Non-utilization of minimum services for two of five preceding years renders cooperative society members ineligible to vote.

The appellants are primary milk producer co-operative societies and members of the Tumkuru District Milk Producers Co-operative Societies Union Ltd ("District Milk Union"), a federal society

The appellants were declared ineligible to vote in the 2024-2029 elections for the District Milk Union's Managing Committee on the grounds that they failed to supply the minimum prescribed quantity of milk (150kg for 270 days) during the preceding years as per the Union's bye-laws

The appellants challenged this in writ petitions, arguing that the shortfall was due to COVID-19, Lumpy Skin Disease, and drought

A Single Judge dismissed the petitions, holding that the Election Officer's duty was merely to verify the fact of supply, not the reasons for failure

The Single Judge further directed a recount of votes after excluding the appellants' votes

The appellants filed these writ appeals, specifically challenging the interpretation of the statutory disqualification criteria

Whether, under Section 20(2)(a-v) of the KOS Act, a member society becomes ineligible to vote if it fails to utilize minimum services for any two years out of the last five, or whether such default must be for consecutive years.

Whether a society remains eligible to vote if it successfully supplied the minimum quantity for three out of five preceding years, notwithstanding defaults in the other two years.

The court primarily applied Section 20(2)(a-v) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies (KOS) Act, 1959, as amended by the 2021 Amendment Act

This provision stipulates that a member or representative who fails to utilize minimum services or facilities specified in the bye-laws for "any two co-operative years out of the last five co-operative years" shall not have the right to vote

The court noted the shift from the pre-2021 requirement, which demanded failure for "three consecutive co-operative years" to trigger disqualification

The court found the language of the post-2021 amendment to Section 20(2)(a-v) to be "unambiguous"

It rejected the appellants' contention that defaults must be consecutive, noting that the statute explicitly uses the phrase "any two co-operative years out of the last five"

The court reasoned that the legislative intent was to disqualify any entity that failed the minimum service threshold (defined in the bye-laws as 150kg of milk for 270 days) in two or more of the previous five years

Consequently, even if a society complied in three years, a failure in two years (whether consecutive or not) satisfies the statutory criteria for ineligibility

The court declined to consider extenuating circumstances like drought or disease, as the appellants' counsel confined the challenge strictly to the statutory interpretation of the two-year default rule

It held that under the plain meaning of Section 20(2)(a-v) of the KOS Act, the appellants were ineligible to vote or contest because they failed to meet the milk supply requirements for at least two of the previous five co-operative years

The court affirmed that there is no requirement for the defaulting years to be consecutive

The order of the Single Judge directing the exclusion of the appellants' votes and a fresh declaration of results was upheld.