SRI SANTOSH KUMAR T C vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
ST
RESERVED ON 1 APRIL 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF JUNE, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 131 OF 2026 (CS-EL/M)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SANTOSH KUMAR T.C.
S/O LATE CHIKKONU
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
PRESIDENT /DELEGATE OF
SHRI THYLURAMADEVI POULTRY
FARMERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD.,
THYULURU ATHAGUURU HOBLI
MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA 571401
…APPELLANT
Digitally
signed by
VEERENDRA
KUMAR K M
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
(BY SRI D R RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
2.
THE STATE CO-OP ELECTION AUTHORITY
RD
3 FLOOR, TTMC 'A' BLOCK
SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY
3.
THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER
CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
- 2 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
BENGALURU DISTRICT
KANDAYA BHAVANA
BENGALURU - 560 001
4. THE RETURNING OFFICER
KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE
POULTRY FEDERATION LTD.,
BEHIND PASHUPALANA BHAVANA
HEBBAL, BENGALURU - 560 024
5.
KARNATAKA CO-OP POULTRY
FEDERATION LTD.
BEHIND PASHUPALANA BHAVANA
HEBBAL, BENGALURU - 560 024,
REPT. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
REGD. UNDER CO-OP SOCIETIES ACT 1959
6.
SHRI AANJANEYA POULTRY FARMING
CO-OP SOCIETY, KANCHAMARANAHALLI
HASSAN TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201
REPT. BY ITS CEO
7.
SHRI AANJANEYASWAMY
POULTRY FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
MADAGERE, ALURU TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201
REPT. BY ITS CEO
8.
SHRI TIRUPATHI POULTRY FARMING
AND MARKETING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
BETTADAHALLI, ALURU TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573201
REPT. BY ITS CEO
9. SHRI HARIHARESHWARA POULTRY
FARMING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
HALASINAHALLI, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
10. SHRI AANJANEYA POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
- 3 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
CO-OP SOCIETY
BEEKANAHALLI
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201
REPT. BY ITS CEO
11.
SHRI DEVIRAMMA POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
KINDIPURA, HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPT. BY ITS CEO
12.
SHRI VENKATARAMANASWAMY POULTRY
FARMING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
DYAVANAPPAN KOPPALU
HASSAN TALUK
HASSAN - 573 201
REPT. BY ITS CEO
13. SHRI KALIKAMBADEVI POULTRY FARMING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HARUVANAHALLI
HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
14. SHRI VENKATESHWARA POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
UDDURAHALLI, HASSAN TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
15. SHRI DODDAMMA-CHIKKAMMA POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
TAMLAPURA, HASSAN TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201
REPT. BY ITS CEO
16. SHRI AANJANEYA POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
DODDAKONDAGULA
HASSAN TALUK - 573201
REPT. BY ITS CEO
- 4 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
17. YAGACHI POULTRY FARMING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
HALUVVAGILU, HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
18. SHRI DYAVAMMA POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
B. KATIHALLI KOPPALU
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
19. SHRI KARIBEERESHWARA POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
MAHADEVARAHALLI
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
20.
SHRI AANJANEYASWAMY POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
CHIKKAHONNENAHALLI
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
21.
SHRI AAJANEYASWAMY POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
ALADAHALLI KOPPALU
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
22.
SHRI AANJANEYASWAMY POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, KUPPALLI
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
23. SHRI JAI MARUTHI POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
- 5 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
KALATAMMANAHALLI
HASSAN TALUK - 573201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
24. SHRI BASAWESHWARA SWAMY
POULTRY FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, MAVINAHALLI
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
25. SHRI PURADAMMAKOLI POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, MUTTATTI
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
26. SHRI MALALIYAMMA POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
HALEKOPPALU
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
27. SHRI CHIKKIRANGANATHASWAMY
POULTRY FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, MUTTATTI
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
28. SHRI LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARASWAMY
POULTRY FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
MARAGONDANAHALLI
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
29. SHRI ANJANEYA POULTRY FARMING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
TAVARADEVARAKOPPALU
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
- 6 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
30. SHRI RANGANATHASWAMY
POULTRY FARMING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
JAKKENAHALLI, HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
31. SHRI ANJANEYASWAMY POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
H. HARALALLI
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
32.
SHRI DYAVAMMA POULTRY FARMING
AND MARKETING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
DASARAKOPPALLU
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
33. SHRI LAKSHMIDEVI POULTRY FARMING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
GYARAHALLI
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
34. SHRI KANNAMBADIAMMA POULTRY FARMING
AND MARKETING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
CHIKKAKONDAGULA KOPPALU
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
35. SHRI MAARIKAMBA POULTRY FARMING
AND MARKETING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
HERAGU, HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
36.
SHRI KARYASIDDI ANJANEYASWAMY
POULTRY FARMING AND
MARKETING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
DEVARAYAPATTANA
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
- 7 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
37. SHRI CHANNAKESHAVASWAMI POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
GUDUGUNAHALLI
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
38. SHRI VENKATESHWARASWAMY
POULTRY FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, AGALAHALLI
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
39. SHRI KAMBALAMMA POULTRY FARMING
AND MARKETING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
NAYAKARAHALLI
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
40. SHRI BEERALINGESHWARA POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, SUNDENAHALLI
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
41. SHRI JAI MARUTHI POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, UDDURU
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
42. SHRI ANJANEYA POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, CHATTANHALLI
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
43.
SHRI VEERANJANEYA POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, TEJURU
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
- 8 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
44. SHRI HOYSALA POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, ADAGURU
BELURU TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
45. SHRI MARUTHI POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, ATTIHALLI
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
46. SHRI LAKSHMIDEVI POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, KODIGARAHALLI
ALURU TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
47. SHRI LAKSHMIDEVI POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
DODDAKANAGALU
ALURU TALUK 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
48. SHRI ANJANEYASWAMY POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, GANJIGERE
ALURU TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
49. SHRI MARAMMASWAMI POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HALUVALLI
ALURU TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
50. SHRI SANJEEVARAYASWAMY POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, YAREHALLI
ALURU TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
- 9 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
51. SHRI BASAVESHWARASWAMI POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, KAARJUVALLI
ALURU TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
52. SHRI VEERABHADRESHWARASWAMI
POULTRY FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, NAKALAGUDU
ALURU TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
53. SHRI RANGANATHASWAMI POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, BYRAPURA
ALURU TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
54. SHRI PUSHPAGIRI POULTRY FARMING
AND MARKETING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
SANKIHALLI, ARASIKERE TALUK - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
55. KANAKANAGARA NATIVE POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, KANAKANAGARA
NANJANAGUDU TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 023
REPT. BY ITS CEO
56. IMMAVU NATIVE POULTRY AND
MARKETING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
IMMAVU, NANJANAGUDU TALUK
MYSORE - 571 302
REPT. BY ITS CEO
57. DEVANURU NATIVE POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, DEVANURU
NANJANAGUDU TALUK
MYSORE - 571 119
REPT. BY ITS PRESIDENT
- 10 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
58. MOODABASAWESHWARA NATIVE
POULTRY FARMING AND MARKETING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, DODDAHUNDI
JAYAPURA HOBLI
MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE - 570 008
REPT. BY ITS PRESIDENT
59. MARALURU NATIVE POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
MARALURU, NANJANAGUDU TALUK
MYSORE - 570 008
REPT. BY ITS PRESIDENT
60.
SHRI MANJUNATHA NATIVE POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
MARADIHUNDI, NANJANAGUDU TALUK
MYSORE - 571 301
REPT. BY ITS PRESIDENT
61.
GONALLI MARAMMA NATIVE POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
KABBALAGEREHUNDI
NANJANAGUDU TALUK
MYSORE - 571 302
REPT. BY ITS PRESIDENT
62.
TANDAVESHWARA NATIVE POULTRY
FARMING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
MALLANAYAKANAHALLI
DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA - 571 401
REPT. BY ITS PRESIDENT
63. TANDAVAPURA NATIVE POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, TANDAVAPURA,
NANJANAGUDU TALUK
MYSORE - 571 302
REPT. BY ITS PRESIDENT
- 11 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
64. HAROHALLI NATIVE POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HAROHALLI
MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE - 570 028
REPT. BY ITS PRESIDENT
65. SHRI BASAWESHWARA NATIVE POULTRY
FARMING AND MARKETING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
BASAVANAPURA, NJANAGUDU TALUK
MYSORE - 571 301
REPT. BY ITS PRESIDENT
66.
HALLIDIDDI NATIVE POULTRY FARMING
AND MARKETING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
HALLIDIDDI, NANJANAGUDU TALUK
MYSORE - 570 301
REPT. BY ITS PRESIDENT
67. NAMMA MYSURU NATIVE POULTRY
PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
DODDAKONDAGULA
MYSURU - 571 301
REPT. BY ITS CHIEF PROMOTER
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AAG, ALONG WITH
SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1,R-3 & R-4;
SRI LIKITH R. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R-5;
SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SUMANTH KUMAR S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-6 TO R-30 &
R-33;
SMT. MONICA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-31 TO R-54;
SRI M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI P. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-7, R-55 TO R-61 &
R-63 TO R-67)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.
No.39397/2025, DATED 19.01.2026 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW
THE PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE
& ETC.
- 12 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed this intra-court appeal impugning an
order dated 19.01.2026 [ impugned order ] passed by the learned
Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.39397/2025 (CS-EL/M).
2. The appellant had filed the said writ petition, inter alia ,
praying that respondents No.6 to 67 Societies be declared as
disqualified from voting to elect the office-bearers of respondent
No.5 Society.
3. The elections to the Board of Directors of the respondent
No.5 Society, which is an Apex Society, were held on 06.01.2026,
pursuant to the election notification dated 13.11.2025 and the
calendar of events dated 20.12.2025. The appellant is the
President/delegate of Shri. Thyluramadevi Poultry Farmers Co-op
Society Ltd., Thyuluru, which is a primary co-operative society
registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959
- 13 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
[ KCS Act ]. The said Society is a member of the respondent No.5
Society, which, as stated before, is an Apex Society. The appellant
contested for the post of Director in the elections held on
06.01.2026.
4. Respondents No.6 to 67 are the Primary Co-operative
Societies registered under the KCS Act and are members of the
respondent No.5 Society. Notwithstanding that they were members
of the respondent No.5 Apex Society, their names were not included
in the list of eligible voters. Accordingly, they filed writ petitions,
being W.P.No.38066/2025 and W.P.No.38042/2025, claiming to be
eligible to vote for electing the Board of Directors of the respondent
No. 5 Society by virtue of the Government Order dated 29.05.2025
[hereafter " the GO" ] issued under Section 121 of the KCS Act,
whereby the disqualification as provided under Section 20(2)(a-iii) of
the KCS Act was relaxed. The said petitions were disposed of with
a direction to the respondent No.5 Society to consider their
representations in the light of the said GO.
5. Thereafter, respondent No.5 issued a delegation/
representative form to respondents No.6 to 67 and included them
among the eligible voters. According to the appellant, the GO is
- 14 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
inapplicable to respondents No.6 to 67 societies. The appellant
claims that since Respondent No. 5 is an Apex Society, the GO
does not relax the ineligibility criterion under Section 20(2)(a-iii) of
the KCS Act for such societies.
6. The appellant contends that the Primary Co-operative
Societies that were formed and registered less than a year prior to
the election of the office bearers of a federal society are ineligible to
vote. However, in terms of the GO, the said condition had been
relaxed. According to the appellant, the GO is inapplicable for
election to an Apex Society as defined under Section 2(a) of the
KCS Act and its benefit is confined to Federal Societies that are not
Apex Societies.
7. The learned Single Judge did not accept the appellant's
contention and accordingly dismissed the appellant’s writ petition as
well as W.P.No.38350/2025 (CS-EL/M), which raised a similar
issue. Apart from dismissing the writ petitions, the learned Single
Judge set aside the declaration of results made by respondent No.5
and directed the Returning Officer to count the votes of respondent
Nos.6 to 67 and to declare the result of the election afresh.
- 15 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
8. As is apparent from the above, the dispute in the present
appeal lies in a narrow compass. The only question to be addressed
is whether the GO is applicable to elections to an Apex Society.
9. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Section 2(a) and 2(e-4)
of the KCS Act, which define the terms Apex Society and Federal
Society. The said clauses are set out below.
"2. Definitions .—In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,—
(a) ‘ Apex Society ’ means a federal society whose area of
operation extends to the whole of the State;
(e-4) " Federal Society " means a co-operative society, the
membership of which is not open to individuals."
10. As is apparent from the aforesaid definitions, a Federal
Society is a co-operative society, whose membership is not open to
individuals. An Apex Society is a Federal Society, whose area of
operation extends to the whole of the State. Whilst all Apex
Societies are necessarily Federal Societies, all Federal Societies
need not be Apex Societies.
11. A Primary Society is defined under Section 2(h-1) of the KCS
Act as under:
- 16 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
"2. Definitions .—In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,—
(h-1) " Primary Society " means a co-operative society
whose membership is not open to another co-operative
society."
12. There are varied structures of societies. In a three-tiered
structure, the Primary Societies are members of a Federal Society,
and such Federal Societies are members of the Apex society.
There are several Federal Societies whose areas of operation are
confined to one or more districts, but not to the entire State of
Karnataka. Such societies are not Apex Societies. In a three-tiered
structure, they may be members of an Apex Society, whose area of
operation extends over the entire State. In a two-tiered structure, the
Primary Societies are members of an Apex Society.
13. The disqualification provided under Section 20(2)(a-iii) of the
KCS Act is central to the present dispute. Section 20 of the KCS Act
is set out below.
"20. Votes of members .—(1) No member, no
representative or no delegate of a society shall have more
than one vote in the general meeting or in the election of
the members of the board of the co-operative society:
(2) The following shall not have the right to vote at a
general meeting or an election of the members of the
- 17 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
board of the co-operative society in which they are
members, namely:—
(a) a nominal or associate member;
(a-i) an individual member who is a defaulter;
(a-ii) members admitted as per clauses (d), (e), (f) and (g)
of sub-section (1) of section 16, who are defaulters;
(a-iii) a person who has become member of a society not
later than twelve months prior to the date of such meeting
or election."
14. In terms of Section 20(2)(a-iii) of the KCOS Act, a person
who has become a member of a society not later than twelve
months prior to the date of the general meeting or the election of the
members of a board of the co-operative society does not have a
right to vote at the general meeting or the election of members of
the board.
15. There is no dispute that, by virtue of Section 20(2)(a-iii),
respondents Nos. 6 to 67 were ineligible to vote in the elections for
office-bearers of respondent No. 5 society held on 06.01.2026, as
they were registered less than twelve months prior to the date of the
declared elections. However, as stated above, they claim that the
rigours of Section 20(2)(a-iii) were relaxed by virtue of the GO
issued under Section 121 of the KCS Act.
- 18 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
16. We may at this stage refer to Section 121 of the KCS Act,
which reads as under:
"121. Power to exempt societies .—The State
Government may, by general or special order published in
the Official Gazette, exempt any co-operative society or
any class of societies from any of the provisions of this
Act, or may direct that such provisions shall apply to such
society or class of societies with such modifications as
may be specified in the order."
17. The State Government had issued the GO in exercise of
powers under Section 121 of the KCS Act. The said GO is set out
below:
" PROCEEDINGS OF KARNATAKA GOVT.
Subject: Regarding exemption from the provisions of
Section 20(2)(a-iii) of the Karnataka
Cooperative Societies Act, 1959,
Read: Letter No: RCS/RSR 1909/ 2025-26, dated:
19-05-2025 from the Office of Registrar of
Cooperative Societies.
PREAMBLE:-
In the proposal sent by the Registrar of Cooperative
Societies as read above, it is clear that as per the Central
Government's scheme to establish at least one Multipurpose
Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society in every Gram
Panchayat, 131 new Multipurpose Primary Agricultural Credit
Cooperative Societies have been registered in the State as on
31-03-2025 and have obtained membership in the District
Central Cooperative Banks and have not completed twelve
months before the date of the election, these New Credit
Multipurpose Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies lose
their right to vote in the elections as per Section 20(2)(a-iii) of
the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959. Therefore, the
Government has been requested to exercise the power
conferred on it under Section 121 of the Karnataka Cooperative
Societies Act, 1959 and grant exemption from the provisions of
- 19 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
Section 20(2)(a-iii) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act,
1959 to the newly registered Multipurpose Primary Agricultural
Credit Cooperative Societies.
The proposal is examined. It is considered appropriate to
grant the said exemption to all the Primary Co-operative
Societies which are members of the Federal Co-operative
Societies in the state and is ordered as follows.
Government Order No.: CO 142 CLS 2025,
Bangalore, Dated 29-05-2025
In view of the matters set out in the proposal, the
Government of Karnataka exercising its powers conferred on it
under Section 121 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act,
1959, it is Ordered to exempt those newly registered Primary
Co-operative Societies, registered before 30-4-2025, which
have obtained membership in the Federal (District Central Co-
operative Banks, District Co-operative Milk Unions, District Co-
operative Unions and other Federal Cooperative Societies) Co-
operative Societies are allowed to participate in the elections of
the Governing Body of the Federal Co-operative Societies
exempting from Section 20(2)(a-ill) of the Karnataka
Cooperative Societies Act, 1959.
By order of the Governor of Karnataka
and in his name"
18. It is also relevant to note that on 26.06.2025, the State Co-
operative Election Authority addressed a communication to
respondent No.5 clarifying that the GO was confined to the elections
of Federal District Cooperative Institutions and it did not extend to
the election of the board of Apex Societies, such as respondent
No.5.
- 20 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
19. Respondent No.1 (Government of Karnataka) has also filed
an affidavit affirmed by the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative
Societies on its behalf, inter alia , affirming as under:
"3. I humbly submit that the Government Order dated
29.05.2025 was an exemption granted to Primary Societies to
participate in the Elections of the management of Federal
Societies. The exemption granted under the Government
Order under Section 121 was not extended to the Apex
Societies in the State."
20. As noted hereinbefore, the only question that falls for
consideration is whether the GO is applicable to respondents Nos. 6
to 67 societies. This question is required to be addressed in the
aforesaid backdrop.
21. A plain reading of the preamble of the GO indicates that
131(one hundred and thirty-one) new multipurpose primary
agricultural credit cooperative societies were registered in the State
of Karnataka as on 31.03.2025. They had obtained membership in
the District Central Cooperative Banks and had not completed
twelve months before the date of elections. It is in the said context
that the State Government was requested to exercise the powers
conferred under Section 121 of the KCS Act and exempt the newly
registered primary cooperative societies from the applicability of
- 21 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
Section 20(2)(a-iii) of the KCS Act. The State Government
examined the said proposal and issued the GO.
22. The first question that arises is whether the GO could be
read as confined to 131 (one hundred and thirty-one) multipurpose
primary agricultural cooperative societies which were registered as
of 31.03.2025. However, the State clarified that not only the said
primary agricultural societies but also several other primary
cooperative societies were extended the benefit of relaxation under
the GO. The preamble of the GO sets out the backdrop that led the
State Government to issue the GO. However, it is common ground
that the GO is not confined to the primary cooperative societies
mentioned in the preamble. The GO thus must be read in its own
terms.
23. A plain reading of the GO indicates that the benefit of
relaxation of Section 20(2)(a-iii) of the KCS Act is extended to all the
Primary Societies registered prior to 30.04.2025, which had
obtained membership in Federal Societies.
24. As noted at the outset, an Apex Society is also a Federal
Society. Thus, the benefit of the GO would also extend to Primary
Societies, which are members of an Apex Society. The appellant’s
- 22 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
case rests on the interpretation of the words “ other Federal
Cooperative Societies” as included in the parenthesis. The words
set out in the parenthesis in the GO are: “District Central Co-
operative Banks, District Co-operative Milk Unions, District Co-
operative Unions and other Federal Cooperative Societies”. The
said words in parentheses follow the word ‘Federal’, and thus qualify
the societies in respect of which the provisions of Section 20(2)(a-iii)
of the KCS Act have been relaxed.
25. The expressions enumerated in the parentheses first refers
to certain district-level co-operative societies, i.e., District Central
Co-operative Banks, District Co-operative Milk Unions and District
Co-operative Unions and are followed by the residuary expression
‘other Federal Cooperative Societies’.
26. The appellant contends that the expression ‘other Federal
Cooperative Societies’ must be interpreted in the context of the
other words in the parentheses, namely, District Central
Cooperative Banks, District Cooperative Milk Unions and District
Cooperative Unions. It is contended that the expression ‘other
Federal Cooperative Societies’ must be construed as referring to
societies of the same nature as the District-level Cooperative
- 23 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
Societies that precede it. However, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for respondents No. 6 to 67 contends that the expression
"other Federal Cooperative Societies" would cover all Federal
Societies of which Primary Societies are members. He submitted
that certain cooperative societies have a three-tier structure, in
which primary cooperative societies are members of district-level
societies, which in turn are members of an Apex Society. However,
there is also a two-tiered structure where the Primary Societies are
directly members of Federal Society, which is an Apex Society. It is
submitted that the words 'other Federal Cooperative Societies'
necessarily mean those Federal Societies formed by Primary
Societies as their members.
27. The appellant seeks to rely on the rule of ejusdem generis for
interpreting the words, “other Federal Cooperative Societies”. The
appellant argues that general words ‘other Federal Societies’ refers
to societies of the same type as the specific societies that precede
the said words. Thus, only District level Federal Societies are
covered under the GO.
- 24 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
28. The Supreme Court had explained the rule of ejusdem
generis in Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Excise,
1
Govt. of Tripura as under
“9. .. The ejusdem generis rule strives to reconcile the
incompatibility between specific and general words. This
doctrine applies when ( i ) the statute contains an enumeration
of specific words; ( ii ) the subjects of the enumeration
constitute a class or category; ( iii ) that class or category is
not exhausted by the enumeration; ( iv ) the general term
follows the enumeration and ( v ) there is no indication of a
different legislative intent..”
2
29. In Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. Union of India , the
:
Supreme Court explained that
“14. The principle underlying this approach to statutory
construction is that the subsequent general words were only
intended to guard against some accidental omission in the
objects of the kind mentioned earlier and were not intended
to extend to objects of a wholly different kind. This is a
presumption and operates unless there is some contrary
indication. But the preceding words or expressions of
restricted meaning must be susceptible of the import that
they represent a class. If no class can be found, ejusdem
generis rule is not attracted and such broad construction as
the subsequent words may admit will be favoured…”
30. The rule of ejusdem generis serves as a contextual aid in
interpreting a statute. It aids in interpreting the plain language of a
statute in light of its context. It is well settled that a statute must be
construed as it reads. The rule of literal interpretation is also
1
(1972) 2 SCC 442
2
(1989) 2 SCC 458
- 25 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
referred to as the golden rule. However, if the literal interpretation of
the language is wider than would be in conformity with the
legislative intent in the given context, the import of wide general
words may be read as restricted to the context by using contextual
aids, including the rule of Ejusdem Generis. The rule of Ejusdem
Generis cannot be applied to whittle down the legislative intent.
3
31. In SEBI v. NSE Members Assn. the Supreme Court
observed:
“49 . If a statutory provision is open to more than one
interpretation, it is always desirable of the Court to choose
the interpretation which represents the true intention of the
legislature. It is also well-settled that to arrive at the intention
of the legislation, it is always depending on the objects for
which the enactment is made, the Court can resort to
historical, contextual and purposive interpretation leaving
textual interpretation aside. Thus, while interpreting the
statutory provisions, the Court is always supposed to keep in
mind the object or purpose for which the statute has been
enacted."
32. It is essential to bear in mind the legislation's object and
purpose before interpreting its language restrictively. The rule of
purposive interpretation requires that the statute be interpreted to
further the object rather than to restrict it.
3
(2023) 12 SCC 341
- 26 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
33. In a recent decision in Vivek Narayan Sharma
4
(Demonetisation Case-5 J.) v. Union of India the supreme court
observed as under :
“134. Legislation has an aim, it seeks to obviate some
mischief, to supply an inadequacy, to effect a change of
policy, to formulate a plan of government. That aim, that
policy is not drawn, like nitrogen, out of the air; it is
evidenced in the language of the statute, as read in the light
of other external manifestations of purpose [“Some
Reflections on the Reading of Statutes” [(1947) 47 Columbia
LR 527] , Columbia LR at p. 538].” This is how Justice
Frankfurter succinctly propounds the principle of purposive
interpretation.
135. It is thus necessary to cull out the legislative policy from
various factors like the words in the statute, the Preamble to
the Act, the Statement of Objects and Reasons, and in a
given case, even the attendant circumstances. After the
legislative policy is found, then the words used in the statute
must be so interpreted such that it advances the purpose of
the statute and does not defeat it.
148. It is thus clear that it is a settled principle that the
modern approach of interpretation is a pragmatic one, and
not pedantic. An interpretation which advances the purpose
of the Act and which ensures its smooth and harmonious
working must be chosen and the other which leads to
absurdity, or confusion, or friction, or contradiction and
conflict between its various provisions, or undermines, or
tends to defeat or destroy the basic scheme and purpose of
the enactment must be eschewed. The primary and foremost
task of the Court in interpreting a statute is to gather the
intention of the legislature, actual or imputed. Having
ascertained the intention, it is the duty of the Court to strive
to so interpret the statute as to promote or advance the
object and purpose of the enactment. For this purpose,
where necessary, the Court may even depart from the rule
that plain words should be interpreted according to their plain
4
(2023) 3 SCC 1
- 27 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
meaning. There need be no meek and mute submission to
the plainness of the language. To avoid patent injustice,
anomaly or absurdity or to avoid invalidation of a law, the
court would be justified in departing from the so-called
golden rule of construction so as to give effect to the object
and purpose of the enactment. Ascertainment of legislative
intent is the basic rule of statutory construction.”
34. In its decision, the Supreme Court also referred to the
following passage from Francis Bennion’s treatise Statutory
Interpretation :
“A purposive construction of an enactment is one which
gives effect to the legislative purpose by—
( a ) following the literal meaning of the enactment where that
meaning is in accordance with the legislative purpose (in this
Code called a purposive-and-literal construction), or
( b ) applying a strained meaning where the literal meaning is
not in accordance with the legislative purpose (in the Code
called a purposive-and-strained construction).”
35. In the present case, if the GO is read literally, all Primary
Societies registered before 30.04.2025 would be released from
ineligibility under Section 20(2)(a-iii) of the KCS Act for participating
in elections/general meetings of the Federal Societies of which they
are members. The Apex Societies — which by definition are Federal
—
Societies cannot be read as excluded from the reference to
Federal Cooperative Societies in the GO.
36. The preamble of the GO indicates that the proposal to relax
the ineligibility under Section 20(2)(a-iii) was mooted since a large
- 28 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
number of multipurpose primary agricultural societies had been
registered in the State as on 31.03.2025. Thus, clearly, the intent of
the GO was to permit the large number of societies that had been
registered in the State to participate in the elections of the Office
Bearers of the Federal Societies of which they were members.
Since the object was not to deprive the Primary Societies from
participating in elections to the Federal Societies, it is clear that no
distinction can be drawn between Federal Societies on the basis of
their area of operation. Plainly, the Federal Societies whose area of
operation extends to the entire State cannot be excluded from the
benefit of the GO on that ground.
37. The words in parentheses explain the scope of Federal
Societies. As far as banks, milk unions and cooperative unions were
concerned, the Federal Societies operate at the district level.
Therefore, when we consider the interpretation of the words ‘other
Federal Societies’ in the parenthesis, it would necessarily mean all
other Federal Societies, including those co-operative institutions that
do not conform to a three-tier structure.
38. We agree with the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondents No.6 to 67 that a clarification, subsequently issued by
- 29 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
the State Co-operative Election Authority, cannot be accorded much
weightage for the following reasons. First, the clarification has not
been issued under Section 121 of the KCS Act. Thus, it cannot
amend the GO issued in exercise of the statutory power conferred
under Section 121 of the KCS Act. Second, there is no rationale for
excluding Primary Societies from voting to elect the members of a
Federal Society which operates throughout the State. The affidavit
furnished by the State Government does not provide any rationale
for excluding the Primary Societies that are the direct members of
Federal Societies, which are the Apex Societies. And third, the
clarification was issued at a later stage and was not issued
contemporaneously with the GO dated 29.05.2025.
39. Restricting the scope of the GO to Federal Societies that do
not have a statewide operation is neither in conformity with the plain
language of the GO nor with the object with which the GO was
issued.
40. Considering that the purpose and object of the GO was to
relax the ineligibility criterion to enable the large number of Primary
Societies to participate in the election of the office bearers of the
Federal Societies of which they are members; the appellant has not
- 30 -
WA No. 131 of 2026
presented any reason, which has any reasonable nexus with the
object of the GO, to classify the Primary Societies, which are
members of Federal Societies that have a State wide operation
separately from the Primary Societies, which are members of
Federal Societies whose area of operation does not extend over the
entire State.
41. In view of the above, we find no grounds to interfere with the
impugned order. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
42. The pending applications also stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
KMV