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) 2927

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Satish S/O. Ramning Shahpurkar - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, R/By Its Secretary, Department Of Co-Operation – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 108097 of 2025 (CS-RES)
Decided On : 03-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Sanjana S. Mudhol, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri. Ramesh Chigari, Aga

A competing co-operative society lacks locus standi to challenge another's registration unless it suffers a legal wrong, underscoring the principle that competition must be encouraged.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Sections 6 and 7 - Rules, 1960 - Petition challenging rejection of permission for share collection in pre-registration stage - Court found that the existing co-operative society lacked locus standi to challenge registration of a rival society as per legislative intent to promote voluntary formation of societies - Registration should not discriminate based on existing competition. (Paras 10, 20-22)

(B) Administrative Law - Locus Standi - Competing society lacks legal injury necessary to challenge another's registration; court underscores the need for actual harm to a legally protected right for standing. (Paras 18, 23)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the refusal of permission to collect share capital for a new society registration, claiming existing members formed rival societies, with most defaults being from its members. (Paras 2-3)

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that existing societies cannot obstruct the formation of new societies and that decisions should be made based on merits rather than competitive concerns. (Paras 20-22)

Issues: Whether a rival co-operative society can question the registration of another; the rightful standing of the petitioner society. (Paras 10, 24)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that administrative bodies must allow competition; absence of harm to legal rights negates standing. (Paras 18, 23)

Result: Petition allowed, impugned order quashed, and permission granted to collect share amount contingent upon fulfilling other legal requirements.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's challenge to registration denial. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments on locus standi and rights. (Para 4)

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioner is before this Court, calling in question an order 17.10.2025, by which permission for collection of share amount in the stage of pre-registration of Society, is declined.

2. The learned counsel, Miss Sanjana S. Mudhol appearing for the petitioner, submits that, in plethora of cases, the Coordinate Benches of this Court has passed several orders, which would enure to the benefit of the petitioner. The orders so passed, are as follows:

W.P.NO. 104197/2021

“The petitioner, which is a Co-operative Society, has presented this petition challenging the order by which the Assistant Registrar has permitted registration of the 5th and 6th respondents as a Co- operative Society under Section 7 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, 'the KCS Act").

2 It is the specific case of the petitioner-society that the Chief Promoters of 5th and 6th respondents were all members of the petitioner-society and they had made an application and they had promoted the formation of the 5th and 6th respondents and sought for its registration. The averment in the writ petition in this regard is as follows:

"It is submitted that, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 who are the chief promoters of their respective proposed society and other promoters with them all are the members of the petitioner Society alone.

It is submitted that, the list of proposed members submitted by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 with the 4 respondent are almost all the members of the petitioner society. Besides being so all the proposed members even including the chief promoter and promoters aiso members as well as taken loan on different heads from the petitioner society being members of it. The majority of the members of the proposed societies are defaulters with the petitioner society."

3. It is thus clear that the petitioner-society is aggrieved by a faction of its members in deciding to form a new Co-operative Society and seek for its registration. At the outset before considering the contentions advanced by the petitioner on the merits or demerits of the registration made by the authorities, it would have to be essentially decided as to whether the petitioner-Society as locus standi the question there is a registration of another Co-operative Society.

4. The learned Senior Counsel Sri Gurudas Kannur contended that the petitioner-Society has a right to challenge the registration granted in favour of the 5th and 6th respondents since they would also be operating within the same jurisdiction and this would not make the respondent Nos.5 and 6 viable.

5. He also contended that the registration if permitted. would directly lead to an unhealthy atmosphere and would be against the principles of co-operative moment. He sought to highlight that one of the consideration for registering as Society was the prevention of overlapping of jurisdictions of similar co-operative Society as envisaged under Rule 3 -B(iii) of the KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES , 1960 (for short, 'the Rules, 1960').

6. He also sought to contend that if the entire process of registration was examined, it would be clear that the same had been done in gross violation of the circulars issued by the Government.

7. The learned Senior Counsel also made a submission that the question of locus standi should not be gone into since the writ petition filed by the petitioner-Society on an earlier occasion had been entertained by this Court and infact the writ petitions were allowed and the matters were remanded to the registering authority at the instance of the petitioner- society, to reconsider the question of registration of respondent Nos.5 and 6.

8. Learned Senior counsel places reilance on the decision of a co-ordinate bench of this Court passed in the case of Prathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Chamakeri of others vs. The State of Karnata

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