The authority to appoint a Supervisor under Section 29-G of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act is valid, and resolutions passed by a majority of Directors cannot be annulled based solely on alleged procedural flaws.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners being the President and Directors are seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Resolution dated 26.03.2025 passed by respondent No.4 - Society produced as per Annexure-K and the Communication dated 24.03.2025 issued by respondent No.2 produced as per Annexure-L.

2. Heard Sri Jayakumar S Patil, learned senior advocate for Sri Devi Prasad Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Yogesh D Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri Kalleshappa, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri D R Ravishankar, learned senior advocate for Sri S Saravana, learned counsel for caveator-respondent No.6. Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned senior advocate for the petitioners contended that the election to respondent No.3 - Bank was scheduled to be held on 29.05.2025 and Notification was issued in that regard. Respondent No.4 was required to send delegation on behalf of the Society to participate in the said election and in that regard a meeting was scheduled on 24.03.2025. There was a galata in the meeting and the Secretary was unwell and admitted to the hospital. Therefore, the meeting could not be held as notified and the same was postponed without taking any decision.

4. Learned senior advocate contended that some of the Directors appears to have approached respondent No.2 with a request to delegate the powers of Secretary to hold the Board meeting for the purpose of finalising the delegation to be sent to respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 had no authority under law to permit respondent No.5 to conduct the Board meeting and to finalise the person to be sent as delegate to respondent No.3. But however, respondent No.5 was appointed as Supervisor. On the basis of same, respondent No.5 appears to have conducted a meeting on 25.03.2025 and took a decision to appoint respondent No.6 as the delegate to represent the Society in the election that is scheduled to be held on 29.05.2025 by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-L.

5. Learned senior advocate contended that the meeting was originally scheduled by the Secretary on 24.03.2025, but no decision could be taken in the said meeting and the same was postponed. But on 25.03.2025, respondent No.2 passed Annexure-L appointing respondent No.5 as the Supervisor to hold the meeting and on the same day, the meeting is said to have been conducted and respondent No.6 was appointed as delegate. There was no such hurry to bypass the authority of Secretary of respondent No.4 - Society.

6. Learned senior advocate contended that the petitioners even though were the President and the Directors of respondent No.4 - Society were not aware of passing of Annexure-L by respondent No.2. Therefore, an application IA.2 of 2025 was filed seeking permission to amend the petition for the purpose of seeking relief in respect of Annexure-L. The said application was allowed and the petitioners were permitted to amend the petition. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.6 had preferred Writ Appeal No.774 of 2025. In the said writ appeal, vide order dated 27.05.2025 the Court permitted respondent No.6 herein to cast his vote as delegate in the election that was held on 28.05.2025. The prayer for vacating the interim order granted in favour of the petitioners was rejected. However, it was directed that the vote that is to be cast by respondent No.6 is to be kept in separate sealed box and the election result of the constituency