IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the deeming clause for cessation of membership and the jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of cessation of membership in the context of an election dispute under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against a learned Single Judge’s order dated 20.02.2024 whereby, appellant’s W.P.No.9744 of 2023 (CS-RES) has been dismissed. As a consequence, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 13.04.2023 that had set-aside her election to the Board of 3rd respondent-Co-operative Society is sustained.

2. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the appellant seeks invalidation of the impugned order succinctly arguing as under :

(a) The learned Single Judge failed to see that the subject matter of the writ petition was not a dispute relating to the election and therefore, he ought to have held that the 1st respondent-Joint Registrar had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same within the parameters of section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.

(b) Admittedly, appellant was a primary member of the 4th respondent-Society; although her membership had ceased during the tenure of employment, she had resigned on 18.03.2019 and on such resignation, her membership revived. Therefore, her election to the 4th respondent-Federal Society, is unassailable.

(c) The disqualification under Section 17(1)(f) of the Act is not applicable to the case of appellant since she was a ‘paid employee of the Society’ during the relevant period, and

(d) The 5th respondent-private party had no locus standi to raise the dispute under section 70 of the Act before the 1st respondent-JRCS and in any circumstance, he was not the party aggrieved by the subject election of the appellant.

3. Learned AGA appears for official respondent Nos.1 & 2, Sr. Advocate Mr. D.R. Ravishankar appearing for respondent No.4 supports the appeal broadly reiterating what has been argued by the appellant side. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the caveator/respondent No.5 i.e., private party, who happens to be a member of 6th respondent-Society opposes the appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed.

4. BRIEF FOUNDATIONAL FACTS :

(a) Appellant was a member of 4th respondent-Primary Milk Co-operative Society. This society is a constituent member of 3rd respondent-Co-operative Union. 5th respondent is a member of the 6th respondent-Co-operative Society which is also another constituent member of the said Union. Incidentally, this respondent happens to be an Ex-President of the said Union. All these respondent-Societies are governed by the provisions of 1959 Act and that they have independent bye-laws promulgated by each of them.

(b) Election to the 3rd respondent-Union was held on 8.9.2019 and the appellant along with other eleven candidates were elected as directors. 5th respondent having suffered defeat, had raised an election dispute before the 1st respondent-JRCS inter alia on the ground that the appellant on being appointed as the Secretary of 4th respondent-Society, had ceased to be its member by operation of law and therefore, her subject election was liable to be voided. This was opposed by the appellant by filing objections. On the basis of the pleadings, the JRCS held the enquiry and rejected the dispute, thereby upholding the subject election.

(c) The order of the JRCS was put in Appeal No.212 of 2022 by the 5th respondent herein ad that the same came to be allowed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 13.4.2023 whereby, the order of the JRCS having been reversed, the election of the appellant herein to the 3rd respondent-Society has been set at naught.

(d) The appellant herein had filed the subject writ petition challenging the above order of the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge after considering the pleadings of the parties and the submissions made on their behalf, has dismissed the same. That is how, the matter has landed at our hands.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we perused the Appeal Papers. We have also adverted to relevant of the Rulings cited at the Bar. We decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons :

(A)