ORDER : 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. "Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari set aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 in 29C case No.SaNe40/Dispute/29C/18/2024-25, vide Annexure-C passed by respondent No.2. ii. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari set aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 in 29C case No.SaNe40/Dispute/29C/17/2024-25, vide Annexure-Defendant passed by respondent No.2. iii. Pass such other orders as may be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice and equity." 2. The petitioners claim to be elected directors of respondent No.3-Society. A complaint had been filed against the petitioners on 28.10.2024, based on which a show cause notice came to be issued by respondent No.2 on 11.11.2024 under Section 29C of the Karnataka Co-operatives Society Act, stating that as per Byelaw 38 (8) for the Director to continue with the Directorship of the Society, He/She has to supply milk for a minimum of 180 days of the previous Co-operative year and hearing was fixed on 21.11.2024. 3. The petitioners appeared on 21.11.2024, however, it is alleged that on the very same date without providing an opportunity the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 at Annexures-C and D have been passed. Disqualifying the petitioners, it is challenging the same petitioners are before this Court. 4. The submission of Sri. Sandesh T.B., learned counsel for the petitioners is that under Section 29C of the Karnataka Co-operatives Society Act, disqualification can be made only for the next election and not for voting in the present election and there is no sufficient opportunity which has been granted to the petitioners to place on record the documents in support of their defence. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate has filed a memo enclosing two letters submitted by the petitioners, wherein the petitioners themselves had categorically stated that the allegations made in the complaint as also in the show-cause notices that the petitioners have not supplied milk for 180 days are true, however, they sought time to appoint an advocate. 6. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate has filed a memo enclosing two letters submitted by the petitioners, wherein the petitioners themselves had categorically stated that the allegations made in the complaint as also in the show-cause notices that the petitioners have not supplied milk for 180 days are true, however, they sought time to appoint an advocate. 6. He submits that once admission has been made as regards the allegations being true the said admission would disentitle the petitioners from casting their vote at the Annual General Meeting or election of the members of the board of the Co-operatives Society in terms Clause (a) V of Subsection (2) of Section 20 of the Karnataka Co-operatives Society Act 1959. In terms of Section 29C (1-H), a Director who is disentitled to vote as a member would stand automatically disqualified since such a Director cannot continue as a member of the Board of the Co-operatives Society. 7. He submits that the petitioners not having utilized the minimum services as required under the Bylaws and not having supplied milk for 180 days. Clause (a-5) of Subsection (2) Section 20 being applicable, Section 29C would also become automatically applicable in view of a specific coverage of the same in Clause(H) of Subsection (1) of Section 39C. On the above grounds, he supports the order passed by respondent No.2 and he submits that the above petition may be dismissed. 8. Heard Sri. Sandesh T.B., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents Nos.1 and 2 and Sri. K.R. Sathish, learned counsel for respondent No.3 adopts the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the records. 9. The short question that would arise for consideration in the present matter is whether once a member is disentitled to vote under Subsection (2) of Section 20 would disqualification under Section 29C be applicable for the present term of Directorship. 10. Perused the records. 9. The short question that would arise for consideration in the present matter is whether once a member is disentitled to vote under Subsection (2) of Section 20 would disqualification under Section 29C be applicable for the present term of Directorship. 10. Clause (a-v) of Subsection (2) of Section 20 of the Karnataka Co-operatives Society is reproduced here under for easy reference: "(1)a member or a representative who has failed to utilize such minimum services or facilities in a co-operatives year as may be specified in the bye-laws for three consecutive compensation-operative years: Provided that in case of members in clauses (a-iv) and (a-v), such members shall not have the right to vote at a general meeting or an election of members of the Board for a period of three years. (b)a co-operative society: 11. A perusal of the above provision would indicate that the right to vote at a general meeting or election of a member to the Board of the Co-operatives Societies would not be available to a member or representative who has failed to utilize the minimum services or facilities has may be specified in the Bylaws for any three co-operative years out of the last five co-operative years. 12. In the present case, the applicable bylaw being Bylaw 38(8) is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 13. Thus, in terms of Bylaw 38(8) it is required for a member to supply milk to the Society for a minimum of 180 days in any cooperative year. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have not supplied milk for 180 days for three of the last five Co-operatives years. 14. The said allegation has been admitted by the petitioners themselves in the letters which had been submitted by the petitioners on 21.11.2024, when respondent No.2 fixed the date of hearing. There is no dispute as regards the petitioners not having supplied milk to respondent No.3-Society for three of the last five cooperative years. Merely, because in the letters submitted time was sought for to appoint an advocate would not take away the fact of the admission which has been made. 15. Once an admission is made there is nothing more to be decided by any Court or a Quasi-Judicial Authority and orders would have to be passed on the basis of said admission. Merely, because in the letters submitted time was sought for to appoint an advocate would not take away the fact of the admission which has been made. 15. Once an admission is made there is nothing more to be decided by any Court or a Quasi-Judicial Authority and orders would have to be passed on the basis of said admission. Once the admission is made the question of granting any other opportunity to file any further objection and/or addressing arguments would not arise since the admission cannot be revoked or taken away by way of any such arguments. 16. Bylaw 38(8) being applicable the embargo under Clause (A-v) of Subsection (2) of Section 20 would automatically be applicable disentitling the petitioners from being eligible to vote at a general meeting or election of the members of the Board of the Co-operatives Society. 17. The next provision which would be of relevance would be Section 29C Act of the Act of 1959, Subsection (1) of Section 29C and Clause (H) thereof, are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: "Subsection (1) of Section 29C: No person shall be eligible for being elected or appointed or continued as a member of the Board of any co-operatives Society:" Clause (H): he is disqualified to be a member of the society or to vote as such member." 18. In terms of Subsection (1) of Section 29C, no person shall be eligible for being elected or appointed or continued as a member of the Board of any Co-operatives Society, if in terms of Clause (H) he is disqualified to be a member of the Co-operatives Society or to vote as such member. As afore observed in terms of Clause (a-V) of Subsection (2) of Section 20 the petitioners are disqualified to vote as a member. Thus, Clause (H) of Subsection (1) of Section 29C would get attracted and in terms of Subsection (1) of Section 29C. the petitioners would not be eligible for being elected or appointed or continued as a member of the Board of the Co-operative Society. 19. Thus, Clause (H) of Subsection (1) of Section 29C would get attracted and in terms of Subsection (1) of Section 29C. the petitioners would not be eligible for being elected or appointed or continued as a member of the Board of the Co-operative Society. 19. It is this last leg of Subsection (1) of Section 29C of the Act, which would be attracted in the present circumstances, in as much as once the disqualification under Clause (a-5) of Subsection (2) of Section 20 gets attracted thereby, attracting disqualification under Clause (H) of Subsection (1) of Section 29C the said disqualification being attracted during the term of the office of Directorship who gets disqualified as above cannot be continued as member of the Board of any Co-operatives Society. 20. Needless to say, once the Director cannot be continued as a member of the Board the said Director becomes a former Director and a former Director does not have any right to vote at any meeting, let alone the meeting in the present case for nominating the delegate on behalf of petitioner No.3-Society, insofar as the election of Federal Society is concerned. 21. In that view of the matter, the petitioners having incurred the disqualification during the term of office and in terms of Subsection (1) of Section 29C their being embargo for the petitioners for continuing as a member of the Board, the reliefs sought for are not maintainable. No grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed.