Objection raised by the Registry is over ruled.

Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned

High Court Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 to

6/State and learned counsel Sri Mahadev S.Patil, for

caveator/respondent no.7.

This petition is filed seeking to quash the order

passed by fourth respondent issued under Section 29C of

the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. 1959 (for short

'Act') dated 16.11.2023 vide Annexure-K.

- 4 -

Petitioners are the permanent resident of

Baroor Village. Petitioners and eight other members

contested the election from the Cooperative Society,

Baroor and Chintalgera Villages, Taluk and District Bidar

and they were elected as Directors of the Cooperative

Society on 21.01.2020, same is not in dispute.

Petitioners

gave

a

representation

for

'no

confidence motion' on 16.10.2023 against respondent no.5

whereas respondent no.7 filed a representation before

fourth respondent on 19.10.2023 against the petitioners

that the petitioners were absent for three continuous

meetings and to cancel Membership/Directorship.

In view of 'no confidence motion' moved by the

petitioners, the fourth respondent fixed the meeting for

'no confidence motion' on 23.11.2023. In the meanwhile,

sixth respondent filed a request letter before the Assistant

Registrar of Cooperative Society – respondent no.4 dated

02.11.2023 with regard to the petitioners not attending

the meeting and having been absent continuously for more

- 5 -

than three meetings. Based on which, respondent nos.5

and 6 call for a meeting on 05.12.2022, 08.01.2023 and

06.02.2023. Fourth respondent issued a notice to the

petitioners on the strength of the application made by

seventh respondent dated 19.10.2023 and issued notice to

the petitioners under Sections 29C of the Act and

disqualified the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved

by the inaction of respondent no.4 in not conducting 'no

confidence motion' as scheduled on 23.11.2023, but

disqualified the petitioners even prior to the said date. This

order of disqualification of the petitioners under Section

29C of the Act the petitioners are before this Court.

Learned counsel for respondent no.7 contends

that there is nothing wrong in the order of disqualification

issued by fourth respondent under Section 29C of the Act

as Section 29C(1)(p) of the Act contemplates that the

disqualification can be ordered for not participating in the

meeting proceedings for three consecutive meetings.

Therefore, the order of disqualification is well within the

- 6 -

provisions of the Act of 1959 and it is also his vehement

contention that the petition filed by the petitioners is not

maintainable in view of the fact that against an order of

disqualification under Section 29C of the Act, an appeal is

to be filed under Section 106(1)(d-2) of the Act.

Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable.

8.

Same is also contended by learned High Court

Government Pleader as the disqualification ordered is in

accordance with the provisions of Section 29C of the Act

and there is nothing wrong or arbitrary or illegal act

committed by fourth respondent and also there is an

efficacious appeal remedy available the petitioners would

have

to

explore

such

efficacious

remedy

before

approaching

this

Court

under

Article

226

of

the

Constitution of India.

9.

I

have

perused

the

impugned

order

of

disqualification passed under Section 29C of the Act at

Annexure-K. The fact remains that prior to disqualification,

it is not in dispute that the petitioners had moved 'no

- 7 -

confidence motion' against fifth respondent before fourth

respondent on 16.10.2023 and based on which the fourth

respondent had fixed for consideration of the same on

23.11.2023 for 'no confidence motion'. In the meanwhile

the seventh respondent moved an application before

fourth respondent against the petitioners herein which was

considered

and

accordingly

the

petitioners

were

disqualified under Section 29C of the Act.

10.

The fact remains that the four