Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
M. NAGAPRASANNA
Mohan, S/O. Narayan Nayak – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Co-Operation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legality of delegate voting in cooperative elections (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. statutory delegation limitations under cooperative law (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. interpretation of cooperative statutes (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. cognate statutes and their relevance in cooperative governance (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. judicial outcome based on statutory interpretation (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 20) |
ORDER :
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Conglomeration of these writ petitions present a singular yet recurring question touching upon the very heart of cooperative democracy – namely, the legality of repeated delegation for the purpose of voting in the elections of a Federal Cooperative Institution. Though, the factual settings in each petition vary in their contours, the legal fulcrum upon which these petitions pivot remains common. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to notice the facts in each of the cases.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, brief facts in each of the cases are as follows:
2.1. In W.P.No.107749/2025, the petitioner is a Society, represented by the delegatee in the subject petition. He becomes the delegate to vote in the 7th respondent’s ensuing elections. The challenge is to the delegatee of the 6th resp
A delegate under different cooperative statutes can hold multiple voting rights without infringing the two-vote limit established by Section 21 of the Karnataka State Cooperative Societies Act, 1959.
Section 16B of KCS Act creates an ineligibility for a member of an APCOS to continue as an active member in certain circumstances, which are totally unique to such a type of society.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the eligibility criteria for a member society to vote in the affairs of a federal society under Section 27(3) of the Mahar....
The disqualification under Section 21-A of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act does not affect the general body membership of the cooperatives, emphasizing distinct roles of committees and general bod....
The court held that electoral participation must be facilitated within legal timelines, ensuring those eligible to vote are included in electoral processes, reflecting a commitment to democratic prin....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of sec. 27(3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, regarding the eligibility of co-operative soc....
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, sub....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of the petitioner's fundamental right to participate in the election process due to the inconsistency between Bye-law 24(viii) and Se....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
