Karnataka High Court
Ahanya Milk Producers Co-Operative ... vs State Of Karnataka on 2 May, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18151
WP No. 11433 of 2025
C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 11433 OF 2025 (CS-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 11408 OF 2025 (CS-RES)
IN W.P.NO.11433/2025
BETWEEN
AHANYA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
BY ITS PRESIDENT
SRI A. V. PRASANNA
S/O LATE A Y VENKATAWAMY REDDY,
AGED 52 YEARS,
NO.48, D N DODDY POST, MALURU TALLUKU,
KOLAR, KARNATAKA- 563139
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.R. RAJGOPAL., SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH BY ITS SECRETARY
COURT OF DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION
KARNATAKA BENGALURU- 560001
2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
BENGALURU DIVISION,
NO. 146, SAHAKARA SOUDHA,
MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU-560003.
3. THE KOLAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATION
MILK PRODUCERS UNION,KOLAR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18151
WP No. 11433 of 2025
C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025
BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR,
KOLAR DISTRICT- 563101.
(REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959)
4. THE KOLAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE
MILK PRODUCER'S UNION,
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI. DR. GOPAL
KOLAR DISTRICT-563101
.... RESPONDENTS
5. GUJANAHALLI MILK PRODUCER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES MUDIYANUR POST, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT BY ITS PRESIDENT R. MANJUNATHA S/O RAJAPPA .... IMPLEADING APPLICANT (BY SRI. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY., AGA A/W SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPUR., AAG A/W SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK., AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. JAYKUMAR S. PATIL., SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DEVIPRASAD SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR C/R4 & R3; SRI. DR. RAVISHANKAR., SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. SARAVANA., ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT ON IA.1/2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS INCLUDING THE VIDEO CLIPS FROM THE HANDS OF THE 3RDRESPONDENT ADMINISTRATOR IN RELATED TO THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS AS PER ANNEXURE-K DATED 13/03/2025AND ETC. IN W.P.NO.11408/2025 BETWEEN KAMADHENAHALLI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. K.S.HARISHKUMAR S/O SRINIVASA.G -3- NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 AGED 36 YEARS KAMADHENAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST KOLAR TALUK KOLAR-563101 (PETITIONER SOCIETY IS REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1959) ...PETITIONER (BY PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR SR. ADVOCAE FOR SRI. RAGUPATHY K., ADVOCATE AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560 001.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (INDUSTRIES AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY) OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560052
3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BANGALORE DIVISION, #146, SAHAKARASOUDHA MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560003
4. KOLAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS' SOCIETIES UNION LTD KOLAR DAIRY, NH-4, HUTHUR POST KOLAR-563102 REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUBDIVISION, KOLAR (RESPONDENT NO.4 SOCIETY IS REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1959) -4- NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025
5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KOLAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS' SOCIETIES UNION LTD KOLAR DAIRY, NH-4, HUTHUR POST, KOLAR-563102 (RESPONDENT NO.5 SOCIETY IS REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1959) .... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY., AGA A/W SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPUR., AAG A/W SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK., AGA FOR R1 & R3;
SRI. JAYKUMAR S. PATIL., SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DEVIPRASAD SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR C/R5 & R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION DATED 13.03.2025 PASSED BY THE R4 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A)AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.04.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioners in each of the above petitions are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
W.P.No.11433/2025;
a. Call for the entire records including the video clips from the hands of the R3 administrator in related to the impugned proceedings as per Annexure-K dated 13.03.2025.
b. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ to quash the proceedings of the general body dated 13.03.2025 in so far as it relates to subject No.4 as per Annexure-K and also the certification by the registrar in terms of the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 in No. -5- NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 JRB/Bye-Law/Thiddupadi-28/2024-2025 as per Annexure-L. c. Issue any appropriate order or directions as this Hon'ble Court deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and allow this writ petition in the ends of justice and equity.
W.P.No.11408/2025;
a. Issue a writ or certiorari to quash the resolution dated 13.03.2025 passed by the R4 (produced as Annexure- A).
b. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 21.03.2025 bearing No. JRB/Amendment-2/2024-2025 passed by the R3 (produced as Annexure-B). c. Pass such other orders or directions as deem fit by this Hon'ble Court including awarding the costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The background and facts in both the above petitions are more or less similar. The same is narrated as below;
2.1. The Petitioners in both matters are Primary Societies who are members of the Respondent No.4-Union. The Union was earlier called Kolara-Chikkaballapura District Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Limited with its area of operation in Kolar and Chikkaballapura. Respondent No.3-Joint Registrar of Co- -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 Operative Societies (JRCS) had passed an order on 22.06.2022 bifurcating the Union as Kolar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union (hereinafter referred to as 'Kolar Society') having its territorial jurisdiction as Kolar District. The Chikkaballapur District Co- operative Milk Producers Societies Union Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Chikkaballapur Society') having its jurisdiction over Chikkaballapur District. 2.2. Thereafter, the said order came to be withdrawn on 25.06.2023, restoring both the Unions to the original position of Kolara- Chikkaballapur District Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Limited. The JRCS on 25.09.2024 withdrew the order dated 25.06.2023 again bringing back to force the bifurcation as indicated above. 2.3. Pursuant to the order dated 25.09.2024, administrators were appointed to the Kolar -7- NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 Society and Chikkaballapur Society, after the bifurcation, the JRCS appointed administrators to the Union and issued the approved bye-laws of the Union on 22.06.2022. Bye-law 14 thereof provides for 13 directors with the representation of 6 directors from the 6 talukas of Kolar.
2.4. The Respondent No.5-Managing Director of the Kolar Society had addressed a letter on 28.10.2024 requesting the JRCS to amend Rule 14.2 of the Bye-laws of the Kolar Union. Thereafter, the JRCS had issued a direction under Sub-section (5) of Section 12of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959(hereinafter referred to as 'KCS Act') proposing amendment to Clause 14 and 14.1 of the bye-laws of the Kolar Union and thereafter had passed an order on 29.11.2024 under Sub- section (6) of Section 12 of the KCS Act -8- NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 permitting the amendments and notifying the same.
2.5. Sub-section (5) of Section 12 and Sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the KCS Act is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
12. Amendment of bye-laws of a co-operative society.
(5)[ If it appears to the Registrar that any amendment of the bye-laws of a co-operative society is necessary or desirable in the interest of such society, the Registrar may, by order, call upon the co-operative society, to make the amendment proposed by him in such manner as may be prescribed and within such time as he may specify.
(6)If such amendment is not made by the co-operative society within the time specified in the said order, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the Registrar may, after giving the co-operative society an opportunity of being heard, register the said amendment and forward a copy thereof to the co- operative society along with a certificate signed by him which shall be conclusive evidence that the amendment has been duly registered.] 2.6. The said direction came to be challenged in WP No.33522 of 2024, this Court by its order dated 10.12.2024 set aside the order dated 29.11.2024, directing the Union to call for a Special General Body Meeting by issuing -9- NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 necessary notices to comply with sub-section (6) of section 12.
2.7. Another writ petition had been filed in
WP No.35252 of 2024 clubbed with
WP No.34363 of 2024, challenging the very same order and direction dated 29.11.2024 issued by the JRCS. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observing that the filing of WP No.33522 of 2024 and the orders passed therein had not been disclosed and further observing that the Petitioners-therein had not come with clean hands, dismissed the said petition by imposing cost of Rs.50,000/- reserving liberty to the Petitioners-therein to appear in the Special General Meeting to be held pursuant to a notice issued by the Administrator, reserving liberty to raise their objections in the Special General Body Meeting. 2.8. It is pursuant to the order dated 10.12.2024 and WP No.33522/2024 that the Managing
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 Director of the Kolar Union had issued a notice on 27.02.2025 for holding a Special General Body Meeting on 13.03.2025. The Petitioners, vide their letter dated 10.03.2025, requested the Managing Director to permit them to place their grievance at the Special General Body Meeting proposed to be held on 13.03.2025. The meeting having been held on 13.03.2025, the Managing Director has not considered any of the objections submitted by the members of the Co-operative Societies. The Managing Director had not provided an opportunity to the members to raise their grievances, and the deliberation and discussions have not been recorded in the minutes.
2.9. The Special General Body approved the resolution in pursuance of which the resolution was sent to the JRCS for approval. In the meanwhile, certain other members had approached the JRCS not to approve the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 amendment vide their representation dated 17.03.2025. It is alleged that without considering the said representation, the JRCS has passed an order on 21.03.2025 approving the amendment to the bye-laws in terms of the resolution dated 13.03.2025 of the Kolar Union. It is aggrieved by the same, that the Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
3. Before the matter could be taken up for hearing, all the counsels for the Petitioners, namely Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, Sri.M.R.Rajgopal, learned Senior Counsel, vehemently submitted that the proceedings of the meeting having been recorded by the Managing Director/ Administrator, the said video recording could be directed to be produced, which is prayer No.(a) in WP No.11433 of 2025.
4. On enquiry with the Union as also the learned AGA if they had any objections, they consented to the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 production of the recording. The Managing Director was directed to place on record the video, which was produced in the form of a pen drive. The said video on the pen drive was played in open Court with the consent of all the counsels and the happenings therein were witnessed by all in the open Court.
5. Insofar as the pen drive, and the contents of the video, both in terms of the voice and audio, there is no dispute raised by any of the counsels. They only seek to interpret the happenings in the video, which will be dealt with by this Court.
6. There being no particular dispute as regards the video, though no certificate under Section 60 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, is produced, I am of the considered opinion that the said video and audio could be considered on account of the consent of all the parties.
7. The said Section 60 of BSA, 2023 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025
60. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to document may be given; Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in the following cases, namely;-
(a)When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power;-
(i) of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved; or
(ii) of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court; or
(iii) of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 64, such person does not produce it;
(b)When the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest;
(c)When the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time;
(d)When the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable;
(e)When the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74;
(f) When the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in India to be given in evidence;
(g)When the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection.
Explanation;- For the purpose of-
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025
(i) Clauses (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the documents is admissible.
(ii) Clause (b), the written admission is admissible.
(iii) Clause (e) or (f), a certified copy of document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible.
(iv) Clause (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.
8. The said video has been taken into consideration since all the counsels have insisted on the said video to be taken into consideration. It is after watching the video that the following submissions are made by the respective counsels.
9. Prof.Ravivarma Kumar learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, would submit that; 9.1. This Court in its order in WP No.35252 of 2024 clubbed with WP No.34363 of 2024 had reserved liberty to the Petitioners therein to raise their objections in the Special General Body and as such, the Petitioners ought to have been permitted to raise their objections. The
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 Managing Director and/or the Administrator not having permitted the Petitioners to raise their objection, there is a violation of the aforesaid order.
9.2. There were no deliberations which were held in respect of the resolution proposed to be passed nor were the deliberations recorded in the resolution thereby, there is a violation of Rule 14-AJ(12) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules,1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KCS Rules'). The Said Rule 14-AJ (12) of the KCS Rules is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
14-AJ: General meetings:
12. The chief executive shall record the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting truly and accurately as per the deliberations in the meeting in the book kept for the purpose with its pages consecutively numbered. When any member expresses dissent in the deliberations on any subject, the Chief Executive shall record the same truly and accurately. The minutes of the meeting shall contain a fair and correct summary of the deliberations thereat.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 9.3. His submission is that all the deliberations, more so as regards the important aspect of reorganisation of the jurisdiction, ought to have been permitted to be discussed and deliberated upon, so as to permit each and every member to place his or her views on the matter which could have been considered by the General Body, and thereafter the resolution could have been passed not permitting deliberation and not holding discussion has resulted in the resolution being passed without the views of all the members being considered by the other members.
9.4. Certain members had submitted their objections even before the meeting and had also requested that deliberation be permitted. However, the Administrator did not permit deliberation.
9.5. On that ground, he submits, that the Managing Director/Administrator has acted like a dictator
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 without following the principles of natural justice. His submission is that there are malafides on part of the Managing Director. 9.6. A reading of Sub-section (6) of Section 12 with Rule 6 of the KCS Rules makes the Managing Director/Administrator duty-bound to present the agenda before the Special General body and after due deliberation and considering all objections to proceed with the voting. These issues require detailed deliberations; the entire meeting has been completed within 15 minutes, which would indicate that the Managing Director has not followed the procedure contemplated thereunder.
9.7. His submission is that in terms of the declaration of results, out of the 747 members present, 631 members have voted for the agenda without understanding the agenda, the counting of votes was made on the basis of raising of hands. The methodology of counting
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 has not been properly explained. There being 982 members, 913 members being present, there was no methodology to verify as to how only 747 persons voted and from and out of them, 631 voted for the motion and 116 against.
9.8. Thus, he submits that a poll was to be conducted by process of a secret ballot, it should not have been conducted by a show of hands. The procedure which has been resorted to by the Managing Director/Administrator is contrary to the applicable law and as such the resolution is required to be quashed. 9.9. His further submission is that thereafter once the resolution was sent to the JRCS, objections having been submitted by the members of the Union, it was for the JRCS to consider these objections and pass a reasoned order. Instead of doing so, the JRCS has merely approved the resolution vide his order dated 21.03.2025,
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 which is also not permissible. There is absolutely no application of mind on part of the JRCS insofar as the objections submitted by the Petitioner is concerned.
9.10. Thus, he submits that both the resolution dated 13.03.2025 of the Kolar Union and the order dated 21.03.2025 of the JRCS are required to be quashed.
9.11. His submission is that there is a different methodology to be adopted as to how a resolution has to be put to vote under Section 29-H of the KCS Act, which relates to moving a motion for no confidence against an office bearer. Section 29-H of the KCS Act, is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
29-H Motion of no confidence against office bearer:
(1) A motion of no confidence against an office bearer may be moved only after two years of his assumption of office. In case, the motion of no confidence is once defeated, a fresh motion shall not be introduced within one year thereafter. No motion of no confidence shall be moved unless there is a request from not less than one-third of
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 the elected members of the board of a Co- operative Society concerned.
(2) An office bearer of a co-operative Society shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of two-third of the total number of elected directors of a Co-operative Society at a meeting specially convened for the purpose.
(3) The procedure for no confidence motion shall be as prescribe.
9.12. The methodology is prescribed under Rule 14 (AKK) (9) of the KCS Rules, which provides that as soon as the meeting commences, the authorised officer shall read out to the members of the board the motion for consideration for which the meeting has been convened and shall put the same to vote without any debate.
9.13. The said Rule 14 (AKK)(9) of the KCS Rules is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
14-AKK. No Confidence Motion:
9. As soon as the meeting commences, the authorised officer shall read out to the members of the board, the motion for consideration for which the meeting has been convened and shall put it to vote without any debate.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 9.14. A perusal of the above Rules shows that it is different from the requirement under Rule 14-AJ(12) of the KCS Rules which relates to general meetings. In terms of Rule 14-AJ(12) of the KCS Rules, the Chief Executive has to record the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting truly and accurately as per the deliberations of the meeting in the book kept for that purpose with its pages consecutively numbered, and when any member expresses dissent in the deliberations on any subject, the Chief Executive shall record the same truly and accurately and the minutes of the meeting shall contain a fair and correct summary of the deliberations therefrom.
9.15. He submits that the requirement of Rule 14 (AJ-12) of the KCS Rules has completely been violated by Respondent No.4-Managing Director/Administrator. Thus, setting at naught
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 the resolution which has been passed. If the resolution were to be held to be improper, further action by the JRCS in approving the resolution and permitting the amendment is required to be quashed.
10. Sri.M.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in WP No.11433/2025 adopts the arguments of Prof.Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior counsel.
11. Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil., learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Union would submit that; 11.1. The resolution has been properly passed, there is no violation of any particular law and in this regard he relies on Rule 6 of the KCS Rules in that regard.
11.2. The said Rule 6 of the KCS Rules is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
6. Procedure regarding amendment of bye-laws:-
(1) Where a Co-operative Society proposes to amend its bye-laws, no such amendments shall be made save by a resolution passed by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting, at a
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 general meeting of the society;
(2) No such resolution shall be valid, unless notice of the proposed amendment has been given to the members of the society in accordance with the bye- laws;
(3) In every case in which a society proposes to amend its byelaws, an application shall be made to the Registrar together with,
(a) a copy of the resolution referred to in sub-rule (1),
(b) such number of copies of the proposed amendment as may be specified by the Registrar in this behalf;
(bb) a treasury challan or Demand Draft in favour of the Registrar for having remitted the fee specified below;
Area of operation of society Amount of fees
1. Less than a taluk Rs.1,000/-
2 Taluk and above but less Rs.2,500/-
than a district
3. District and above but less Rs.5,000/-
than region
4. Region and above Rs.12,500/-
(c) a certificate signed by the Presiding Authority of the meeting that the procedure specified in sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) and in the bye-laws has been followed; and
(d) any other particulars that may be required by the Registrar in this behalf.
(4) Every such application shall be made within 1[sixty days] from the date of the general meeting at which such amendment was passed:
Provided that the Registrar may condone the delay, if any, for sufficient cause.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 (5) When the Registrar registers an amendment of the bye-laws o fa Co-operative Society he shall send a copy thereof to the financing bank, if any, to which the Co-operative Society is affiliated.
(6)Where the Registrar proposes any amendment to the byelaws of a Co-operative Society under sub-
section (5) of Section 12,the authority competent to convene the general meeting shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the rules or the bye-laws place such proposal before the annual or special general meeting, as the case may be, and a decision on such proposal shall be taken at such meeting and the Co- operative Society shall carry out amendment of bye- laws as directed by the Registrar as per Section 12(5) of the Act.
11.3. He submits that Rule 6 of the KCS rules lays down the procedure regarding the amendment of bye-laws. The entire procedure under Rule 6 was followed during the meeting. There being 913 members present, 747 voted and as such he submits that in terms of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6, it is these 747 members who have voted which has to be considered for the purpose of determining majority or otherwise. Though there were 913 persons present, only 747 voted. Thus, the persons who did not vote would have to be excluded.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 11.4. Taking into consideration that 747 voted, 631 voted for the motion and 116 voted against, as such the requirement of two-thirds majority under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 has been satisfied. 11.5. By referring to Sub-rule (6) of Rule 6, he submits that this has been complied by the Managing Director/Administrator as per the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 10.12.2024 in WP No.33522 of 2024. A meeting had been convened, the proposal was placed before the Special General Meeting, and the decision was made on such proposal by the members present and voting.
11.6. He submitted that the requirement under Sub-
rule (6) of Rule 6 is what is required to be followed and not the requirement under Rule 14-AJ(12) as it relates to the discussion of a general meeting, whereas Rule 6 of the KCS Rules specifically deals with amendments to the byelaws. Thus, he submitted that there was no
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 requirement for the motion to be deliberated upon and/or the deliberations to be recorded. 11.7. His submission is that there are six talukas in Kolar District comprising of 30 constituencies. The manner and methodology of distribution of these 30 constituencies have been properly worked out and approved by a two-thirds majority of the members, merely because some of the members do not like the manner of distributing the constituency and cannot take recourse to a writ petition. The resolution has been passed by a two-thirds majority in a democratic manner, which cannot be found fault with.
11.8. His submission is that the Petitioners do not want any elections to be held and it is for that reason that they have been delaying the matter by filing one petition or the other. The decision dated 10.12.2024 in WP No.33522 of 2024 have been complied with. The said decision was
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 suppressed in the writ petition filed by certain other members in WP No.35252 of 2024 clubbed with WP No.34363 of 2024, which resulted in their dismissal by imposition of costs.
11.9. Though the Petitioners and other societies who were opposing the resolution were completely aware of the order passed in WP No.33522 of 2024, they did not bring it to the notice of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while arguing the matter in WP No.35252 of 2024 and it is for that reason that costs have been imposed while dismissing those petitions. The manner in which they have acted would categorically indicate that they have sought to abuse the process of this Court. The interpretation sought to be drawn to the Operative Portion in Para-3 of the order in WP No.35252 of 2024 is completely misconceived.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 The said para 3 of the operative portion is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
3. It is needless to observe that petitioners are at liberty to raise their objections in the special general body that would be held.
11.10. Raising of objections would not mean deliberation. Raising of objection is in terms of voting since there was only one particular agenda and that agenda was either to approve the proposal sent by the Registrar or reject the same. 631 of the 747 members who voted and approved the direction and/or proposal by the registrar, voting having taken place in terms of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 6, the Petitioners cannot have any grievance. He therefore submits that the Petitions are required to be dismissed.
12. An impleading application has been filed in IA No.1/20525, Sri.D.R.Ravi Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the impleading applicant submits that;
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 12.1. The impleading applicant is one other member of the Kolar Union and any order passed in the present matter would adversely affect him. Since there was an urgency expressed by all the other counsels, instead of postponing the matter, Sri.D.R.Ravishankar was also permitted to address his arguments along with the main petition itself.
12.2. Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the Petitioners have not established any substantial injury. The resolution being in terms of the proposal submitted by the registrar, which was so required on account of the bifurcating of the erstwhile Kolar-Chikkaballapur Union into Kolar Union and Chikkaballapur Union separately. 12.3. The division of the constituencies among these two bifurcated Unions is in the interest of all the members. There is no injury, let alone substantial injury, which has been established
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 by the Petitioners to have been caused to them on account of the resolution having been passed and/or the approval by the Registrar. 12.4. He further seeks to distinguish the challenge to the resolution as well as the challenge to the order of the Registrar and submit that the challenge to the resolution can only be made under Section 70(1)(b) of the KCS Act, and as regards the challenge to the order of the Registrar, the same can be made only under Section 106 (1B) of the KCS Act.
12.5. The said Section 70(1)(b) and Section 106(1)(b), are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
70. Disputes which may be referred to Registrar for decision (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the Constitution, management, or the business of a cooperative society arises,--
(b) between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its [board] or any officer, agent or employee of the society, or
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025
106. Appeals to other authorities:
(1) Subject to the provisions of Section 108-A, an appeal shall lie under this Section against;
(b) an order of the Registrar under Section 12;
12.6. Thus, he submits that seeking of two prayers, one for quashing of the resolution and the other for quashing the order of the Registrar is not maintainable. There are two different causes of action, and the Petitioner would have to avail of those separate remedies.
13. Sri.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Advocate General would support the case of the Kolar Union and submits that:
13.1. There is an alternative efficacious remedy in terms of Section 106 (1)(b) of the KCS Act which is required to be availed of by the Petitioners, the writ petition is not a suitable remedy in these circumstances.
13.2. He relies on Sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the KCS Act which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025
21. Manner of exercising vote.-
(3) A member once nominated by the board of a Co-operative Society under clause (a) of sub-section (2) to vote on its behalf in any meeting of any other Co-operative Society shall not be changed except by a resolution passed with substantial reasons in a board meeting by a two third majority of the members present and voting in such meeting. However, a Co-operative Society shall not nominate or appoint any member of the board to vote on behalf of it in more than two co-operative societies.] 13.3. By relying on above he submits that once the meeting notice was issued, the Administrator has received 664 representations in writing, confirming their support in favour of the resolution. The votes which have been counted are 631 votes which is lesser than the representation received in writing. 13.4. Insofar as the representation received against the motion, there are only 12 in number, the number which have been counted are 116. Therefore, the counting which has taken place has been so done in a bona fide manner. He refers to Sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 KCS Act to contend that the delegate who has been nominated by each of the Primary Societies, and the primary society having indicated their preference as regard the resolution, are the same and cannot be changed.
13.5. He relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of K.Bhoopal vs. Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies1, more particularly para no. 8 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
8. Incidentally, in the instant case, the order impugned could be challenged under Section 106 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 by filing an appeal as provided under the said Act. When such option is available, this Court feel that there is absolutely no justification for the Petitioner to approach this Court and also there is no reason for this Court to go out of the way by bending itself backwards to take up these kind of writ petitions out of turn and to encourage the unrighteous litigations which are in pursuit of power and money in the guise of trying to enforce their so-called legal right by filing this writ petition. 13.6. By relying on K. Bhoopal's case, he submits that an alternate remedy already lies under 1 WP No.48378/2017
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 Section 106 of the 1959 Act and all attempts to supersede that remedy by knocking on the doors of this Court are nothing but an abuse of the process of this court.
13.7. He relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of The Prathamika Krushi Pattina Sahakara Sangaha Niyamit vs. The Assistant Registrar2, more particularly para nos.4 and 23 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
4. Learned counsel contended that the impugned order as per Annexure-F is passed under Section 12(5) and (6) of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 ("the Act, 1959" for short). As per Section 12(6), respondent No.1 should have given an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner. No such opportunity was given to the Petitioner and the impugned order came to be passed without following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
23. In view of the above, I decline to exercise the jurisdiction to entertain the petition which is filed bypassing Section 106 of the Act, 1959, where filing of appeal is provided against the order passed under Section 12 of the Act, 1959. If this Court proceeds to exercise jurisdiction even when an alternative or efficacious remedy is available to the parties under the statute, the appeal provision provided under Section 106 of the Act, would become redundant. I 2 WP No.101051/2024
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 am of the opinion that the Petitioner will have to file an appeal under Section 106 of the Act, 1959, if it is adviced to do so. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
13.8. By relying on Prathamika Krushi Pattina's case, his submission is that an order passed without hearing all stakeholders just plainly violates the principles of natural justice. Further, he submits that a Writ Court ought not entertain a matter wherein an alternative and efficacious remedy lies, in that regard this petition is without jurisdiction as the conferred remedy is yet to be exhausted.
13.9. On the basis of the above, he submits that the petitions are required to be dismissed.
14. Sri. M.R. Rajgopal, learned Senior counsel in reply would submit as under:
14.1. Sri. M.R. Rajagopal relies on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Kallugopahalli Milk Producer Cooperative Society Ltd. -v- State of Karnataka and
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 others3, more particularly para nos. 2, 14, 15 and 18 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
2. The writ petitions are filed by the President and the Directors of Kallugoppahalli Milk Producers Co-
operative Society Limited, seeking to raise a challenge to the amendment to the bye-laws approved in the General Body Meeting held on 09.09.2023, more particularly, regarding the inclusion of Ward No.1 in Bangalore South constituency. The main contention is that in the agenda for amendment proposed to the bye-laws, it was never proposed to shift Ward No.1 which was earlier in the Ramanagara constituency to Bangalore South constituency. It is contended that in the agenda and the meeting notice circulated, what was proposed was shifting of Ward Nos.5 and 7 which were earlier in the Ramanagara constituency to Bangalore South constituency. It is not disputed that reference is made towards having regard to the Primary Societies located therein. The contention of the petitioner-Society, which is a Primary Society and the member of the fourth respondent-Secondary Co- operative society, that when there being a proposal in the agenda to shift Ward No.1 to Bangalore South constituency, the General Body appears to have resolved to consider the proposal made during the course of the General Body Meeting by the President of the Petitioner - Co-operative Society, to shift ward no.1 from Ramanagara constituency to Bangalore South constituency. It is further contended that objections were nevertheless filed by the President of the petitioner Co-operative Society on 24.01.2024 with the JRCS bringing to his notice the facts narrated hereinabove and raising an objection for acceptance of the resolution and approving the resolution passed by the General Body of the fourth respondent-Society. However, the JRCS has not considered the objections raised by the petitioner Society. 3 WP 7399 of 2024
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025
14. As regards the availability of alternative efficacious remedy, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case on hand falls within the three categories or situations that would enable this Court to disregard the availability of alternative remedy, as decided in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai & Ors. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1, since it is the contention of the petitioner-society and its Directors that the JRCS, who was required to consider the objections filed at the hands of the President of the society has not considered the objections and therefore, there is violation of the principles of natural justice. Violation of the principles of natural justice is one of the circumstances under which, this Court can entertain a writ petition although there is availability of alternative remedy.
15. The question that is required to be considered in these writ petitions is as to whether action of the General Body in including Ward No.1, although there being no such proposal and shifting it from Ramanagara constituency to Bengaluru South constituency is in accordance with law and whether the approval given by the JRCS to such amendment could be sustained?
18. The situation further aggravates, since the very same President who is said to have given a proposal in the general body files a written objection before the JRCS bringing to his notice the illegality that has been happened while the resolution was passed on 09.09.2023. The JRCS was required to consider such objections. The approval granted by the JRCS without considering the objections filed by the President of the petitioner-society is also in violation of the principles of natural justice. The order of approval being bereft of any reason, more particularly, having regard to the objections raised by the petitionersociety, the JRCS could not have proceeded to approve the resolution dated 09.09.2023.
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 14.2. By relying on Kallugopahalli's case, he submits that what was under challenge in that proceeding was also an amendment to the bylaws approved in the General Body meeting as regards the inclusion of Ward No.1 in Bangalore South Constituency. The amendment having been challenged, this Court has negatived the defence raised therein that there is an alternative and efficacious remedy available, as such, he submits that the remedy of appeal under Section 106 is neither an alternative nor an efficacious remedy. 14.3. He relies on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. Umesha. L -v- State of Karnataka & others4, more particularly para no. 17 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
17. Petitioner has written a letter on 27.05.2020 as per Annexure-P to the Registrar. In reply, the Registrar has informed the Petitioner that the Bye-
laws were already approved and Petitioner could file 4 W.P. No.11225/2020
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 an appeal to redress his grievance, if any. It is relevant to note that an appeal is maintainable under Section 10(3) of the KSR Act, only where Registrar refuses to register the amendment. In the case on hand, Registrar has already registered the amendment. Therefore, the question of filing an appeal does not arise. Such advice by the Registrar compels this Court to infer that the Registrar has not properly construed the scope of Section 10 of KSR Act. It is also relevant to note that, there is no speaking order on record to show that the third respondent has applied his mind to the entire proposal sent by the Institute seeking amendment of Byelaws, nor the concerned file is produced for perusal by this Court.
14.4. By referring to Umesh's case, he submits that the said decision, though under the Societies Registration Act and not under the KCS Act, for a Registrar to accept an amendment to the bylaws, the acceptance order has to be a speaking order indicating the application of mind, without such consideration as to whether the amendment complies with subsection (2) of Section 12, the Registrar could not have approved the resolution of the society. The Registrar is required to apply his independent mind to ascertain the validity or otherwise as regards the amendment.
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 14.5. He relies upon another decision of this Court in Sri. Ramesh C. Shetty & another -v- State of Karnataka, rep. by Secretary, Department of Cooperation and others5, more particularly para nos. 7, 10 and 11 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
7. With regard to the question whether the writ petition is maintainable which indeed is the preliminary objection raised by the learned Senior Counsel - Sri Ashok Haranahalli appearing for the impleading respondent, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned senior counsel invites the attention of the Court to Sections 6, 8 and 10 of the Act and contends that the Registrar is required to satisfy himself that amendment to the bye-laws sought to be made is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Karnataka Societies Registration Rules, 1964 (for short "the Rules") and only thereafter, he can register the amendment which will have effect from the date of the resolution passed by the Society. This satisfaction, it is urged, has to be shown to have been recorded after applying the mind to the relevant factors and after satisfying himself about the holding of the meeting in accordance with law and in terms mandated by the bye-laws at the place required to be held as per the bye-law. In this regard, he submits that the memorandum of association of every society is required to be registered as per Section 6(2) of the Act and they have to contain provisions relating to the admission of members, general meetings, its proceedings at such meeting etc. Therefore, unless the memorandum of 5 ILR 2014 Kar 5662
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 association and the rules and regulations in the form of bye-laws are registered in accordance with Section 6(2) of the Act, the society cannot function. Hence, it would become the duty of the Registrar to satisfy himself as to whether the resolution amending the bye-laws has been passed in accordance with such rules and regulations/bye-laws of the Society. In this regard, he also points out referring to Section 8 of the Act that registration of the societies would be done only after the Registrar duly satisfies himself that all the requirements of the Act and the Rules are complied with and thereafter, he will retain and register the memorandum of association and the rules and regulations and will certify under his hand that the Society has been duly registered.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it is necessary to examine the scope of the provisions enacted under Section 10(2) of the Act with regard to the satisfaction of the Registrar in approving the amendment of the bye-laws of the Society. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act states that, if the Registrar is satisfied that the amendment made under sub-section (1) is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, he shall register it and thereafter, such amendment will have effect from the date of resolution passed by the Society as per sub-section (1) of Section 10.
11. The satisfaction to be reached by the Registrar is with regard to the amendment having been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. It is well established principle of construction of the statute that where the provisions are clear and unambiguous, the meaning to be given to the provisions has to be with reference to the words used and the intention expressed therein. Keeping in mind this principle, if the requirement as stated in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act is examined then it will be clear that the satisfaction of the Registrar is as regards the amendment being in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Thus the
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 satisfaction of the Registrar is confined to the amendment being in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 14.6. By referring to Ramesh C. Shetty's case, he submits that it is for the Registrar to satisfy himself about the amendment to the byelaws to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act and this satisfaction is required to be recorded after applying the mind to the relevant factors. The same not being recorded, there being no application of mind, the order of the Registrar accepting the amendment is not sustainable. In the present case also, his submission is that the impugned order of the Registrar accepting the amendment is not sustainable.
14.7. He relies upon the decision of the Division bench of the erstwhile High Court of Mysore in Gadag Betgeri Kaimagged Udyogabhivridhi Sahakari Utpadak Sangh Ltd. & others -v-
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 The Karnataka Cooperative Textile Mills Ltd. And others6, which has held as under:
Sri H.B. Datar, the learned counsel for respondent-1, has raised two preliminary objections, viz., that the persons elected at the general meeting held on 29th March 1965 on the basis of the amended Bye- laws are necessary parties and that the petitioners have an alternate remedy of raising a dispute for reference to Arbitration under Section 71 of the Act. We have set out the order made by this court on 25th March 1965 on the interim relief prayed for by the petitioners. The new Directors elected on the basis of the amended Bye-laws have not assumed office. In the face of the order made by this court, it is not open to respondent-1 to contend that the newly elected Directors are necessary parties. The second objection raised by Sri Datar that the dispute concerning the validity of the amendment can be raised and decided under Sections 70 and 71 of the Act, in our opinion, is devoid of any substance. The petitioners are aggrieved by the certificate of registration approving the amendment granted by respondent-2. The dispute is between the petitioners who are members of respondent-1 and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, with regard to the power of the Registrar to register the amendment under Section 12 read with Rule 6. Section 70 read with 71 does not contemplate a reference to arbitration when there is a dispute between a member of a co- operative society and the Registrar.
It is within the jurisdiction of this court to determine, whether the Registrar, in issuing the certificate which the petitioners impugn, acted within the limits of the powers conferred on him by the Act and the Rules. There is no doubt that if the Registrar did act in good faith within the limits of the authority conferred by the Act and the Rules, his act is fully protected and no court has any power to interfere. The question for determination is, whether the Registrar in issuing the 6 ILR 1965 Mysore 1198
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 certificate acted within the limits of the powers conferred on him by the Act and the Rules.
14.8. By relying on Gadag Betgeri's case, he submits that this court has categorically come to a conclusion that Section 70 would not apply to a challenge to an amendment inasmuch as the acceptance of the amendment is by the Registrar and Registrar is not one of the parties included under Subsection (2) of Section 70. A member of a Society cannot raise a dispute as regards the action of the Registrar under Section 70 and therefore, he submits that the only remedy which is available is by filing the present writ petition.
15. In WP 11433/2025, heard Sri.M.R.Rajgopal, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner, Sri.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Advocate General for Respondents No.1 and 2, Sri.Jaykumar S.Patil., learned Senior counsel for Respondents No.3 & 4,
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior counsel for impleading applicant.
16. In WP No.11408/2025, heard Prof.Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Advocate General appearing for Respondent Nos .1 to 3 and Sri.Jaykumar S.Patil., learned Senior Counsel for Respondents No.4 and 5. Perused papers.
17. The points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:
1. Whether in a Special Meeting held to consider the direction issued by the registrar under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the KCS Act to carry out any amendment to the byelaws is it the procedure under Sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of the KCS Rules 1960 which are required to be followed or is the procedure under Rule 14 (AJ-12) which is required to be followed?
2. Whether the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy under
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 Section 70(1B) as also under Section 106 (1B) of the KCS Act?
3. Whether there is any ground made out for interference by this Court with the resolution dated 13.3.2025 and/or the order of the registrar dated 21.3.2025?
4. What order?
18. I answer the above points as under:
19. ANSWER TO POINT NO.1:Whether in a Special Meeting held to consider the direction issued by the registrar under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the KCS Act to carry out any amendment to the byelaws is it the procedure under Sub- rule (6) of Rule 6 of the KCS Rules 1960 which are required to be followed or is the procedure under Rule 14 (AJ-12) which is required to be followed?
19.1. Section 12 of the KCS Act, is reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
12. Amendment of bye-laws of a co-operative society.
(1)No amendment of any bye-law of a co-operative society shall be valid unless such amendment has been registered under this Act.[(1-A) Every proposal for such amendment shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed, and different fees may be prescribed for different class or classes of co-operative societies] [Inserted by Act 24 of 2001 w.e.f. 05.09.2001.]
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 (2)Every proposal for such amendment shall be forwarded to the Registrar and if the Registrar is satisfied that the proposed amendment,-
(i)is not contrary to the provisions of this Act and the rules;
(ii)does not conflict with co-operative principles;
(iii)satisfies the requirements of sound business;
(iv)will promote the economic interests of the members of the society; and
(v)is not inconsistent with the principles of social justice;
[he shall, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the proposal, register the amendment] [Substituted by Act 25 of 1998 w.e.f. 15.08.1998.].(2A)[ If the Registrar is unable to dispose of such application within the period specified in sub-section (1), the amendment of bye-laws shall be deemed to have been registered.] [Inserted by Act 25 of 1998 w.e.f. 15.08.1998.] (3)[ When the Registrar registers an amendment of the bye-laws of a society or where an amendment of the bye-laws is deemed to have been registered, he shall issue to the society a copy of amendment certified by him and such certificate shall be conclusive evidence that the amendment of the bye-law has been duly registered or deemed to be registered, as the case may be.] [Substituted by Act 25 of 1998 w.e.f. 15.08.1998.] (4)Where the Registrar refuses to register an amendment of the bye-laws of a co-operative society, he shall communicate the order of refusal, together with the reasons therefor, to the society. (5)[ If it appears to the Registrar that any amendment of the bye-laws of a co-operative society is necessary or desirable in the interest of such society, the Registrar may, by order, call upon
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 the co-operative society, to make the amendment proposed by him in such manner as may be prescribed and within such time as he may specify. (6)If such amendment is not made by the co- operative society within the time specified in the said order, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the Registrar may, after giving the co- operative society an opportunity of being heard, register the said amendment and forward a copy thereof to the co-operative society along with a certificate signed by him which shall be conclusive evidence that the amendment has been duly registered.] [Sub-sections (5) and (6) inserted by Act 5 of 1984 w.e.f. 09.01.1984.] 19.2. Sub-section (1) of Section 12 deals with amendments to be made by the Society so as to bring the byelaws in conformity with the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 deals with voluntary amendments made by the Society and the aspects that are required to be taken into consideration by the registrar before registering the amendment. Sub-section (2)(A), prescribes the time period for consideration of such voluntary amendments. Sub-section (3) deals with the procedure to be followed by the registrar after approving the
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 amendment. Sub-section (4) deals with refusal of the registrar to register the amendment and the order passed in relation thereto. 19.3. What is relevant for this matter is sub-section (5) of Section 12, which deals with the powers conferred on the registrar to direct amendment to the bye-laws.
19.4. If it appears to the registrar that an amendment to the bylaws of a Co-operative society is necessary or desirable, to give effect to the provisions of the Act, the registrar may by order direct the cooperative society to make the amendment proposed by him in such manner as may be prescribed, and within such time as he may specify.
19.5. Sub-Section 6 of Section 12 deals with situations where the Co-operative society has not complied with the said direction. In that case, the registrar after giving the Co-operative society an opportunity of being heard, can
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 register the amendment and forward a copy thereof to the co-operative society. 19.6. The manner in which an amendment is to be made is dealt with by Rule 6 of the KCS Rules. The said Rule 6 is reproduced hereinabove. 19.7. Again, sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 deals with a voluntary amendment by the society. Sub-rules (2), (3), and (4) deal with the procedure to be followed by the society while submitting the resolution and/or amendment to the registrar. Sub-rule (5) deals with the procedure to be followed by the registrar on registration and requires the registrar to send a copy of the amendment of the byelaws to the financing bank to which the cooperative society is affiliated, if any.
19.8. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 is the one of relevance in the present matter and deals with the situation where the Registrar, having proposed an
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 amendment to the byelaws under sub-section (5) of Section 12.
19.9. The authority competent to convene a general meeting shall place such proposal before the annual or special general meeting, and the decision on such proposal shall be taken at such meeting, requiring the Co-operative society to carry out the amendment of byelaws as directed by the Registrar as per sub-section (5) of Section 12.
19.10. In the present matter, once earlier, when a direction had been issued under sub-section (5) of Section 12, the same not being complied, the Registrar had passed an order under sub- section (6) of Section 12, directing the registration of the amendment which came to be challenged before this court in WP No.33522 of 2024. This Court took into consideration that the requirement of sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 had not been complied with and quashed the order
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 of the Registrar and directed the holding of a special general meeting to consider the proposal.
19.11. WP No.35252 of 2024 and WP No.34363 of 2024 had been filed, again challenging the very same direction of the Registrar, a coordinate bench of this Court dismissed the said writ petition imposing cost of Rs.50,000/- on account of suppression of facts and reserved liberty to the petitioners therein to raise the matter in the special general meeting. 19.12. It is in pursuance thereof, that the special general meeting had been called on 13.03.202, what was required to be considered and has been considered is the sole agenda of the meeting, namely the proposal/ direction issued by the Registrar.
19.13. The submission of Prof.Ravivarma Kumar., learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in WP No.11408/2025 is that the
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 procedure under Rule 14-AJ (12) is required to be followed in as much as the deliberations have to be recorded in writing. Rule 14-AJ (12) of the KCS Rules is reproduced hereinabove for easy reference;
19.14. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule 14-AJ (12) would indicate that in the general meeting, the Chief Executive Officer shall record the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting truly and accurately as per the deliberations of the meeting in the book kept for the purpose with its pages consecutively numbered and when any member expresses dissent in the deliberation on any subject, the Chief Executive Officer shall record the same truly and accurately. Furthermore, the minutes of the meeting shall contain a fair and correct summary of the deliberations thereat. 19.15. It is this procedure which is alleged to have not been followed by the Chief Executive and as
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 such Prof.Ravivarama Kumar., learned Senior counsel's submission is that the resolution and the procedure not having been followed in the meeting, the resolution would have to be quashed and consequently the registration of the amendment by the registrar would have to be quashed.
19.16. What is required to be considered is whether the procedure under Rule 14-AJ (12) is required to be followed in a meeting conducted under Sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of the KCS Rules in pursuance of the directions/proposal issued by the registrar under Sub-section (5) of Section
12. 19.17. A perusal of Section 14-AJ(12) indicates that it is applicable with respect to a general meeting. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 is a specific provision made regarding the meeting to consider the proposal scope direction issued by the register under sub-section (5) of Section 12. Thus, in
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 my considered opinion, the procedure which has been prescribed under sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 is a special procedure which would have to be applied to a meeting conducted in furtherance of the proposal/ direction of the registrar. 19.18. When a special provision and procedure has been prescribed under sub-rule (6) of Rule 6, the general procedure under Rule 14-AJ and the method of minutes of the meeting under Rule 14-AJ(12), in my considered opinion, would not apply. It is in that background that the facts in the above matter would have to be considered.
19.19. Respondent No.5 having called for the special meeting to consider the proposal/ direction issued by the registrar under sub-section (5) of Section 12, the video which was played in open Court showed the said Managing director reading out the proposal and the same was put to vote, at which time it is seen that several of
- 56 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 the members in an unruly manner rushed towards the stage and started shouting at each other. Somehow, they also got access to microphones, which was also used by them. Thus, these members expressed their opinions regarding the proposal vociferously using the microphones that were available. It is during this stage that the matter was put to vote by show of hands, the hands raised were counted and the results announced.
19.20. Insofar as the contention of Prof.Ravivarma Kumar., learned senior counsel, that there had to be deliberation on the proposal and that deliberation has to be recorded in terms of Rule 14-AJ(12) in my considered opinion is not sustainable, sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 does not provide for any such deliberation. What is provided is for the proposal to be placed before the annual or special general meeting as the
- 57 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 case may be and a decision on such proposal shall be made at such meeting.
19.21. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 does not provide for any deliberation and or recording of deliberation. Though the submission made is that there is required to be deliberation on it by referring to 14-AJ(12), in my considered opinion, the same is not sustainable. In as much as the proposal having already been forwarded by the registrar, what is required for the board to do is to either accept the proposal in its entirety or reject the proposal in its entirety. There is no deliberation for the purpose of amending the proposal or direction which could be considered. Thus, the question of recording of minutes of the proceedings as per the deliberations, recording the dissent fully and accurately, in my considered opinion does not arise. Since the vote of the members can only be either in the
- 58 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 affirmative or the negative, accepting or rejecting the proposal.
19.22. The said members have pretty clearly indicated their opposition to the proposal, which has also been heard by everyone in the room. The persons present in the room having voted, it is stated that the votes were counted, and the slip was provided to the Managing Director who announced the results. The manner and methodology of counting is stated to be as under which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
ೋ ಾರ ಾ ಸಹ ಾರ ಾಲು ಉ ಾ ದಕರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಒಕೂ ಟ ಯ ತ, ೋ ಾರ ಕ ಸಂ. ೋ ಾಒ: ೇ. ಾಂ: !ಾ"#ಾ.ಸ$ೆ:3794(1) 2024-25 %&ಾಂಕ:13.03.2025 ಸ'()ೆ:
*ಷಯ: %&ಾಂಕ:13.03.2025 ರ * ೇಷ #ಾ,ಾನ. ಸ$ೆಯ ಾಜ0ಾ1ಯನು2 ಎ4 ೆ ,ಾಡಲು ಅ7 ಾ8ಗಳನು2 9ೕ (ದು:, ಇದರ ವರ% ಸ'ಸು1=ರುವ ಬ?ೆ@.ಉ ೇಖ: ಸಂBೆ.: ೋ ಾಒ :ಆಡDತ : 2024-25 10798/01
%&ಾಂಕ:12.03.2025.
*ಷಯ ೆ ಸಂಬಂ7(ದಂ ೆ, ೋ ಾರ ಾ ಸಹ ಾರ ಾಲು ಒಕೂ ಟದ * ೇಷ #ಾ,ಾನ. ಸ$ೆಯನು2 %&ಾಂಕ: 13.03.2025 ರಂದು ನಂ% Eಾ.ಲF, ಎG. ೆH.75 IೈEಾF ರ#ೆ= ೋ ಾರ ಇ' ,ಾನ. ಸ ಾಯಕ ಆಯುಕ=ರು ೋ ಾರ ೆ
- 59 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 ಾಗೂ ಆಡD ಾ7 ಾ8ಗಳK ೋ ಾರ ಾಲು ಒಕೂ ಟ .. ೋ ಾರ ರವರ ಅಧ.M ೆಯ' ಆ9ೕ (ದ: ಸ$ೆ?ೆ ೋ ಾರ ಾಲು ಒಕೂ ಟದ ಒಟುN 982 ಾ.ಉ.ಸ.ಸಂಘಗಳ ಅಧ.Mರು/ಅಧ.O4ಯ8?ೆ 14 %ನಗಳ ಮುಂQತ!ಾR * ೇಷ #ಾ,ಾನ. ಸ$ೆಯ &ೋSೕFನು2 ೕU ಸ$ೆ?ೆ ಆ ಾV (ದು:, ಸದ8 Eಾ. ೇFನ ಸ$ಾಂಗದ' ಒಳ?ೆ 982 ಆಸನಗಳನು2 ,ಾತ ಾW:8(ದು:, ಉ ೇಖದ 8ೕ ಾ. ಎಡ ಮತು= ಬಲ$ಾಗದ' ತ ಾ 18 #ಾಲುಗDದು:, ಪ 1 3 #ಾಲುಗD?ೆ ಒಬY ಅ7 ಾ8ಯನು2 ತನು2 ,ಾಡ ಾRದು:, ಒಂದು IಾZ?ೆ ಒಕ ಒಕೂ ಟದ ಒಂದು IಾZನಂ ೆ ಒಟುN 12 IಾZಗಳನು2 9ೕ ಸಲು ,ಾಡುವ ಕು8ತು %&ಾಂಕ:12.03.2025 ರಂದು ಸಂ[ೆ ಮತು= 13.03.2025 ರಂದು IೆD?ೆ@ ಾಜ0ಾ1 ಎ4 ೆ ಸ$ಾಂಗಣದ' ಪ]!ಾ"$ಾ.ಸ ನ^ೆ(, )ೇ"_( 9ೕ ಸ ಾRತು=.
ಮುಂದುವ0ೆದು ಸದ8 * ೇಷ #ಾ,ಾನ. ಸ$ೆಯನು2 Iೆಳ?ೆ@ 11:30 ಘಂ`ೆ?ೆ ,ಾನ. ಸ ಾಯಕ ಆಯುಕ=ರು ೋ ಾರ ೆ ಾಗೂ ಆಡD ಾ7 ಾ8ಗಳK ೋ ಾರ ಾಲು ಒಕೂ ಟ ., ೋ ಾರ ರವರು ಾಗೂ ಒಕೂ ಟದ ,ಾನ. ವ.ವ#ಾaಪಕ )ೇ"ಶಕರು ಆರಂc(, ೋ ಾರ ಾ ಸಹ ಾರ ಾಲು ಒಕೂ ಟದ ಮತdೇತ *ಂಗಡeೆ?ೆ Iೈ ಾ 1ದು:ಪU ಅನುfೕ%ಸುವ ಕು8ತು ಸ$ೆಯ ಒg ?ೆಯನು2 #ಾದರಪU(ದರು. ಅದರಂ ೆ ಒಕೂ ಟ%ಂದ ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡಂ ೆ 9ೕ (ದ: ಅ7 ಾ8ಗಳK ಎ4 ೆ Eಾ ರಂc(ದ *ವರಗಳK ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡಂ1ರುತ=)ೆ.
ಕ ಸಂ. IಾZ ೆಸರು ಎಡ ಅ7 ಾ8 ೆಸರು ಪದ&ಾಮ ಎ4 ೆ
/బల ,ಾUರುವ
ಸಂBೆ.
1 ಎ.IಾZ ಎಡ ^ಾ: ೋ ೇi ಸ.ವ.. 77
2 ಎ.IಾZ బల ೆ.ಎಂ.ಮು 0ಾಜು ಉ.ವ.. 87
3 j.IಾZ ಎಡ ^ಾ: ೋkl ಉ.ವ.. 82
4 j.IಾZ బల !ೆಂಕ`ೇi *.ಅ. 76
5 (.IಾZ ಎಡ ^ಾ.R8ೕi ?ೌಡ ಉ.ವ.. 67
6 (.IಾZ బల nರo *.ಅ. 65
7 U.IಾZ ಎಡ ^ಾ:ಮ ೇi ಪ .ಉ.ವ.. 30
8 U.IಾZ ಎಡ ^ಾ:ಮಧು ಸ.ವ.. 38
9 ಇ.IಾZ ಎಡ _ ೕಮ1.ಆp.*ಜಯಲOq ಉ.ವ.. 39
- 60 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151
WP No. 11433 of 2025
C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025
10 ಇ.IಾZ బల _ ೕ.S.ಎಂ.ಮಂಜು&ಾಥಯ. ಉ.ವ.. 26
11 ಎy.IಾZ ಎಡ ^ಾ:nರo ಉ.ವ.. 26
12 ಎy.IಾZ బల _ ೕಮ1. ೆ.ಎF.ಮಂಜುಳ ಎF.(.(.ಓ. 18
ಒಟುN 631
ಮುಂದುವ0ೆದು ಸ$ೆಯ' ಾಜ8ದ: 747 ಅಧ.Mರು /ಅಧ.M4ೕಯರ Eೈn 631 ಸಂBೆ.
ಸದಸ.ರು ೈ rೕ ೆತು=ವ ಮೂಲಕ ಒg ?ೆಯನು2 ಸೂQ(ದು:, ಉD ೆ 116 ಸಂBೆ. ಸದಸ.ರು ಒg ?ೆ ಸೂQಸ)ೆ ಇರುವ ,ಾk1ಯನು2 ಅ7 ಾ8ಗಳK ^ಾ.ಎಂ.g.sೇತG, ವ.ವ#ಾaಪಕರು( ೇ. ಾಂ) ರವ8?ೆ ೕಡ ಾWತು. ಇದನು2 ವ.ವ#ಾaಪಕರು( ೇ. ಾಂ)ರವರು ಅ7 ಾ8ಗಳK Iಾಕ.!ಾರು ೕUರುವ ಾಜ0ಾ1ಯನು2 ಕೂ Uೕಕೃತ?ೊD(, ,ಾನ. ಆಡD ಾ7 ಾ8ಗಳK ೋ ಾರ ಾಲು ಒಕೂ ಟ ರವ8?ೆ ೕಡ ಾWತು. ಅದರಂ ೆ ,ಾನ. ಆಡD ಾ7 ಾ8ಗಳK ಸ$ಾಂಗಣದ' ಾಜ8ದ: 747 ಸದಸ.ರ Eೈn 631 ಸದಸ.ರು ಒಕೂ ಟದ Iೈ ಾ 1ದು:ಪU?ೆ ೈ rೕ ೆತು=ವ ಮೂಲಕ ಒg ?ೆ ಸೂQ(, ಉD ೆ 116 ಸಂBೆ. ಸದಸ.ರು ಸಮu1 ಸೂQಸ)ೆ ಇರುವ ಬ?ೆ@ ಸ$ೆಯ' vೂೕw(ದರು.
19.23. The submission of Prof. Ravi Varma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel is that this aspect is also not mentioned in the minutes. If at all the tabulation was made in that particular manner, it was required to be placed and recorded in the minutes. The same not having been done, his contention is that there is an afterthought on part of the authorities.
- 61 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 19.24. The submission of Sri.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Advocate General, is that though the above is a tabulation of the voting by show of hands, the societies had also forwarded their say in the matter upon receipt of the notice and that has been tabulated to be at 664, the said tabulation is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
%&ಾಂಕ : 13.03.2025 ರಂದು ನ^ೆಯುವ * ೇಷ #ಾ,ಾನ. ಸ$ೆ?ೆ ಸಂಬಂ7(ದಂ ೆ ಒಕೂ ಟದ ಮತ dೇತ *ಂಗಡeೆ?ೆ ಪ]ಣ" ಸಹಮತ ಇರುವ ಬ?ೆ@ ಾಲೂಕು!ಾರು ಸಂಘಗDಂದ ಬಂ%ರುವ ಪತ ಗಳ *ವರ.
ಕ ಸಂ ಾಲೂಕು ಸಂಘಗಳ ಸಂBೆ. 1 ೋ ಾರ 177 2 ಬಂ?ಾರEೇ`ೆ 104 3 ,ಾಲೂರು 173 4 _ ೕ !ಾಸಪ{ರ 177 5 ಮುಳIಾRಲು 33 ಒಟುN 664
19.25. It is not in dispute that there are 982 members to the society, out of which 913 members were present. The dispute is as regards the number who have voted and the manner of voting. The resolution having been passed with 747 persons
- 62 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 having voted, 631 in favour and 116 against. From the video, what could be seen was that a few of the members had approached the dais and were making their thoughts and intentions clear to one and all. Apart from these few members, there were a lot of other members.
Photographs have been produced of the persons in the background, the
persons/members who are in support of the proposal/direction of the Registrar were in this case a silent majority. It is the members who are against the proposal/direction, who are vociferous and had approached the dais. The photographs indicate a large number of people who support the resolution. This taking into consideration with the written consent for the resolution submitted by 664 members, when the tabulation is taken into consideration, there are 747 members who have voted, out of which 631 have voted in favour of the motion and 116
- 63 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 against. There is nothing contrary to the same which has been placed on record by the petitioners. In fact, challenging said resolution, there are only these two petitions which have been filed. WP No.11433 has been filed by only one member, so also is WP No.11408 of 2025. 19.26. Reference has been made to various objections which have been produced along with the petition submitted by certain other members. However, those members are not before this court challenging the resolution or the order passed by the Registrar. Suffice it to say that there are only two members before this court out of 982 members of the society, it is these two who are opposing the resolution and the order.
19.27. All of these aspects being taken into consideration together would categorically indicate that the petitioners are just wanting to delay the matter. Once earlier, certain others
- 64 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 had approached this court by suppressing earlier orders. It is clear that petitioners and part of their group who had opposed the resolution are seeking to delay the elections to be held of the society.
19.28. Democratic principles of the functioning of the corporate society having been recognised by the 97th Amendment to the Constitution by inserting Article 43B, I am of the considered opinion that it is these democratic principles which are required to be given due effect to, inasmuch as any resolution passed by the required majority would have to be given effect to. Rule 6 of the KCS Rules requiring such a resolution to be passed by two-thirds majority of the persons present and voting, what would have to be taken into consideration is the percentage with reference to the persons who have voted and not with reference to the persons present. Though 913 members were
- 65 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 present, it is only 747 who voted, thus, the two-thirds majority contemplated for such amendment would have to be taken into consideration with reference to 747 persons who were present and voting by excluding the persons who were present and did not vote. 19.29. Thus, I answer point No.1 by holding that in a special meeting held to consider the proposals/ directions issued by the Registrar under Subsection (5) of Section 12 of the KCS Act, it is Sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of the KCS Rules which would be applicable, the procedure under Rule 14 AJ(12) would not be applicable.
19.30. The methodology of calculation of two-
thirds majority would have to be made taking into consideration the persons present and voting by excluding the persons present and not voting. The proposal/direction issued by the Registrar
- 66 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 under Subsection (5) of Section 12 is not required to be deliberated upon, but what was required was for the same to be voted upon and in this case, the Managing Director had informed the members present at the meeting about the proposal/direction and called upon each and everyone to vote, that would be in sufficient compliance with Sub-rule (6) of Rule 6, there is no requirement for the Managing Director to have permitted the persons present to make their speeches and or the like since the same is not contemplated under sub-Rule (6) of Rule
6.
20. ANSWER TO POINT No.2. Whether the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 70(1B) as also under Section 106 (1B) of the KCS Act?
20.1. Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior counsel has sought to split the reliefs which have been
- 67 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 sought for into two portions, one challenging the resolution being passed by the society and the other being the order of the Registrar approving the amendment. His submission is that the resolution having been passed by the members of the society, if there is any dispute as regards the resolution, the same is between a member and another member or a set of members and another set of members and as such, the recourse available to the petitioners to challenge the resolution is under Section 70 of the KCS Act. Section 70 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
70. Disputes which may be referred to Registrar for decision.
(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management, or the business of a co-operative society arises,-
(a)among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, or
(b)between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, past member or
- 68 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society, or
(c)between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs, or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent, or deceased employee of the society, or
(d)between the society and any other co-operative society, [or a credit agency] [Inserted by Act 2 of 1975 w.e.f. 17.07.1975.]such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and [no civil or labour or revenue court or Industrial Tribunal] [Substituted by Act 2 of 2000 w.e.f. 20.06.2000 by notification. Text of the notification is at end of the Act.] shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute.
(2)For the purposes of sub-section (1), the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, namely:-
(a)a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not;
(b)a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor, as a result of the default of the principal debtor whether such debt or demand is admitted or not;
(c)any dispute arising in connection with the election of a President, Vice-president, Chairman, Vice-chairman, Secretary, Treasurer or Member of Committee of the society.
(d)[ any dispute between a co-operative society and its employees or past employees or heirs or legal representatives of a deceased employee,
- 69 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 including a dispute regarding the terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a co-operative society [notwithstanding anything contrary contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947)] [Inserted by Act 2 of 2000 w.e.f. 20.06.2000.];
(e)a claim by a co-operative society for any deficiency caused in the assets of the co-operative society by a member, past member, deceased member or deceased officer, past agent or deceased agent or by any servant, past servant or deceased servant or by its committee, past or present whether such loss be admitted or not.] (3)If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court. 20.2. A perusal of the aforesaid Section 70 would indicate that if there is any dispute touching on the Constitution, management of the society, the business of a co-operative society, among the members, past members and person claiming through the members, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no Civil or Labour or Revenue court or
- 70 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 Industrial Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings. 20.3. It is on that basis, Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior counsel would contend that it is only for the Registrar to decide this dispute as regards the resolution passed.
20.4. As regards the second portion, the submission of Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior counsel, as also Sri.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Advocate General, is that any order passed under Section 12, is an appealable order under Clause (b) of Subsection (1) of Section 106 of KCS Act.
20.5. The submission of Sri.M.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel is that the resolution passed by the society has merged with the order passed by the Registrar and as such, both of these are challenged before this court. Both of these could not have been challenged before the
- 71 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 Registrar and as such, this court alone has the jurisdiction in the matter.
20.6. This court, in K. Bhopal's case, Prathamika Krushi, Pattina Sarkara Sangha Niyamita's case, has categorically come to a conclusion that any order passed under Section 12 is an appealable order under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 106 of KCS Act. The only additional issue in the present matter is that there is a resolution by the Registrar on which basis the Registrar has passed an order. Since there are two separate reliefs which are sought for as regards the resolution and the order of the Registrar, could it still be said to have merged?
20.7. Having considered these aspects on the basis of the submissions made by the counsels, I am of the considered opinion that a resolution passed by majority of the members approving the proposals/direction issued by the Registrar
- 72 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 under Subsection (5) of Section 12, this approval by way of resolution having been placed before the Registrar, the Registrar issued the certificate of amendment in terms of his own proposal/direction.
20.8. Thus, insofar as a direction/proposal issued by the Registrar under Subsection (5) of Section 12, the same having been considered by the meeting of the society and a resolution having been passed approving the said proposal/direction, the Registrar has issued the certificate of amendment. Thus, in my considered opinion, both the resolution and the order have merged together and are appealable under Clause (b) of Subsection (1) of Section 106 of KCS Act. However, taking into account the peculiarity of the present matter where much arguments have been advanced by all counsel and relegation of the parties to the alternative efficacious remedy, under Clause (b)
- 73 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 of Subsection (1) of Section 106 of the KCS Act would only delay the matter, I am of the considered opinion that, in the peculiarity of this matter, this court is required to exercise jurisdiction and pass orders. However, it is made clear, that any order under Section 12 is appealable under Clause (b) of Subsection (1) of Section 106 of the KCS Act and writ petition would not be the remedy that could be resorted to by the parties at the initial stage itself. 20.9. Hence, I answer point No.2 by holding that the petitioners do have an alternative efficacious remedy under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 106 of the KCS Act, which is required to be availed by them for a challenge of an order passed under Section 12 of the KCS Act.
21. ANSWER TO POINT NO.3: Whether there is any ground made out for interference by this Court with the resolution dated 13.3.2025 and/or the order of the registrar dated 21.3.2025?
- 74 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 21.1. Sri.M.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior counsel by relying on Kallugopahalli's case would submit that this court had negatived the contention that there is an efficacious remedy on the ground that the JRCS has not considered the objections raised to the resolution approving an amendment. In my considered opinion, the said decision would not be applicable to the present matter, inasmuch as that was a voluntary resolution which had been passed by the society approving of certain amendment of shifting a ward, which came to be accepted by the Registrar and a certificate issued. While issuing such certificate, the Registrar had not complied with the requirement of Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the KCS Act.
21.2. In terms of the said Sub-section (2) of Section 12 an amendment on being forwarded to the Registrar, the Registrar would have to be satisfied that the proposed amendment is not
- 75 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 contrary to the provision of the Act and Rules, does not conflict with cooperative principles, satisfies the requirement of sound business, will promote the economic interest of the members of society and is not inconsistent with the principles of social justice. Thus, any voluntary amendment made by a society would have to be considered by the Registrar with reference to the above, and if the same fails any of the said tests, the Registrar could refuse the amendment, or to put it in other words, if and only if the amendment proposed satisfies all the five criteria under Sub-section (2) of Section 12, can the Registrar approve the amendment. It is for that reason that in respect of a voluntary amendment, this Court has held that there is an application of mind by the Registrar, and non-application of mind would confer jurisdiction on this Court to take up the matter.
- 76 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 21.3. In the present case, what was considered by the special body was a proposal/direction issued by the Registrar himself under Sub-section (5) of Section 12, which came to be approved by the impugned resolution. It is the said resolution of approval of the direction/proposal, which was placed before the Registrar and issued the certificate as required. The Registrar himself having proposed and directed the amendment, the question of the Registrar once again satisfying himself that the amendment complies with Clause (i) to (v) of Sub-section (2) of Section 12 would be otiose, redundant and an empty formality. The Registrar having issued a proposal/direction, the said proposal/direction ought to have complied with the requirement of clause (i) to
(v) of Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the KCS Act, at the time when it was issued and therefore, there is no need for the registrar to once again apply his mind as regards such compliance. That being the case, there is no
- 77 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 requirement for any reasons to be given by the Registrar, and as such, the present petition alleging that reasons have to be given and that this court would have jurisdiction is completely misconceived. The decision in Kallugopahalli's would not be applicable to the present matter. 21.4. The decision in Kallugopahalli's case in my considered opinion, would not be applicable, firstly, for the reason that that was not a case where a direction has been issued by the Registrar under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 for amendment for reorganising the constituencies of the society. That was a case where the society had voluntarily passed a resolution and that resolution was forwarded to the Registrar for approval which was in turn so approved. It is in those circumstances that the Coordinate Bench of this court came to a categorical conclusion that the requirement of application of mind by the Registrar before acceptance of the amendment and such
- 78 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 amendment is required to satisfy the requirement of sub-section (2) of section 12. 21.5. In the present case, what was being considered in the Special Body Meeting was a direction issued by the Registrar for the amendment. On earlier occasion when the same was not placed before the General Body or Special Body, without doing so, the amendment came to be registered under sub-section (6) of Section 12, this court had directed that the direction of the Registrar be placed before the general body for consideration. Such direction was considered by the General Body in terms of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 6. The Registrar having already applied his mind as regards the re-working of the constituencies and it is this direction which came to be approved by the resolution of the General Body, I am of the considered opinion that there would be no further requirement of the Registrar to once again apply his mind to the amendment accepted by the General Body since the amendment was initially proposed by
- 79 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 the Registrar himself. Thus, the decision in Kallugopahalli's case would not be applicable. 21.6. Insofar as the decision in Umesh's case is concerned, that was the case where again the society had increased the age of superannuation for the post of Director from 65 to 70 years by amendment. That amendment also being a voluntary amendment, this court came to the conclusion that the requirement of the Act is required to be considered by the Registrar by applying his mind. In fact, in that case, the Registrar had issued a show cause notice under subsection (2) of Section 14 and thereafter accepted the amendment to be in the interest of society. The said decision firstly is not applicable since that decision was rendered in the conspectus of the Societies Registration Act and not the KCS Act. Secondly, that again was a voluntary amendment made by society and not at the instance of the Registrar.
- 80 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 21.7. The decision in Ramesh C Shetty's case also relates to an amendment registered under section 10 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, which again was voluntary by the society and as such, for the very same reasons as that attributed in respect of Dr. Umesh's case, the decision in Ramesh C Shetty's case would also not be applicable to the present case.
21.8. Insofar as the decision in Gadag Betgeri's case, the same though relating to an amendment of a Cooperative society was again an amendment voluntarily made by the society and not under the instruction of the Registrar. It is in that background, when the certificate of registration of the amendment issued by the Registrar was challenged and the objection raised therein was an alternative remedy was available under Section 70, the Division Bench of this court came to a conclusion that Section 70 and Section 71 do not contemplate a reference to arbitration when there is a dispute
- 81 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 between a member of a co-operative society and the Registrar since the registration of the amendment is made by the Registrar and the dispute if any is between a member and the Registrar. This Court further went on to hold that it is for this Court to determine whether the Registrar in issuing the certificate has acted within the limits and powers conferred on him or not.
21.9. The said decision relates only to the issues raised therein that the certificate of registration of amendment issued by the Registrar could not be considered in an arbitration under Section 70 and 71 of the KCS Act. The same does not relate to an alternative remedy of an appeal under Section 106 nor does the same relate to or lay down the law as regards the dispute between members interese in respect of the resolution passed by the General Body of the Society. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that Gadag Betageri's case would also not be of any help to the Petitioners.
- 82 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18151 WP No. 11433 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11408 of 2025 21.10. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that there have been no grounds which have been made out by the petitioners for interference with the resolution dated 13.03.2025 and the order of the Registrar and or the order of the Registrar dated 21.03.2025.
22. ANSWER TO POINT NO.4: What order?
No grounds being made out, the petitions stand dismissed.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE LN/SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40