IDAGUNDI VIVEDODDESH PRATHAMIK GRAMEEN KRUSHI
SAHAKAR SANGH NIYAMIT, IDAGUNDI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE AT IDAGUNDI,
TQ. YALLAPUR,
DISTRICT. UTTARAKANNADA, PIN 581337.
6. SHIVARAM S/O. MAHABALESWAR HEBBAR,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARABAILU, POST. ARABAILU,
TQ. YALLAPUR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA, PIN 581 337.
7. SHRI SHIVARAM S/O MAHABALESWAR BHAT
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KOMADI, POST. IDAGUNDI,
TALUK. YALLAPUR,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA, PIN 581 337.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRIYUTHS. GANGADHAR J.M. AAG ALONG WITH RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1 AND R3; G.V. BHARMAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VISHWANTH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R4; ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. COUNSEL FOR A.P. HEGDE JANMANE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5; JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR VIJAY MALALI, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
NOTICE TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED RESOLUTION NO. 10 AND 13 DATED 08/08/2025 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 14/08/2025 ANNEXURE-H; 2. TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED VOTER LIST PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENTS NO. -3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR 3 AND 4 SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO ITEM NO. 7 PERTAINING TO THE 5TH AND 6TH RESPONDENT ARE CONCERNED VIDE ANNEXURE-J; 3. TO DECLARE THAT THE 6TH RESPONDENT IS NOT ELIGIBLE AND QUALIFIED TO GET THE DELEGATE FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO REPRESENT AND TO TAKE PART IN THE ELECTION PROCESS TO CAST VOTES, CONTEST IN THE ELECTION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT FEDERAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK SCHEDULE TO BE HELD ON 25/10/2025 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 22.09.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
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 the impugned resolution no. 10 and 13 dated 08/08/2025 issued by the 5th respondent dated 14/08/2025 Annexure-H.
2. To issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned voter list published by the respondents no. 3 and 4 so far as it relates to item no. 7 pertaining to the 5th and 6th respondent are concerned vide Annexure-J.
3. To declare that the 6th respondent is not eligible and qualified to get the delegate from the 5th respondent to represent and to take part in the election process to cast votes, contest in the election to the Board of directors of the 4th respondent federal co-operative bank schedule to -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR be held on 25/10/2025 by allowing this writ petition in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Respondent No.5 is a primary Co-operative Society who is a member of Respondent No.4, Federal Co-operative Society. The election to the Primary Co-operative Society was held on 10.07.2023, with the results having been declared on 10.07.2023 itself.
The Board, having been constituted, was functioning with 12 Directors. On 01.08.2023, respondent No.4 had nominated respondent No.6 as its nominee to the Board of respondent No.5.
3. On 28.06.2025, one of the elected Directors of the respondent No.5 Society, namely, Sri. Shivaram Mahabaleshwar Bhat, tendered his resignation to the post of Director, thereby bringing about a casual vacancy to the post of the Director in respondent No.5
- Society. Pursuant thereto, in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Primary Society, respondent No.6 was nominated as a Director of respondent No.5 -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR
- Society even though he was already a nominee of respondent No.4.
4. Subsequently, on 02.08.2025 a notification had been issued in respect of the election to the respondent No.4 Federal Society, for the year 2025-2026 to 2029- 2030. Pursuant thereto, on 06.08.2025, respondent No.4 withdrew respondent No.6 as its nominee and instead appointed Sri.Shivaram Mahabaleshwar Bhat as its nominee on the Board of Directors of the Primary Society.
5. On 08.08.2025, the Primary Society passed a resolution authorising and nominating respondent No. 6 as its delegate to the elections of respondent No. 4. On 20.08.2025, respondent No. 5, i.e., the Primary Society, took steps to conduct elections to fill the casual vacancy of the Director in the Primary Society.
6. The petitioner is before this Court contending that the resolutions passed by respondent No.5 nominating -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR respondent No.6 as delegate to the DCC Bank is not proper inasmuch as he is not an elected Director of respondent No.5-Primary Society as also challenging the withdrawal of the nomination by respondent No.4 of respondent No.6 as its nominee Director and replacing the same by Sri.Shivaram Mahabaleshwar Bhat.
7. The submission of Sri.Ananth Mandagi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that 7.1. In terms of Section 2(e-1-a) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "KCS Act"), a delegate means a Director of a Co-operative Society appointed by the Board to represent that Co-operative Society in another Co-operative Society with power to participate and vote in the General Meeting and to contest or propose or second the election of the Co-operative Society.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR 7.2. A person who is not elected as a Director cannot be a delegate of a Primary Society in a Secondary or a Federal Society, and as such, the delegation made of respondent No.6 vide Resolution No.10 is improper and is required to be set aside.
7.3. In terms of Section 29-E of the KCS Act, any vacancy in the office of the Members of the Board of a Co-operative Society by reason of death, resignation, removal or otherwise, shall be filled up in such manner as may be specified in the bye-laws of the Society.
7.4. In this case, he submits that the bye-laws of the Primary Society indicate that such a vacancy would have to be filled up only by way of election. Without elections having been conducted, the co-option and or nomination respondent No.6 as a director and the -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR consequential nomination as a delegate vide resolution dated 31.07.2025 is not proper. 7.5. By relying on the first proviso to Section 29-E, he submits that the Co-operative Election Authority would have to conduct the election to fill up any vacancy in the Office of the Director of the Board if the remaining term of Office of the Board is more than half of its original term, which is the case in the present matter. Though second proviso provides that the Board may fill up the casual vacancy by nomination out of the same class members in respect of which casual vacancy is arising, his submission is that the same is restricted by Rule 14AF of the Karnataka Co-operative Society Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "KCS Rules, 1960") inasmuch as the Election Authority is required to conduct elections within 60 days of being notified about the occurrence of any casual vacancy. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR 7.6. The casual vacancy having arisen on account of the resignation of Sri.Shivaram Mahabaleshwar Bhat, on 28.06.2025, elections were required to be held within 2 months thereafter, i.e., by 27.08.2025.
7.7. On that basis, he submits that the elections being required to be held within 60 days the nominated Director could occupy the Office of Director only for a period of 60 days and not beyond. As such, he submits that respondent No.6 is deemed to have vacated the Office of Directorship after the expiry of 60 days, on account of the Election Authority not having held the elections.
7.8. On these grounds, he submits that the writ petition is required to be allowed and the Resolution Nos.10 and 13 indicated supra are required to be quashed and consequently, the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR inclusion of the name of respondent No.6 in the voters list of respondent No.4 is required to be deleted.
8. Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5-Primary Society would submit that 8.1. there are two amendments which have happened, which would be of relevance insofar as the present matter is concerned inasmuch as the second proviso to Section 29-E of the KCS Act has been amended with effect from 07.10.2021, in pursuance of which the Board whenever any casual vacancy arises, can fill the same by nomination of the same class of members in respect of which the casual vacancy has arisen, till the election is held for such vacancy.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR 8.2. His submission is that by way of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act 2025, which has come into force from 12.09.2025, the first proviso to Section 29-E of the KCS Act, as also the third proviso, have been omitted. Thereby, there would be no requirement to hold an election to the casual vacancy which has come into being.
8.3. Even though the casual vacancy arose prior to the Amendment, since the election is to be held post the Amendment, the Amendment would be applicable to such election, which need not be held post the deletion of the first proviso to Section 29-E of the KCS Act.
8.4. By relying on Section 2(e-1), he submits that a Director means a member of the Board, elected or nominated or co-opted, in accordance with the Act, Rules or bylaws. Thus, this definition of a
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR Director would have to be read into Section 2(e- 1-a), and a Director who is elected by the Board, or nominated or co-opted, could be a delegate of the co-operative Society in any other co- operative society.
8.5. Respondent No.6, having been co-opted as a Director in terms of the second proviso to Section 29A of the KCS Act, 1959, would qualify as a Director under Section 2(e-2-1) and thereby is a delegate under Section 2(e-1-a), and there is no embargo on a nominated or a co-opted Director to be nominated as a delegate to a secondary or a federal society. 8.6. As regards Rule 14AF, he submits that, in view of the Amendment to the second proviso to Section 29-E, the co-option will continue to be in force until elections are held, and as such, the period of 60 days prescribed under Rule 14AF is
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR redundant. Respondent No.6 would continue to be a co-opted Director of respondent No.5 Primary Society until the elections are held. 8.7. On these ground, he submits that the actions taken by respondent No.5 Primary Society, being proper and correct, require no intervention at the hands of this Court, and the writ petition is required to be dismissed.
9. Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6, while adopting the arguments of Sri. Ashok Haranahalli learned Senior Counsel, would further submit that; 9.1. The amendments which have been brought to Section 29-E of the KSC Act is to cater to the practical requirements, inasmuch as there was a practical problem in conducting the election of a co-operative society on account of a casual vacancy requiring compliance with Rule 13D of
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR the KCS Rules, 1960, which imposes a huge financial burden on the primary Society and it is in that background that the first proviso has been deleted by the Amendment Act, 2025. On that basis, he submits that it is the amended Section 29-E which would be applicable, requiring no elections to be conducted. 9.2. The second proviso to Section 29-E, which earlier provided for the Board to fill up a casual vacancy only if the term was less than half the original term, has now been amended with effect from 07.10.2021, and as such, the Board by nomination can fill the casual vacancy till the elections are held, so that the said casual vacancy is filled to enable the working of the Co- operative Society in a proper manner. 9.3. His submission is that, respondent No.6, though was a nominee of the DCC Bank in respondent
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR No.5 primary society, there is no embargo for him to be co-opted as a nominee Director of respondent No.5. Subsequently, respondent No.4, DCC Bank, has also withdrawn the nomination of respondent No. 6. Hence, thereafter respondent No.6 continues to be only a co-opted Director of respondent No.5 and not a nominee of respondent No.4. The nominee of respondent No.4 is now Shri Shivaram Mahabaleshwar Bhat, who is a different person. On all the above grounds, he submits that the writ petition is required to be dismissed.
10. Sri.Gangadhar J. M., learned Addl. Advocate General, would submit that, 10.1. The amendment Act of 2021 is prospective in nature and would only apply to the elections to be held post the Amendment.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR 10.2. Insofar as the co-option of respondent No.6 is concerned, he submits that the said co-option will continue to be in force till elections are held to fill up the vacancy.
10.3. The elections contemplated under Rule 14AF can only be held after compliance with Rule 13D in respect of the said casual vacancy which has arisen, and Rule 13D requires 195 days, i.e., six month's notice to be issued 15 days prior to the election. Therefore, there would be a requirement of at least 195 days in holding the election to fill up the casual vacancy and as such, he submits that the requirement under Rule 14AF cannot be complied with within the period of 2 months in view of Rule 13D, which has been held to be mandatory by this Court, by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prathamika Krushi Pattina Sahakari Sangha and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka and
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR Others in W.A.No.100513/2022 and connected matters, dated 06.03.2023. 10.4. His submission, therefore, is that elections will have to be held by the Election Authority in compliance with Rule 13D, and until then respondent No.6, who has been nominated and/or co-opted, would continue to be a Director and would be a Director of respondent No.5 primary society.
11. Sri. G.V.Bharamagoudar, learned counsel for the Election Authority would submit that elections will be held as expeditiously as possible after compliance with Rule 13D in respect of the casual vacancy which has arisen on account of the resignation indicated supra.
12. Heard Sri.Ananth Mandagi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Ashok Harnahalli, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no. 5. Sri.Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.6,
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR Sri.Gangadhar.J.M., learned Additional Advocate General for respondent Nos. and 3, Sri. G. V. Bharamagoudar, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Sri.Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. Perused papers.
13. The following points arise for consideration in the present matter:
1. Whether a casual vacancy on account of resignation by a director to the Board of a primary society can be filled by the Board by nomination? If so, till what time would such a co-
opted director continue to be a director of the co-operative Society?
2. Whether in the present case, elections are required to be held to fill the casual vacancy on account of the resignation by Shivaram Mahabaleswar Bhat?
3. Whether the nomination of respondent no. 6 as a delegate by respondent no. 5 is proper and correct?
4. Whether respondent No.6, having been nominated as a representative of the district central co-operative bank (DCC Bank) on the Board of
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487
WP No. 107047 of 2025
HC-KAR
respondent no. 5, could have
simultaneously been co-opted as a director of respondent no. 5 during the period when such nomination was subsisting?
5. What order?
14. I answer the above points as under:
15. ANSWER TO POINT NO.1:- Whether a casual vacancy on account of resignation by a Director to the Board of a primary society can be filled by the Board by nomination? If so, till what time would such a co-opted Director continue to be a Director of the Co-operative Society? 15.1. The facts are not in dispute that Respondent No. 5 is a primary co-operative society who is a member of Respondent No.4-federal society. The election to the primary Society was held on 10-07-2023, with results being declared on 10-7-2023, 12 directors having been elected to the Board.
15.2. On 01-08-2023, the federal Society had nominated Respondent No. 6 as its nominee to the primary Society. On 28-06-2025, one of the elected directors of the primary Society had
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR tendered his resignation, thereby bringing about a casual vacancy. The remainder of the term is more than half of the original term. 15.3. It is contended by Petitioners that the casual vacancy is required to be filled up by holding an election in terms of first provisio to Section 29E of the KCS Act 1959 and Rule 14(AF) of the KCS Rules 1960 within 60 days of the same being notified.
15.4. Per contra, it is contended by the respondents that in terms of Section 29E of the KCS Act, such a casual vacancy can be filled up by a nomination.
15.5. The vacancy having occurred on 28-06-2025.
Section 29E of the KCS Act, as it stood on that date (Amendment having been made on 12.09.2025), is reproduced herein for easy reference;
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR "[29E. Filling up of casual vacancy in the office of members of the [Board].- Any vacancy in the office of members of the [Board] of a co-operative society by reason of death, resignation, removal or otherwise, shall be filled up in such manner as may be specified in the bye-laws of such Society:
[Provided that the [Co-operative election Authority] shall conduct the election to fill up any vacancy in the office of the Director of the Board if the remaining term of office of the Board is more than half of its original term:
[Provided further that the Board may fill up a casual vacancy on the Board by nomination out of the same class of members in respect of which the casual vacancy has arisen, till the election is held for such vacancy] [Provided also that, if the Board fails to fill up such casual vacancy within three months of the date of occurrence, the Registrar shall fill up through nomination]"
15.6. A perusal of Section 29E, indicates that any vacancy in the office of the member of the Board of a co-operative society by reason of resignation, removal or otherwise shall be filled up in such manner as may be specified in the by-laws. Thus, the main provision provides for filling up as per the by-laws. However, the first
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR provisio provides that the co-operative election commission shall conduct an election to fill up any vacancy in the office of the Director of the Board if the remaining term of office of the Board is more than half of its original term. Thus, by virtue of the first provisio, there is a mandate now for the co-operative election commission to conduct such an election, which would override the bylaws, if any, in relation thereto.
15.7. The second proviso provides for the Board to fill up the casual vacancy by a nomination, out of the same class of members, in respect of which, the casual vacancy has arisen until the elections are held. Thus, in terms of the second proviso, a reference though has been made in the first proviso for election. It provides for the Board to fill in the casual vacancy by way of nomination or co-option till elections are held. Thus, it is
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR clear that as on the date on which the casual vacancy arose in the present matter, the casual vacancy can be filled by way of nomination and such nomination shall be in force till the elections are held.
15.8. There is one more aspect to the matter inasmuch as the Amendment, which has been brought into effect in respect of Section 29E, by way of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Amendment Act 2025, came into force on 12.09.2025. In pursuance of which, the first proviso has been omitted, so also the third proviso has been omitted and the second proviso has been substituted as under:
"(ii) for the second proviso, the following shall be substituted, namely:-
"Provided that, the board shall fill up casual vacancy of the board by nomination, out of the same class of members in respect of which the casual vacancy has arisen."; and"
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR 15.9. Thus, the said Amendment, though has been referred to by the respondents to contend that this Amendment will have to be taken into consideration, I am of the opinion that the said Amendment can only be said to be prospective to be an operational post 12.09.2025 and would not be applicable to the present case. However, it is required to be stated that post this Amendment, which came into effect on 12-09- 2025, the Board can fill up a casual vacancy by nomination out of the same class of members in respect of which the casual vacancy has arisen and in view of proviso one being deleted, there would be no requirement of elections to be held, whether the balance term is in excess of half the term or less than half the term. 15.10. Hence, I answer point No.1 by holding that Prior to Amendment dated 07.10.2021
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR 15.10.1. Prior to the Amendment dated 07.10.2021 elections were required to be held to fill up the casual vacancy if the balance term was more than half the original term or less than half the original term. Post the Amendment dated 07.10.2021 and prior to the Amendment dated 12.09.2025. 15.10.2. Prior to the Amendment dated 12.09.2025, elections were required to be held to fill the casual vacancy if the balance term was more than half the original term. If the balance term was less than half the original term there is no requirement to hold an election. 15.10.3. Till such elections are held, a Director could be co-opted to fill in the casual vacancy, whether the balance term is
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR more than or less than half of the original term.
15.10.4. The co-opted Director would hold the position of a Director till elections are held in the event after the casual vacancy having arisen, the balance term being more than or less than half of the original term.
15.10.5. If the nomination were not to be made by the Board within three months of such casual vacancy having arisen, the Registrar could fill up the nomination in terms of the third proviso to Section 29E. After the Amendment dated 12.09.2025 15.10.6. Post the Amendment, which came into force on 12-09-2025, there will be no requirement to hold the election to fill a
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR casual vacancy, whether the balance term is more than half the term or less than half the term. The Board of Directors can fill up the casual vacancy by way of nomination, and even if the same were not to be filled, the Registrar would not have the power to fill up such casual vacancy.
16. ANSWER TO POINT NO.2:-Whether in the present case, elections are required to be held to fill the casual vacancy on account of the resignation by Shivaram Mahabaleswar Bhat? 16.1. On 01-08-2023, the Federal Society had nominated Respondent No. 6 as its nominee to the Board of the Primary Society. Sri Shivaram Mahabaleshwar Bhat having tendered his resignation to the post of Director on 28-06- 2025, the Board of Directors of Respondent No. 5 - primary Society nominated Respondent No. 6 as a director of Respondent No. 5 to fill up the
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR casual vacancy, even though, he was already a nominee of Respondent No. 4. Thereafter, Respondent No. 4 withdrew Respondent No. 6 as its nominee and instead nominated Sri Shivaram Mahabaleshwar Bhat.
16.2. Be that as it may, what can be seen is that at the relevant point of time, Respondent No. 6 was nominated by the Board of the Primary Society and Shri Shivaram Mahabaleshwar Bhat is nominated by the Secondary Society. Subsequent thereto.
16.3. On 08-08-2025, the Primary Society passed a resolution authorising and nominating Respondent No. 6 as its delegate to the elections of Respondent No. 4. It is this aspect which has caused the present litigation, the petitioner contending that on the resignation of Sri Shivaram Mahabaleshwar Bhat on 28-06-
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR 2025, the remaining term being more than half the actual term, elections are required to be held to fill the casualty vacancy and that no nomination could be made by the Board of Directors.
16.4. I have dealt with the principles governing this matter in answer to point No.1, applying the said principle, it is clear that post the Amendment in 07.10.2021, though elections have to be held to fill up the casual vacancy in terms of the first proviso to Section 29E, in terms of the amended second proviso to Section 29E, the Board of Directors could fill up the casual vacancy until the elections are held. 16.5. One other issue that would arise is as regard the situation post the Amendment on 12-09- 2025, whereunder the requirement of election has been done away with by deleting the first
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR proviso to Section 29E. Though it is contended that the applicable Rule as on the date on which the casual vacancy arises is required to be considered and elections have to be held, since the second proviso provided for the Board of Directors to nominate a person to fill up the casual vacancy, the requirement of following the applicable Rules as on the date of the casual vacancy arising stands complied. 16.6. It cannot be said that because the first proviso provides for elections to be conducted if the balance term is more than half the original term, elections are to be held in as much as the second proviso providing for filling up the casual vacancy by way of nomination would stand in compliance with the applicable law as on the date of the casual vacancy.
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR 16.7. Thus, post the casual vacancy having been filled up by nomination, in my considered opinion, it would be the law as on the date on which the elections are held, which would be required to be considered. Since elections have not yet been held, what would have to be seen is whether elections are actually required to be held after the deletion of the first proviso to Section 29E, which came into effect from 12- 09-2025. Post 12-09-2025, as answered by me in points No.1, there would be no requirement to hold an election on account of a casual vacancy.
16.8. If any other interpretation is given, then it would amount to holding an election on account of a casual vacancy as on today or in future, even though the first proviso has been deleted from Section 29E of the Act. Thus, resurrecting
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR a dead or a deleted provision which in my considered opinion, would be impermissible. 16.9. Thus, I answer to point No.2 by holding that in the present case, the nomination made by the Board of Directors to fill up the casual vacancy would be sufficient compliance with the requirement of the law as on that date.
17. ANSWER TO POINT NO.3:- Whether the nomination of respondent no. 6 as a delegate by respondent no. 5 is proper and correct? 17.1. The nomination of respondent No.6 as a Board of Director of respondent No.5, can no longer be disputed. The contention of Shri Ananth Mandagi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that for a person to be a delegate, he has to be a member of the Board of a co-operative society appointed by the Board to represent that co-operative Society in other co-operative societies. In terms of Section
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR 2(e-1-a) of the KCS Act 1959, his submission is that only an elected member of the Board could be a delegate and a nominated member cannot be a delegate.
17.2. I am unable to accept the said submission for the simple reason that under Section 2(e- 2-1), a director means a member of the Board duly elected or nominated or co-opted in accordance with the Act, Rule and Bylaws. Thus, a director is not only one who is elected but could also be nominated or co-opted. This definition of a director, if applied to Section 2(e-1-a), a delegate could be a member of the Board who is either elected or nominated or co-opted and there is no restriction on a nominated or a co- opted director from being appointed as a delegate.
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR 17.3. Thus, I answer point No.3 by holding that the nomination of Respondent No.6 as a delegate by Respondent No.5-primary society for the meeting of Respondent No.4-secondary society is proper and valid.
18. ANSWER TO POINT NO.4:- Whether respondent No.6, having been nominated as a representative of the district central co-operative bank (DCC bank) on the Board of respondent no. 5, could have simultaneously been co-opted as a director of respondent no. 5 during the period when such nomination was subsisting?
18.1. Much has been sought to be made out by Shri Ananth Mandagi, learned Senior counsel that Respondent No. 6 being a nominee of Respondent No. 4 on the Board of Respondent No. 5, he could not have been simultaneously nominated by the Board of Respondent No. 5 to fill up the casual vacancy on account of the resignation of Sri Shivaram Mahabaleshwar Bhat and as such, it is contended that Respondent No.6 could not be a director of
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR Respondent No.5 in dual capacity. One as a director nominated by Respondent No.4 and the other as a director nominated by the Board of Directors of Respondent No. 5 to fill up the casual vacancy.
18.2. What is required to be seen is the sequence of events in as much as though Respondent No. 6 had been nominated on 01-08-2023 as a nominee of Respondent No.4, the said nomination came to be withdrawn on 06-08- 2025 by nominating Sri Shivaram Mahabaleshwar Bhat as its nominee. Thus, from 06-08-2025, the nominee of Respondent No.4 was Sri Shivaram Mahabaleshwar Bhat and not Respondent No.6, the relevant date being 08- 08-2025, when the resolution was passed by Respondent No.4-Society nominating its delegate. Thus, as on 08-08-2025, Respondent No.6 continued on the Board of Directors of
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR Respondent No.5 as a co-opted member and not as a nominee of Respondent No. 4. 18.3. Be that as it may, whether Respondent No.6 is a nominated member by Respondent No.4 or co-opted member by the Board of Directors of Respondent No.5, the fact still remains that he was a director of Respondent No. 5 when the resolution dated 08-08-2025 was passed. Thus, there cannot be any fault found with the nomination of Respondent No.6 as a delegate to the meeting of Respondent No.4. 18.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner was called upon to point out any particular provision which debars a person to be a nominee of a Federal Bank and at the same time being a co-opted director, no particular provision has been brought to the notice of this Court and as such, without such a provision being in force, it
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR cannot be said that there is any bar or restriction on a person to be a director in dual capacity.
19. General Observations and Directions 19.1. Considerable reliance has been placed upon Rule 14-AF of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 to contend that elections must mandatorily be conducted within two months. It is significant that this Rule continues to remain in force and has not been deleted or amended either by the Amendment dated 07.10.2021 or by the Amendment which came into effect on 12.09.2025.
19.2. However, the said Rule is inherently incongruous. For any election to be conducted, compliance with Rule 13-D of the Act is indispensable. Rule 13-D contemplates the preparation and publication of the list of eligible and ineligible voters, a process which extends
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR over a period exceeding 180 days. It is therefore impossible to reconcile the requirement of completing elections within two months with the procedural safeguards mandated by Rule 13-D. This incongruity is not merely theoretical but has been judicially recognised. This Court has categorically held that preparation of the electoral roll under Rule 13-D(2-A) is an integral part of the election process and cannot be bypassed. Similarly, this Court underscored that violations of Rule 13- D(2-A) are amenable to constitutional scrutiny, even before the calendar of events is published. 19.3. Further, under the third proviso to Section 29E of the Act, the Registrar is empowered to fill up a casual vacancy if the same is not filled by the Board within three months. Thus, the substantive law itself recognises a three-month window. When the parent statute permits the
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR Registrar to act only after three months, the requirement under Rule 14-AF of holding elections within two months stands in direct conflict with Section 29E.
19.4. This is not an isolated inconsistency. Numerous incongruities pervade the KCS Act and Rules. For instance, disputes relating to membership, disqualification, voter eligibility, the appointment of administrators, and surcharge proceedings have time and again required judicial intervention to harmonise contradictory provisions. This Court has been compelled to intervene even in routine electoral disputes and in matters of membership disqualification where statutory lacunae exist. Such recurring litigation indicates a systemic defect in the legislative framework itself.
19.5. The KCS Act, 1959 and the KCS Rules, 1960 have been subjected to piecemeal amendments
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR over decades. Unfortunately, while introducing such amendments, the interplay and cascading effect on existing provisions do not appear to have not been sufficiently considered. As a result, the statute has become a patchwork of conflicting provisions that are no longer suited to the modern socio-economic environment. Courts have attempted to apply the principle of harmonious construction, but where reconciliation itself becomes impossible, legislative reform is the only viable solution. 19.6. It is therefore my considered opinion that a comprehensive overhaul of the statute is urgently required. Much like The Income Tax Act of 1961 is being replaced by the Income Tax Act, 2025, which received presidential assent on August 21, 2025, and is scheduled to come into effect on April 1, 2026. That was necessitated on account of the Income Tax Act 1961 having
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR been amended over 65 times in six decades, the Income Tax Act of 1961 had become overly complex. The new law, which largely retains existing tax principles, aims to simplify the text and remove redundant provisions to reduce litigation and make compliance easier for taxpayers. A new, consolidated Co-operative Societies Act and Rule for Karnataka is required to replace the current legislation. The importance of legislative clarity where recurring conflicts generate avoidable litigation cannot be overstressed. The same reasoning applies here with greater force, given the sheer volume of disputes arising under the KCS framework before the Registrars as also this Court. 19.7. The areas of conflict are manifold: membership rights and disqualification, preparation of voter lists, conduct of elections, appointment of administrators, jurisdictional overlaps,
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR surcharge proceedings, and audit obligations. Many provisions have been rendered otiose by technological and socio-economic changes. Today, co-operative societies are burdened with duplicative filings, effectively replicating compliances under the Companies Act, 2013. Just as the Companies Act was comprehensively revamped to address contemporary requirements, a modernised co-operative law must be framed to ensure efficiency, transparency, and alignment with constitutional principles of co-operative autonomy under Article 43B. Without such reform, co-operatives will remain entangled in unproductive litigation, stifling their true purpose of empowering members economically and socially. 19.8. Accordingly, the Registrar (Judicial) is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Hon'ble Chairman, Law Commission of Karnataka, with
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13487 WP No. 107047 of 2025 HC-KAR a request to consider the observations and recommendations made herein and to take such action as may be deemed fit. It is earnestly hoped that a new and coherent legislative framework will enable co-operative societies in Karnataka to function democratically and efficiently, free from the recurring litigation that presently engulfs them.
20. ANSWER TO POINT NO.6: What order?
20.1. In view of my finding as regards all the points above, all the points having been answered against the petitioner, the petition stands dismissed.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SH/GAB/VB/ Para 21 till end-AM CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1