SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 854

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
Sri Shivananja S/o Late Bhogayaiah - Appellant 
Vs.
The State Of Karnataka - Respondent 
Writ Petition No. 1098 Of 2024 (CS-RES)
Decided On : 02-05-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil., Sr. Advocate For Sri. Varun J. Patil., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri.Yogesh D.Naik., AGA, Sri. T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay., Advocate, Sri. Sandesh T.B., Advocate Sri. Deviprasad Shetty., Advocate

The Registrar cannot direct the deletion of a Gram Panchayat from a co-operative society's operational area, affirming multiple PACS can coexist in the same area, promoting autonomy as per the KCS Act.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Section 12(5) - Constitution of India - Articles 19(1)(g) and 43-B - Writ petition for relief against an executive direction to delete a Gram Panchayat from the area of operation of a co-operative society, quashed. The court held that direction under Section 12(5) does not authorize removal of any area of operation without legal foundation and confirmed that multiple societies can operate in the same Gram Panchayat. (Paras 15.1, 15.19, 16.14)

(B) Administrative Overreach - Registrar lacked authority post-97th Amendment to direct executive changes in co-operative societies, emphasizing autonomy and voluntary decision-making of societies. (Paras 17.1, 17.2)

Facts of the case:
Directors of a registered co-operative society challenged the Registrar's direction to remove their operational area, claiming it violated statutory rights and prior commitments made under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act.

Findings of Court:
The directions were deemed ungrounded and not aligned with the KCS Act's provisions or the Constitution preventing administrative overreach.

Issues: The main questions were whether the Registrar could remove a society's area of operation under the KCS Act and if a PACS could operate within the same Gram Panchayat.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded no provisions authorize the Registrar to restrict area operations; the autonomy of societies must be upheld, aligning with constitutional directives for promoting democratic functioning of co-operatives.

Result: Writ petition partly allowed; the direction quashed allowing the society to function as per its byelaws.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek relief against the registrar's directions. (Para 1 , 2)
2. background on the co-operative society and registrar's direction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. petitioners argue against the legality of the registrar's directions. (Para 7 , 8)
4. impleading applicants argue for their rights and the need for a new society. (Para 9)
5. arguments against the establishment of competitive societies. (Para 10 , 11)
6. court's analysis of legal provisions governing co-operative societies. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
7. court finds no legal basis for the registrar's directions. (Para 15 , 16)
8. final ruling on the legitimacy of the directions and order passed. (Para 17 , 18)

ORDER :

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.

1. The Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i. Issue a writ of appropriate nature to declare that Section 12(5)(6) the KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT in ultra vires and in violation of Article 19(1)(G) and Article 43-B of The Constitution of India .

ii. Issue any writ of certiorari quashing the impugned directions bearing Sani No.43:RSR:GRN:12(5):PR:2023-24 dated 29.11.2023 passed by the Respondent no.4 vide Annexure-A and

iii. Permit the Respondent No.5 society to continue to function in its existing area of operation as per its Bye-laws; and

iv. Grant such other relief as may be deemed fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of equity and justice.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset submits that he would not press for prayer (i) above, as such prayer (i) is deleted.

3. The Petitioners claim to be directors of Respondent No.5-Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society (hereinafter for brevity referred to as a “PACS”) which has been registered under the provisions of the KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT , 1959 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “KCS Act”). The Society is engaged in the business of acceptance of various types of deposits, providing credit facilities to its members, supplying of fertilisers, manure, agriculture implements, ration items, etc. In terms of the by-laws of the Society, the Society only functions and carries on business with its members, a non-member cannot deal with the Society.

4. Respondent No.2-the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Registrar”) issued a circular on 12.05.2017 directing the Gram Panchayat to take steps to form a separate PACS in each of the Gram Panchayats where there is no PACS, on the basis of the said circular the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, in a meeting held on 03.08.2023 decided to form a new PSCS for Bechanahalli Gram Panchayat, in pursuance of which the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “ARCS”) issued a direction on 29.11.2023, under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the KCS Act directing the Society to delete Bechanahalli Gram Panchayat from its area of operation within 15 days so as to enable the formation of a new PACS in Bechanahalli.

5. The Society submitted a representation on 28.12.2023 stating that in order to comply with the directions, the Society would have to call for a Special General Meeting which would take some time and therefore requested the ARCS not to implement the direction until such time.

6. In the meanwhile, the villagers of Bechanahalli and certain other members of the Society had addressed a letter on 29.12.2023 to the ARCS, requesting the ARCS not to implement the directions and not to form a new PACS in Bechanahalli which has also not been considered by Respondent No.4. It is in that background, that the Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid relief.

7. Sri.Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submits that;

7.1. The impugned direction dated 29.11.2023 is stated to have been issued in pursuance of a circular dated 12.05.2017 issued by the Registrar, thereafter the Registrars having kept quiet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top