ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

Writ petition No.107287/2024 is filed seeking for the following relief:

“Issue writ of certiorari quashing the order dated

27.11.2024 passed by respondents No.2 in No.DRN/F/DDS/APPEAL/14/2024-25 is produced herewith Annexure-E”

2. Writ petition No.107291/2024 is filed seeking for the following relief:

“Issue writ of certiorari quashing the order dated

27.11.2024 passed by respondents No.2 in No.DRN/F/DDS/APPEAL/13/2024-25 is produced herewith Annexure-E”

3. Since the petitioners in both the writ petitions are the same and the issue under consideration is with regard to the disqualification of respondent No.5 in both the writ petitions is in respect of respondent No.4 – Society, both the writ petitions are taken up together for consideration.

4. The factual matrix in a nutshell leading to the present writ petitions are that pursuant to a communication addressed by the petitioner to respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner, order dated 25.11.2024 was passed under Section 29(c) of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 19591 by respondent No.2/Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Sirsi, Uttara Kannada disqualifying respondent No.5 in both the writ petitions.

5. Respondent No.5 in both the petitions filed appeals under Section 106(3) of the Act. The said appeals were required to be heard by the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Uttara Kannada2. Since the said post of DRCS, U.K was vacant, the Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Societies,

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’

2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘DRCS, U.K.’

Kumta3 being the officiating/in-charge officer, vide order dated 27.11.2024 (Annexure-E in both the writ petitions) granted stay of the order of disqualification dated 25.11.2024. Being aggrieved, the present writ petitions are filed.

6. Heard the submissions of learned Senior Counsel Sri Jaykumar S. Patil appearing along with the learned counsel Sri.Mallikarjunaswamy Hiremath for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General Sri G.M. Gangadhar for respondent Nos.1 to 4/official respondents and learned counsel Sri A.P. Hegde Janmane for the respondent No.5/private respondents in both the writ petitions.

7. The primary contention put forth by the petitioner is that the ARCS, Kumta not being the rank of a Deputy Registrar who is the appellate authority under Section 106(3) of the Act, was not empowered to pass the order dated 27.11.2024 staying the disqualification order dated 25.11.2024. Hence, the petitioners seek for allowing of the writ petitions and granting of the relief.

3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘ARCS, Kumta’

8. The official respondents and the private respondents contend that by virtue of Rule 68 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules4 the ARCS Kumta, who is appointed as in charge of the DRCS, U.K. is entitled to take all necessary steps and that the action taken by the ARCS, Kumta is required to be deemed/construed as steps taken by the DRCS, U.K. Hence, they seek for dismissal of the writ petitions.

9. It is further contended that in an appeal from an order of disqualification, the order of disqualification should ordinarily be stayed and hence, the order passed by the ARCS, Kumta is just and proper.

10. The learned counsel for the private respondents further contends that in the event the relief sought for in the present writ petitions are granted, great hardship would be caused to the private respondents since the post of the DRCS, U.K., has been vacant for more than six months and if the statutory powers exercisable by the DRCS, U.K., is not exercised by the ARCS, Kumta, the same would cause irreparable injury to the private respondents who would be

4 Hereinafter referred to as ‘KCSR’

prevented from contesting in the elections to respondent No.4/Society.

11. The submissions of the learned counsels have been considered and the materials on record have been perused.

12. Section 106(1)(d-2) of the Act stipulates that an appeal shall lie against an or