SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28245

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.I.Arun, J
Govindegowda – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
WP No. 16843 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jayakumar S.Patil, Patil Sumanth Kumar S.
For the Respondents: Yogesh D.Naik

The court established that in matters involving administrative disqualification of co-operative society officials, the appellate authority is mandatorily required to consider and dispose of interlocutory applications for stay as expeditiously as possible to avoid undue hardship to the aggrieved parties.

Headnote:The proceedings concern an order of disqualification passed against the directors and office bearers of a co-operative society under Section 29C(8) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The petitioners, aggrieved by the disqualification, challenged the order by filing an appeal before the designated appellate authority and subsequently sought judicial intervention in the High Court due to the delay in considering their interlocutory application for a stay of the impugned order. The central issue pertains to the timely consideration of the pending appeal and the associated interlocutory application by the appellate authority. The Court observed that justice requires the expeditious disposal of interim applications in administrative disputes, particularly where the professional functioning of a society's office-bearers is impacted. The ratio focuses on ensuring procedural due process and the right to seek effective appellate remedies without undue hardship caused by administrative delays. The court directed the appellate authority to dispose of the interlocutory application within 15 days and the main appeal as expeditiously as possible, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

Table of Content
1. overview of the petition regarding disqualification under the co-operative societies act. (Para 1)
2. the court orders expeditious disposal of the pending appeal and stay application. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 4/5/2026, BEARING NO:drm/c-5/section 30/cr-/2026-27, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q, AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANT THEREOF AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL ORDER

1. Petitioners were directors and office bearers of respondent no.5-Society. On the ground that they have committed certain irregularities, they have been sought to be disqualified under Section 29C(8) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. In this regard, an order dated 04.05.2026 (Annexure-Q to the writ petition) is passed by respondent no.3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before respondent no.2 and the same is said to be numbered as JRM/DAP/3/2026-27. On the ground that the said appeal is not taken up for hearing and the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners for stay of the operation of the order passed by respondent no.3 vide Annexure-Q to the writ petition is not considered so far, the present writ petition is filed.

2. In the course of arguments, Sri. Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners also fairly submits that, the petitioners would be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent no.2 to consider their appeal and also the interlocutory application filed by them in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

3. Learned AGA has no objection for the same.

4. Hence, the following:

ORDER

(i) Respondent no.2 is directed to dispose of the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners in appeal No.JRM/DAP/3/2026-27 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;

(ii) Further, respondent no.2 is also directed to dispose of the main appeal as expeditiously as possible;

(iii) It is hereby made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the case and respondent no.2 shall decide the issue based upon the pleadings and evidence let in before it;

(iv) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

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