Karnataka High Court
Sri R T Dyavegowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:41021
WP No. 15009 of 2024
C/W WP No. 15028 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
WRIT PETITION NO. 15009 OF 2024 (CS-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 15028 OF 2024 (CS-RES)
IN WP NO. 15009/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. R.T. DYAVEGOWDA
S/O. LATE THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS
R/AT RAVINDRANAGARA
HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
HASSAN - 573 201.
2. SRI. HANUMANTHE GOWDA
S/O. THAMME GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT KOLATHURU TALUK AND DISTRICT
BENGALURU RURAL - 562 114.
Digitally
signed by 3. SRI. B.G. VENKATEGOWDA
NANDINI B G S/O. LATE M. GOVINDAIAH
Location: High AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
Court of R/AT BIDARAKATTE, NAGAVALLI
Karnataka TALUK AND DISTRICT TUMKUR - 572 118.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: JAYKUMAR .S. PATIL, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI: ABHIJIT HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPT. OF CO-OPERATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:41021
WP No. 15009 of 2024
C/W WP No. 15028 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION
NO.1, ALI ASKER ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 052.
3. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION
NO.1, ALI ASKER ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 052.
4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION
NO.1, ALI ASKER ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 052.
5. THE KARNATAKA STATE
CO OPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
NO.32, 3RD FLOOR
D. DEVARAJ URS ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R4
SRI: K ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER BEARING NO.RCS/KAISASAM-1/KALAM64/2022.23 DATED
21.09.2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A
AND QUASH THE ENQUIRY INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4-
JOINT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, BENGALURU VIDE IMPUGNED
NOTICES BEARING NO.JAM.NI./KALAM64RAVICHARANE/01/2023.24
DATED 06.02.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A1 AND IMPUGNED NOTICES
BEARING NO.JAM.NI./KALAM64RAVICHANARANE/01/2023.24/06
DATED 25.03.2024 AND 15.04.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A2 AND A3
AND ETC.,
IN WP NO. 15028/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NAGARAJA A C
S/O LATE CHANNAPPA G
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:41021
WP No. 15009 of 2024
C/W WP No. 15028 of 2024
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
AVATHI VILLAGE AND POST
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL - 562 110
2. J.M. SHIVAPRASAD
S/O J M VRUSBHENDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
NO. 13, GURU KRUPA FARM HOUSE
KUDLIGI ROAD, SANDUR
BALLARI - 583 119
3. SRI JAGADISH KAVATAGIMATH
S/O MALLIKARJUN KAVATAGIMATH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
898, GURUWAR PETH, CHIKODI
BELGAUM - 591 201
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAYKUMAR .S. PATIL, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MAHAMAD TAHIR .A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
ALI ASKER ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 052.
3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY
BANGALORE AND ALSO SEC 64
ENQUIRY OFFICER, T.T.M.C. BUILDING
SHANTINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027.
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE
CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION
NO. 32, THIRD FLOOR
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:41021
WP No. 15009 of 2024
C/W WP No. 15028 of 2024
HC-KAR
DEVARAJ URS ROAD
(RACE COURSE ROAD)
BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MD
5. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
ALI ASKER ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 052
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO 3 & 5
SRI: K. ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 21/09/2023 BEARING REFERENCE
NO.RCS/KISASUM1/KISASUM 64/2022-23 AT ANNEXURE-F ISSUED
BY R5 AND ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL COMMON ORDER
The petitioners have approached this Court seeking
issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order
dated 21.09.2023 passed by respondent No.3 produced at
Annexure-A and also to quash the proceedings initiated by
respondent No.4 by issuing notices dated 06.02.2024,
25.03.2024 and 15.04.2024 respectively produced as per
Annexures-A1, A2 and A3 in Writ Petition No.15009 of 2024
and to quash the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by respondent
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:41021
WP No. 15009 of 2024
C/W WP No. 15028 of 2024
HC-KAR
No.5 produced at Annexure-F in Writ Petition No.15028 of
2024.
2. Heard Sri Jayakumar S Patil, learned senior
advocate for Sri Abhijit Haranahalli and Mahamad Tahir A,
learned counsel for the petitioners respectively, Sri Yogesh D
Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent
Nos.1 to 4 in Writ Petition No.15009 of 2024 and respondent
Nos.1 to 3 and 5 in Writ Petition No.15028 of 2024 and Sri K
Ananda, learned counsel for respondent No.5 in Writ Petition
No.15009 of 2024 and respondent No.4 in Writ Petition
No.15028 of 2024. Perused the materials on record.
3. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned
counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my
consideration is:
"Whether the petitioners have made out any
grounds to allow the petitions?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for
the following:
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:41021
WP No. 15009 of 2024
C/W WP No. 15028 of 2024
HC-KAR
REASONS
4. It is the contention of the petitioners that enquiry
under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act,
was initiated by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
But initiation of the said proceedings was not suo moto, but it
was at the instance of an unauthorized person i.e., Hon'ble
Chief Minister of the State. Learned senior advocate for the
petitioners refers to Annexures-A to F to contend that the
complaint was presented to the Chief Minister and the same
was forwarded with a specific direction to initiate action and to
submit a report. Even the direction was issued to appoint a
particular person as Enquiry Officer and the same was followed
without application of mind. Therefore, exercise of power is not
in accordance with Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative
Societies Act.
5. Annexure-B referred to above prima facie discloses
that the complaint even though contains very serious
allegations, the same was submitted to the Chief Minister of
State, who in turn directed the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies to hold an enquiry and to submit a report. The
complaint as per Annexure-A is addressed to the Chief Minister.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:41021
WP No. 15009 of 2024
C/W WP No. 15028 of 2024
HC-KAR
As per Annexure-B, the Under Secretary to the Government
forwarded the complaint to the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies directing him to initiate the proceedings. Annexure-C
is the similar report submitted to the Chief Minister who in turn
directed the Principal Secretary to the Government to take
necessary action. Annexure-E1 is the letter addressed by the
Principal Secretary to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies
directing to appoint a particular person as Enquiry Officer and
the same is followed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies
by passing the order as per Annexure-F.
6. Learned senior advocate for the petitioners has
placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs Sanjay Nagayach
and Others1, in support of his contention wherein, the Hon'ble
Apex Court addressing a similar situation held in paragraphs 36
and 37 as under:
"36. Statutory functionaries like the
Registrar/Joint Registrar of cooperative societies
functioning under the respective Cooperative Act must
be above suspicion and function independently without
1
(2013) 7 SCC 25
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:41021
WP No. 15009 of 2024
C/W WP No. 15028 of 2024
HC-KAR
external pressure. When an authority invested with the
power purports to act on its own but in substance the
power is exercised by external guidance or pressure, it
would amount to non-exercise of power, statutorily
vested. Large number of cases are coming up before
this Court and the High Courts in the country
challenging the orders of supersession and many of
them are being passed by the statutory functionaries
due to external influence ignoring the fact that they are
ousting a democratically elected Board, the
consequence of which is also grave because the
members of the Board of Directors would also stand
disqualified in standing for the succeeding election as
well.
37. The Registrar/Joint Registrar, while exercising
powers of supersession has to form an opinion and that
opinion must be based on some objective criteria, which
has nexus with the final decision. A statutory authority
shall not act with pre-conceived notion and shall not
speak his masters' voice, because the formation of
opinion must be his own, not of somebody else in
power, to achieve some ulterior motive. There may be
situations where the Registrar/Joint Registrar are
expected to act in the best interest of the society and its
members, but in such situations, they have to act bona
fide and within the four corners of the statute. In our
view, the impugned order will not fall in that category."
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:41021
WP No. 15009 of 2024
C/W WP No. 15028 of 2024
HC-KAR
7. Learned senior advocate also placed reliance on the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Joint Action Committee
of Air Line Pilots' Association of India (Alpai) and Others
Vs Director General of Civil Aviation and Others2, wherein,
the Hon'ble Apex Court held in paragraphs 26 and 27 as under:
"26. The contention was raised before the High
Court that the Circular dated 29-5-2008 has been issued
by the authority having no competence, thus cannot be
enforced. It is a settled legal proposition that the
authority which has been conferred with the competence
under the statute alone can pass the order. No other
person, even a superior authority, can interfere with the
functioning of the statutory authority. In a democratic
set-up like ours, persons occupying key positions are not
supposed to mortgage their discretion, volition and
decision-making authority and be prepared to give way to
carry out commands having no sanctity in law. Thus, if
any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the
behest or on suggestion of a person who has no statutory
role to play, the same would be patently illegal.
27. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court
in Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, Bahadursinh
Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and Pancham
Chand v. State of H.P. observing that an authority vested
with the power to act under the statute alone should
2
(2011) 5 SCC 435
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41021
WP No. 15009 of 2024
C/W WP No. 15028 of 2024
HC-KAR
exercise its discretion following the procedure prescribed
therein and interference on the part of any authority upon
whom the statute does not confer any jurisdiction, is
wholly unwarranted in law. It violates the constitutional
scheme."
8. On perusal of the Annexures referred to above, it is
clear case of action taken by the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies as per the direction of the Chief Minister. No
complaint was filed before the Registrar as required and no
enquiry was initiated in accordance with Section 64 of the
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. Definitely the
proceedings initiated is under the external influence, which is
not permissible in law. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the
proceedings initiated which is impugned in these petitions are
liable to be quashed. However, liberty may be reserved for any
aggrieved persons to present the complaint with the Registrar
of Co-operative Societies as required in law. The Registrar of
Co-operative Societies may also initiate action suo moto as per
Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41021
WP No. 15009 of 2024
C/W WP No. 15028 of 2024
HC-KAR
9. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petitions are allowed.
(ii) The order dated 21.09.2023 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-A and by respondent No.5 vide Annexure- F; the notice dated 06.02.2024 passed by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-A1 and the notices dated 25.03.2024 and 15.04.2024 passed by respondent No.4 vide Annexures-A2 and A3 are hereby quashed.
iii) Liberty is reserved with the aggrieved persons, if any, to present the complaint before the Registrar of Co- operative Societies, as required in law, upon which, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies may initiate action in accordance with law.
(iv) The Registrar of Co-operative Societies is also at liberty to initiate action suo moto as per Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE *bgn/-
CT:VS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 17