The appointment of an administrator does not equate to the supersession of a Board, and actions taken prior to such appointment remain valid; votes cast under these circumstances must be counted, subject to potential disputes.

ORDER :

1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 4^th Respondent Election officer and 5^th Respondent Returning Officer to include the name of the Petitioner in the voters list of 6^th Respondent Mysore Chamarajanagar District Co-operative Central Bank Voters List and allow him to exercise his vote as delegate of the R7 Society in the ensuing elections to be going on held on 29^th June 2025, vide Annexure-J.

ii. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The Petitioner is a Director of respondent No.7, namely Kasaba Primary Agriculture Credit Co-Operative Society, which is registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies, Act 1959 (hereafter referred to as “KCS Act, 1959”) which caters to the requirements coming within its area of operation.

3. The earlier Board of Directors was elected on 18.03.2020, whose term came to an end on 18.03.2025. Before the term of the Board came to an end, the Board of Directors, in its meeting held on 15.07.2024, had passed a resolution requesting the Co-operative Development Officer (“CDO”) of HD Kote for the appointment of an election officer for the conduct of the election. The Co-operative Society had issued a notice to the ineligible members under Rule 13B(2-A)(ii) of the Karnataka Co-operative Society Rules, 1960 (herein after referred to as “KCS Rules, 1960”), as regards defaults under Section 20(2)(a- iv) and Section 20(2)(a-v) of the KCS Act, 1959.

4. The Co-operative Society had given a representation to the District Register of Co-operative Society, Mysore (DRCS), informing that the Co-operative Society had issued notices to all the ineligible members through Registered Post and requested an election officer to be appointed. However, the DRCS did not take any steps, the petitioners apprehending that an administrator would be appointed on the ground that elections had not been held had approached this Court in WP No. 7815 of 2025 in Dasharatha Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., which came to be disposed of vide order dated 04.04.2025, holding that there is a default on the part of the Co-operative Society in the compliance of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules 1960.

5. The earlier interim order restraining the respondents from appointing an administrator was recalled, and liberty was granted to the respondent to appoint an administrator who was directed to hold elections after compliance with Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960.

6. Immediately thereafter, the Managing Committee held a meeting on 09.04.2024, wherein the Petitioner was chosen to be a delegate of the Co-operative Society to the election to be held for Respondent No.6-Federal Bank, namely the Mysore and Chamarajanagar District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, and the said delegation Form was submitted to the Federal Bank on 16.04.2025. Thereafter, Respondent No.5-Returning Officer had issued a calendar of events on 10.06.2025 notifying the elections for the Federal Co-operative Bank to be held on 26.06.2025. The name of the Petitioner was not included in the said list, despite a delegation having been furnished, and it is in that background that the Petitioner had approached this Court, seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

7. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 24.06.2025 permitted the Petitioner to cast his vote in the election of Respondent No.6 scheduled on 26.06.2025. However, the Court directed the election authority to maintain the said vote in a separate ballot box and not to count the vote of the Petitioner without seeking leave of the Court. Hence, IA Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 have been filed by persons who had contested in the elections, contending that any order passed in the present matter would affect them and as such sought to come on record as party- respondents. Accepting the reasons stated therein, the said applications wer