The court upheld the validity of a cooperative society's resolution changing delegates as compliant with the statutory majority requirement, emphasizing the Election Authority's duty to ensure lawful conduct in elections.

ORDER :

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.

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

i. Declare and hold that the purported Resolution dated 28.04.2025 supposedly passed on the meeting notice dated 20.04.2025 by the Vyavasaya Seva Ssngha Niyamitha, (VSSN), Hirenagavalli Village is ex facie not est and void in law (Annexure- C & C1.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ/order/direction restraining the R2 from permitting the R7 to participate in the elections of the Kolar as ‘delegate’ to the Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamita, (VSNN), Hirenagavalli Village and permit only respondent No.6 to participate in the said elections as delegate vide Resolution dated 22.03.2025 as per Annexure-A;

iii. Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble deems fit, including the award of cost/s in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The Petitioners and Respondent Nos.9 to 14 claim to be Directors of Respondent No.5-Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Hirenagavalli (hereinafter referred to as 'VSNN, Hirenagavalli' for short), in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 22.03.2025, unanimously nominated Mr.Mohan Reddy-Respondent No.6 to be a ‘delegate’ to cast a vote on behalf of the Society in the elections to the Kolar and Chikkballapur District Co- Operative Central Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘KCDCC Bank’ for short) to be held on 28.04.2025.

3. A Voter list dated 12.05.2025 was published on 15.05.2025. On going through the same, the Petitioners found that one Mr.Raja Reddy's name was shown as a ‘delegate’ of VSNN, Hirenagavalli.

4. On enquiring with the Secretary, Respondent No.8, it is stated that he had given evasive answers. Thereafter, the Petitioners approached the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (ARCS). From the information given by the ARCS, they came to know about a resolution, dated 28.04.2025, passed by the Board of Directors, where Respondent No.7 was nominated as delegate, alleging that the signatures of the Petitioners found on the said Resolution were forged, and they had not been given any notice of the meeting to be held on 28.04.2025.

5. The Petitioners also claimed that they were also informed by Respondent Nos.9 to 14 that they had also not been given any notice, nor had they participated in the meeting. Hence, the Petitioners lodged a police complaint regarding the alleged forgery with the Jurisdictional Police. The Jurisdictional Police have issued NCR and have refused to investigate the matter. In that background, the Petitioners have approached this Court.

6. Sri M.R.Rajgopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, would submit that:

6.1. Mr.Raja Reddy-Respondent No.7, could not be the delegate of the Society. Since he had defrauded the Society by taking a loan from the Society, suppressing the material fact that he is a member of a Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society Limited Mavathur, Kortagere. He, being a permanent resident of Mavathur, was not residing in Hirenagavalli and therefore, he could not be a member of VSNN, Hirenagavalli. Respondent No.6, having deceived the Co-operative Society and taken membership, could not be a representative of Respondent No.5-Society in the elections to be held of Respondent No.4.

6.2. When the Petitioners and Respondent Nos.9 to 14 had not participated in the meeting of the Board of Directors purportedly held on 28.04.2025, the Secretary could not have submitted a resolution showing Respondent No.7 as a delegate. He therefore submits that Respondent No.5 could not have represented Resp