ORDER : M. NAGAPRASANNA, J. W.P.No.104391 of 2025 is preferred by the President of Dharwad Gadag and Uttara Kannada District Milk Producer Co-operative Union Ltd., Dharwad (‘Union’ for short). The companion petition W.P.No.108123 of 2025 is preferred by the Shivalli Milk Proucer Cooperative Society, Shivalli (‘Society’ for short) and the 2 nd petitioner being the petitioner in the companion petition W.P.No.104391 of 2025. Since W.P.No. 108123 of 2025 is an offshoot of W.P.No.104391 of 2025, the two are taken up together and considered by this common order. 2. Heard Sri Jayakumar S Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners; Sri Gangadhar J.M, Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 and 2; Sri A D Kulkarni and Sri I Y Patil, learned counsels appearing for the Union, and Sri Rajashekhar Burji, learned counsel appearing for the impleading applicants, in both the petitions. 3. The first of the writ petition to be filed was W.P.No.104391 of 2025. The prayer in the petition was seeking quashment of an order dated 03-07-2025 to appoint a returning officer for election to the post of President of the 4 th respondent and to the post of Director of Alnawar, Dharwad, Navalgund and Annigeri Taluk Constituency. Therefore, the challenge is to the proposal to appoint a Returning Officer for conduct of an election. 4. Brief Facts in both the writ petitions are as follows: 4.1. The 4 th respondent in W.P.No.104391 of 2025, is a Federal Society established in the year 1984-85. The petitioner in the said writ petition is elected as Director of Alnawar, Dharwad, Navalgund and Annigeri Taluk in an election conducted on 30-06-2024. The petitioner is then elected as the President of the Union on 12-07-2024. During the subsistence of the term of the petitioner, the 3 rd respondent appointed the Returning Officer for conduct of elections. Draft eligible electoral list and ineligible electroral list was notified on 08-10-2024. The calendar of events is issued by the Returning Officer on 15-05-25 of the Shivalli Milk Proucer Cooperative Society. The Jonit Registrar Cooperative Societies stayed the caledar of events in terms of his order dated 26-05-2025. This action is challenged before this Court in W.P.103377 of 2025 by the Society. The said writ petition is said to be pending adjudication. The calendar of events is issued by the Returning Officer on 15-05-25 of the Shivalli Milk Proucer Cooperative Society. The Jonit Registrar Cooperative Societies stayed the caledar of events in terms of his order dated 26-05-2025. This action is challenged before this Court in W.P.103377 of 2025 by the Society. The said writ petition is said to be pending adjudication. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, in terms of his order dated 28-05-2025, stayed the order of the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies staying the calendar of events, on the score that it was without jurisdiction. 4.2. A representation comes to be submitted to the 2 nd respondent by the petitioner contending that W.P.No.103377 of 2025 is pending consideration, therefore, the election should not proceeded further. The impugned order is passed rejecting the said representation of the petitioner and sought to proceed with the elections. Pursuant to the rejection, the Deputy Commissioner is said to have corresponded with the Commissioner of the Cooperative Election Authority and appointed a Returning Officer to conduct election to the post of President and Vice-President of the respondent Union and the post of Director of Alnavar, Dharwad, Navalgund and Annigeri. It is at that time, the subject petition W.P.104391 of 2025 is preferred. The coordinate bench of this Court, in terms of an order dated 07-07-25 granted an interm order of stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned correspondence dated 03-07-2025. 4.3. It is the averment in the petition that the 3 rd respondent ignoring the interim order, issued a notice to proceed with the elections. Those orders come to be stayed by the coordinate bench of this Court in the pending W.P.No.103377 of 2025. This comes to be challenged before the Divsiion Bench in W.A.No.100455 of 2025. The Division Bench of this Court in terms of its order dated 04-09-2025 disposed the writ appeal with a direction to proceed with the election and to place the results of election in a sealed cover before the Registrar, while further directing the learned single Judge to dispose W.P.No.103377 of 2025. Both these orders are called in question before the Apex court. The Apex Court, in terms of its order dated 15-09-2025 directed the learned single Judge to dispose W.P.103377 of 2025 while observing that the respondents were free to declare the results of the election of the Society. 4.4. Both these orders are called in question before the Apex court. The Apex Court, in terms of its order dated 15-09-2025 directed the learned single Judge to dispose W.P.103377 of 2025 while observing that the respondents were free to declare the results of the election of the Society. 4.4. The learned single Judge on 22-09-2025 directed declaration of the results of the election to the Society, but the interim order dated 07-07-25 in W.P. 104391 of 2025 was still subsisting. The Union issues notice, without considering the interim order subsisting in W.P.104391 of 2025 dated 07-07-2025. It is this action of the Union dated 30-10-2025 declaring that there is a vacancy to the post of Director of the Union and notifies coopting a Director from another Society that forms the fulcrum of the lis in W.P.No.108123 of 2025. As observed hereinabove, since one is the offshoot of another, the two are taken up together. 5.1. The learned senior counsel Sri Jayakumar S Patil, would vehemently contend that there is no question of coopting another Director, as the 2 nd petitioner in W.P.No.108123 of 25 continues to be the Director. His alleged disqualification is stayed by the Joing Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The learned senior counsel would submit that the history dates back to W.P.No.107121 of 2024 wherein an interim order was operating and on the date of pronouncement, the 7 th respondent/complainant therein through his counsel sought withdrawal of the complaint dated 6-11-2024 filed before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. After the disposal of the petition, an administrator comes to be appointed to the Society. 5.2. The petitioner then files an application in the pending writ petition 107121 of 2024. This Court, on 04-04-2025 ordered that if the complainant would want to withdraw the complaint, it is for him to appear before the Authority, who passed the order appointing the Adminsitrator. On 01-04-2025, the appointment of Administrator is stayed by the Secretary. On 14-05-2025 the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies passes an order directing the Returning Officer to conduct the election of the Society, who issued calendar of events. That is challenged before this Court in W.P.103377 of 2025. An order then comes to be passed by the Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Section 29C of the Karntaka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (‘Act’ for short) disqualifying the petitioner. That is challenged before this Court in W.P.103377 of 2025. An order then comes to be passed by the Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Section 29C of the Karntaka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (‘Act’ for short) disqualifying the petitioner. This order was stayed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies in terms of his order dated 30-06-2025. Notwishstanding the aforesaid proceedings, owing to serious policitical pressure, the post in which the petitioner was still functioning was declared to have become vacant on account of disqualification, notifies the elections and the aftermath is the present two petitions filed. The learned senior submits that at every step the respondents wanted to scuttle the orders passed by this Court. 6. Per-contra, the learned Additional Advocate General representing the State would vehemently refute the submissions contending that the petitioner somehow wants to remain in power. The elections that are sought to be conducted from time to time have all sought to be stalled. The petitioner cannot continue as the Director, as he has been disqualified. The petitioner contends that the disqualification is stayed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The original file does not contain the stay order at all. In that light the petitioner today is a disqualified Director and therefore, no fault can be found with the action impugned in terms of the communication dated 30-10-2025, whereby the cooption of a Director another Society has become imperative. Therefore, the petition deserves to be rejected and further declaration of results of election be permitted. 7. The private respondents also would toe the lines of the learned Additional Advocate General including the impleading applicants. The impleading applicants would further add that the petitioner being a disqualified Director under Section 29C of the Act by an order of the ARCS dated 02-06-2025, has no locus to challenge any of the action qua the Society. He would submit that declaration of results has been the order of the Apex Court, therefore, the declaration of results cannot remain only declaration, but will have to be taken forward to its logical conclusion. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned senior Counsel and other respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. A little walk in the history of the dispute is necessary to be noticed. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned senior Counsel and other respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. A little walk in the history of the dispute is necessary to be noticed. The very Society was before this Court in Writ Petition No.107121 of 2025, which comes to be disposed by an order dated 04-04-2025. The reasons rendered therein would be necessary to capture the backdrop of the present problem. The reasons so rendered while disposing the petition reads as follows: 9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. It would suffice, if the narration of the issue in the lis would commence from 06-01-2020. Elections to the 1 st petitioner/Society was held on 06-01-2020 and petitioners 2 to 13 were elected as office bearers of the 1 st petitioner. The term was for a period of five years. The petitioner No.5 serves as a Chairman of the Karnataka Milk Federation, Dharwad. The term of five years was to come to an end on 05-01-2025. 10. Certain provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules are germane to be noticed for consideration of the issue in the lis. Rule 13A, 13B and 13D read as follows: “13-A. Issue of identify card to members The Chief Executive shall issue to every member of the society an identify card indicating the name of the society, full name, membership number, age and residential address of the member. The recent passport size photo of the member shall also be affixed on the identity card of the society duly signed by him and attested by the Chief Executive under the seal of the society. 13-B.Co-operative Election Authority (CEA) :- (1) The Co-operative Election Authority may formulate guidelines for preparation of the electoral rolls and for the conduct of elections of all co-operative societies in the state. (2) Every cooperative society shall furnish such documents and information which the Co-operative Election Authority may require from time to time. 13-B.Co-operative Election Authority (CEA) :- (1) The Co-operative Election Authority may formulate guidelines for preparation of the electoral rolls and for the conduct of elections of all co-operative societies in the state. (2) Every cooperative society shall furnish such documents and information which the Co-operative Election Authority may require from time to time. (3) The salary and allowances of the Co-operative Election Authorities shall,- (a) if he is in service, he shall continue to draw the pay and allowances applicable as per his service conditions, (b) if he is not in service, he shall be paid a salary equal to the salary drawn with basic pay at the lost pay drawn of the pay scale applicable to primate secretary or secretary to this sort. After deducting the pension amount from the total emoluments drawn. (c) The conditions of service relating to the payment of travelling allowance, house rent allowance, conveyance facilities, sumptuary allowance, medical facilities, leave facilities shall be as applicable to a principal secretary or secretary to the government. (4) The salary and allowances of the Secretary of the Co-operative Election Authority shall be as under- (a) He shall continue to draw the pay and allowances applicable as per his service conditions. (5) The salaries, allowances, retirement benefits and the terms and conditions of service (including conduct, discipline and control) of the officers and other employees of the Co- operative Election Authority shall be such as those applicable to the Corresponding category of employees of the State Government. (5) The salaries, allowances, retirement benefits and the terms and conditions of service (including conduct, discipline and control) of the officers and other employees of the Co- operative Election Authority shall be such as those applicable to the Corresponding category of employees of the State Government. … … … 13-D. Preparation of Electoral Rolls and calendar of events (1) Election Officer shall, after due verification, send a consolidated list of all cooperative societies in the district where elections are due at least 120 days before the date of expiry of the term of office of the boards to the Co-operative Election Authority indicating there in the following particulars:- (a) the name and address of the society; (b) number of elected directors of the board; (c) the date of expiry of the term of office of the board; (d) the proposed places where the elections are to be held or other particulars as required by the Co-operative Election Authority (2) The Co-operative Election Authority shall, on receipt of such reports from the Election Officer of the district, containing the list of cooperative societies where elections are due, publish the calendar of events for the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections of the boards of the cooperative societies indicating the name and address of each society; (2-A) The election officer shall take steps for publication of voter list who are not eligible to vote in the following manner, namely. – (i) for publication of draft ineligible electoral list, the chief executive of every cooperative society shall prepare notice in respect of members not attending three out of the last five annual general body meetings and members not utilizing such minimum services or facilities in a co-operative year as specified in the bye laws for three consecutive cooperative years. (ii) The chief executive of every co-operative society shall send above prepared notice to all ineligible members, fifteen days prior to six months to the date of election of the board by registered post and an opportunity shall be given to such member to file their objections, if any within fifteen days from the date of notice. (iii) The chief executive of every cooperative society shall submit the list of ineligible voters to the election officer along with their objections and also produce the records pertaining to absence from general body meeting with attendance and services utilized by members. (iii) The chief executive of every cooperative society shall submit the list of ineligible voters to the election officer along with their objections and also produce the records pertaining to absence from general body meeting with attendance and services utilized by members. He has to produce the records for having sent the notice along with acknowledgement to the election officer within thirty days from the date of notice as specified by the election officer. (iv) The chief executive of every cooperative society shall state in his notice that the ineligible voter can appear before the election officer between thirty days to sixty days from the date of notice to get the remedy. (v) The election officer has to hear and dispose the objections filed by the ineligible voters within sixty days from the days of submission of objections from such voters. (vi) The final list of ineligible voters shall be published on or before fifteen clear days prior to the date of election. (3) The Co-operative Election Authority shall take steps,- (a) for publication of draft eligible electoral list, a list of defaulters, a list of members whose repayments will fall due before the date fixed for publication of final electoral roll at least forty five days before the date of general election calling for objections, if any, and calling upon the defaulter members to repay the amounts due to the Cooperative Societies at least fifteen days before the date of general election. (b) for publication of final eligible voters list on or before fifteen clear days prior to the date of election. Provided that the draft list of eligible members and delegates with right to vote, the list of defaulters and the list of other members and delegates who are not eligible to vote as also the final list of electoral rolls and the election calendar shall be announced on the notice board of the concerned Co- operative Society and its branches, if any, the local office of the department of co-operation, website if any of the co-operative society and such other prominent places having access to the members and delegates of the co-operative society. (4) It shall be the duty of every society to furnish correct information required by the Election Officer to enable him to prepare the electoral rolls, as directed by the Co-operative Election Authority. (4) It shall be the duty of every society to furnish correct information required by the Election Officer to enable him to prepare the electoral rolls, as directed by the Co-operative Election Authority. (5) The chief executive of every cooperative society shall prepare(i) a draft list of the eligible members or representatives and delegates with right to vote,(ii) the list of members whose repayments will fall due before the date fixed for publication of final electoral roll (iii) and the list of defaulters (iv) to the society and list of other members or representatives and delegates who are not eligible to vote at a general election on the basis of entries in the updated membership register specifying,- (a) the name of the member or representative admission number, the name of the parent or husband and the address of such member or representative in the case of an individual member; (b) the admission number, the name of the society, name of the delegate proposed to represent the society in the case of a member society; and submit the said lists to the Election Officer along with the related books, records documents and any other information as the Election officer may require, at least sixty days before the date of election. (6) The Co-operative Election Authority shall call upon the chief executive of the co-operative society to obtain from the member society, the name of an authorized member of the board of such society as a delegate, together with the resolution of the board of the said society and the specimen signature along with photograph of the delegate duly attested and bearing the seal of the society and furnish all such information under sub-rule (5). (7) The final electoral roll shall consist of the following,- (a) all the individual members with right to vote in respect of a primary cooperative society; or (b) all the individual members and the delegates of the members societies with right to vote in respect of a secondary cooperative society; or (c) all the delegates of the member societies with right to vote in respect of a federal and an apex society. (8) The copy of such electoral roll in respect of each society shall be kept open for inspection in the office of such society as also in the office of the Election Officer. (8) The copy of such electoral roll in respect of each society shall be kept open for inspection in the office of such society as also in the office of the Election Officer. (9) The election calendar of events for general election of directors of the board shall provide for,- (a) date of notification inviting nomination; (b) last date for receipt of nomination; (c) date and time for scrutiny of nomination; (d) date and time for publication of list of validly nominated candidates; (e) date and time for withdrawal of nomination papers; (f) Date and time for publication list of contesting candidates; (g) Date and time for allotment of symbols and publication of contesting candidates with symbols; (h) Date and time of poll; (i) Date and time of counting and declaration of results.” (Emphasis supplied) The afore-quoted Rules form the fulcrum of consideration of the issue projected. Rule 13D deals with preparation of electoral rolls and calendar of events. Rule 13D(2A) mandates that the election officer shall take steps for publication of voters list who are not eligible to vote in the manner specified therein. Sub-clause (ii) therein mandates that the Chief Executive of every Cooperative Society shall send above prepared notice to all ineligible members fifteen days prior to six months to the date of election of the Board by registered post and an opportunity shall be given to such members to file their objections, if any, within fifteen days from the date of notice. Clause (iii) therein mandates that the Chief Executive of every Cooperative Society shall submit the list of ineligible voters to the Election Officer along with their objections and also produce records pertaining to the absence from general body meeting or any other ineligibility that they have incurred. The final list of ineligible voters would be published on or before fifteen clear days prior to the date of election. The aforesaid is the mandate of law. Its compliance is what is in dispute in the lis. In terms of law, 195 days prior to expiry of the term, the notice of ineligible voters list is said to have been sent by muddam or by hand and the notice is dated 22-06-2024. To the notice, the list of ineligible voters is appended. Some of them have signed for having received the notice and some of them have affixed their thumb. To the notice, the list of ineligible voters is appended. Some of them have signed for having received the notice and some of them have affixed their thumb. All was well and an order is passed by the 3 rd respondent declaring elections. The order dated 15-11-2024 reads as follows: It is at that stage the petitioners are before this Court. 11. The issue would be, whether the mode of service taken by way of muddam to all the members can meet the mandate of law. It, therefore, becomes germane to notice the order passed by the Division Bench in MYSORE AND CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT CO- OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS ( W.A.No.1333 of 2023 and connected cases decided on 02-01-2024) which though not considered the rigour of Rule 13D(2A), but considered Rule 13 as a whole. The Division Bench has held as follows: “IX. … … … (c) We are also conscious that the provisions of Rules that regulate the preparation for conducting elections in the Co-operative Societies do merit recasting so that there would be clarity as to which duty needs to be performed by whom and that by electoral process, new Boards are constituted before the expiry of the tenure of the existing ones. The proviso to section 39A obligates the CEA to ‘start the preparatory work for the preparation of the electoral rolls for and the conduct of the elections during the last six months prior to the expiry of the term of office of the board of a cooperative society.’ The provisions of Rules 13-C & 13-D cast a duty on the CEA to cause preparation & publication of list of eligible electors, list of defaulters and list of alarmed potential defaulters and thereafter to publish the ‘final eligible voters list on or before fifteen clear days prior to the date of election’. Under Rule 13-D(4), a duty is cast on ‘every society to furnish correct information required by the Election Officer to enable him to prepare the electoral rolls, as directed by the Co-operative Election Authority.’ Sub-Rules (5) & (6) of Rule 13-D cast a facilitative duty on the Chief Executive of every Co-operative Society in this regard. (d) We notice that Rule 13-C(2) of 1960 Rules mandates the Chief Executive of the Society to prepare electoral rolls, of course which go for the approval of jurisdictional EO. (d) We notice that Rule 13-C(2) of 1960 Rules mandates the Chief Executive of the Society to prepare electoral rolls, of course which go for the approval of jurisdictional EO. Rule 13-D(2) authorizes the CEA to publish the Calendar of Events for the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections of the Boards of Co-operative Societies. Rule 13-D(2)(A) directs the EO to take steps for publication of ineligible Voter List. Rule 13- D(4) casts a facilitative duty on every Co-operative Society in this regard. A similar duty also rests on the shoulders of Chief Executive of every Society in terms of sub-Rules (5) & (6) of Rule 13-D. There appears to be some incoherence in the provisions inter se. They yield scope for amplifying the levels of clarity so that one entity does not blame the other and thereby escapes from its obligation, in the matter of taking steps preparatory to and conducting periodical elections. Much deliberation in this regard we do not intend to undertake. (e) In the light of above discussion, we are inclined to accept the submission of Prof. Ravivarma Kumar that all the adverse remarks made in the impugned judgements need to be expunged. That being done, we hasten to add that the CEA may treat itself as advised, hereafter to be more cautious & efficacious in discharging its functions and ensure the holding of periodical elections in very Co-operative Society, leaving no space for accusation/remarks of the kind. ‘There is scope for improvement even in heaven’, said Oscar Wilde (1854- 1900). More is not necessary to specify. X) AS TO DESIRABILITY OF CONDUCTING ELECTIONS TO THE BOARDS OF DCC BANKS EXPEDITIOUSLY: (a) All the above being said, we are of a considered view that the right to form a Co-operative Society itself being a Fundamental Right as already discussed above, the holding of elections to the Boards of DCC Banks, cannot be deferred or delayed indefinitely, as has deplorably happened in the cases at hands. Now that the CEA and the jurisdictional EOs are taking steps on a war footing, the process of elections should be accomplished in true letter & spirit of the impugned judgements. Now that the CEA and the jurisdictional EOs are taking steps on a war footing, the process of elections should be accomplished in true letter & spirit of the impugned judgements. At the same time, we permit marginal relaxation qua the timelines prescribed by the extant Rules and also the period fixed by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 10.10.2023, keeping in view the apparent difficulties the authorities may counter in the exercise. Since this concession is being made in the peculiar circumstances of the case, no one need to have an apprehension that this view would be having any precedential value, for being tapped in any other case.” (Emphasis supplied) The Division Bench was affirming the order of the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge considers the mandate of Rule 13D(2A), but not with regard to mode of service, but with regard to the mandate of timeline i.e., 6 months from the date of expiry of the term. The learned single Judge has, in the case of M.KUMAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA ( W.P.No.20333 of 2023 and connected cases decided on 10- 10-2023) held as follows: “8. As per the Act and the Rules made thereunder, the responsibility of conducting the elections is both on the Chief Executive Officer of the Society as well as the Election Authority. The role of the Chief Executive Officer becomes important in preparation of the electoral roll. 9. Rule 13-D(2-A) of the Rules reads as under: "Rule 13-D: Preparation of Electoral Rolls and calendar of events.- (1) xxx (2) xxx (2-A) The election officer shall take steps for publication of voter list who are not eligible to vote in the following manner, namely.- (i) For publication of draft ineligible electoral list, the chief executive of every cooperative society shall prepare notice in respect of members not attending three out of the last five annual general body meetings and members not utilizing such minimum services or facilities in a co-operative year as specified in the byelaws for three consecutive co-operative years. (ii) The chief executive of every co-operative society shall send above prepared notice to all ineligible members, fifteen days prior to six months to the date of election of the board by registered post and an opportunity shall be given to such member to file their objections, if any within fifteen days from the date of notice. (ii) The chief executive of every co-operative society shall send above prepared notice to all ineligible members, fifteen days prior to six months to the date of election of the board by registered post and an opportunity shall be given to such member to file their objections, if any within fifteen days from the date of notice. (iii) The chief executive of every co-operative society shall submit the list of ineligible voters to the election officer along with their objections and also produce the records pertaining to absence from general body meeting with attendance and services utilized by members. He has to produce the records for having sent the notice along with acknowledgement to the election officer within thirty days from the date of notice as specified by the election officer. (iv) The chief executive of every cooperative society shall state in his notice that the ineligible voter can appear before the election officer between thirty days to sixty days from the date of notice to get the remedy. (v) The election officer has to hear and dispose the objections filed by the ineligible voters within sixty days from the days of submission of objections from such voters. (vi) The final list of ineligible voters shall be published on or before fifteen clear days prior to the date of election." 10. (v) The election officer has to hear and dispose the objections filed by the ineligible voters within sixty days from the days of submission of objections from such voters. (vi) The final list of ineligible voters shall be published on or before fifteen clear days prior to the date of election." 10. Section 39-AA (clause 15) of the Act reads as under: "Section 39-AA: Co-operative Election Commission.- (1) TO (14)- xxx (15) The board of every cooperative society shall.- (a) inform the Co-operative Election Authority about the expiry of its term of office at least six months before the date of expiry of such term; (b) furnish such books records and information as the Authority may require as per the calendar prescribed by the Co-operative Election Authority; and (c) provide all necessary help, assistance and co-operation for the smooth preparation of electoral rolls for and the conduct of elections." A reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that the Chief Executive Officer of every Co-operative Society is required to verify who are the ineligible members and he is required to send a notice to them mentioning the grounds on which they are being considered as ineligible to vote in the ensuing elections and the said notice has to be sent 15 days prior to six months to the date of election of the Society (Board) by registered post and an opportunity also has to be given to such member to file his objections, if any, within 15 days from the date of the said notice. Apart from sending of the said notice, the Chief Executive Officer before six months prior to the expiry of the term of the Board is required to intimate the Election Officer the date of expiry of the term of the Board of the Society and request for election to be held to such Society. 11. In the instant case, admittedly, the notice as contemplated under Rule 13-D(2-A)(ii) of the Rules has not been sent within the time stipulated and it had been sent as late as 03.08.2023. However, the Chief Executive Officer has informed the Election Officer about the expiry of the term of the Board as stipulated and the same has been informed on 04.05.2023. 12. However, the Chief Executive Officer has informed the Election Officer about the expiry of the term of the Board as stipulated and the same has been informed on 04.05.2023. 12. Further, the Chief Executive Officer of the Society is required to intimate the alleged ineligible voter to whom the notice is sent that he can appear before the Election Officer between 30 to 60 days from the date of notice. This aspect has not been mentioned in the notice issued in the instant case. 13. After receipt of the letter from the Chief Executive Officer about the date on which the term of the Board comes to an end, a calendar of events as contemplated under Rule 13-D(2) of the Rules has to be issued by the Co-operative Election Authority. 14. Rule 13-D(2) of the Rules reads as under: "13-D(2). The Co-operative Election Authority shall, on receipt of such reports from the Election Officer, containing the list of cooperative societies where elections are due, publish the calendar of events for the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections of the boards of the co-operative societies indicating the name and address of each society." In the instant case, the said notice has not been issued by the Election Authority and it is a grave error on the part of the Election Authority in not doing so. The Election Authority relies upon an order dated 16.09.2022 bearing No. and contends the same to be a composite order issued under the provisions of Rule 13-BB and 13-D(2) of the Rules. 15. Rule 13-BB of the Rules deals with appointment of an Election Officer and the notification that is required to be issued in this regard. The order referred to by the Election Authority is precisely that. A reading of the same reveals that an Election Officer is appointed to conduct elections to the Federal Societies in the entire State and the actions that he is required to carry out. Rule 13-D(2) requires publishing of calendar of events for the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections to the Boards of the Co- operative Societies indicating the name and address of each Society which is absent in the said order. Further, the subject mentioned in the said order itself reveals that it is only an order under Rule 13-BB and not Rule 13-D(2) as contended by the Election Authority. 16. Further, the subject mentioned in the said order itself reveals that it is only an order under Rule 13-BB and not Rule 13-D(2) as contended by the Election Authority. 16. Rule 13-D(2-A)(iii), (v) and (vi) of the Rules reads as under: "13-D(2-A)(iii) The chief executive of every co-operative society shall submit the list of ineligible voters to the election officer along with their objections and also produce the records pertaining to absence from general body meeting with attendance and services utilized by members. He has to produce the records for having sent the notice along with acknowledgement to the election officer within thirty days from the date of notice as specified by the election officer. (iv) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (v) The election officer has to hear and dispose the objections filed by the ineligible voters within sixty days from the days of submission of objections from such voters. (vi) The final list of ineligible voters shall be published on or before fifteen clear days prior to the date of election." 17. Rule 13-D(3), (4) and (5) of the Rules reads as under: "13-D(3) The Election Officer shall take steps for publication of voters list in the following manner, namely.- (a) for publication of draft eligible electoral list, a list of defaulters, a list of members whose repayments falls due, before the election date clear fifty days; (b) for calling objections, if any, calling upon the defaulter members to repay the amounts due to the cooperative societies on or before thirty clear days prior to the date of election; (c) the scrutiny and verification of the voters list after payment by defaulters etc. clear twenty days before the date of election; (d) for publication of final eligible voters list before fifteen clear days prior to the date of election. (4) It shall be the duty of every society to furnish correct information required by the lection Officer to enable him to approve the electoral rolls as directed by the Co-operative Election Authority. clear twenty days before the date of election; (d) for publication of final eligible voters list before fifteen clear days prior to the date of election. (4) It shall be the duty of every society to furnish correct information required by the lection Officer to enable him to approve the electoral rolls as directed by the Co-operative Election Authority. (5) The chief executive of every cooperative society shall prepare(i) a draft list of the eligible members or representatives and delegates with right to vote, (ii) the list of members whose repayments will fall due before the date fixed for publication of final electoral roll, (iii) a list of defaulters, (iv) a list of other members or representatives and delegates who are not eligible to vote at a general election indicating the reasons for ineligibility member wise on the basis of entries in the updated membership register specifying,- (a) the name of the member or representative, the admission number, the name of the parent or husband and the address of such member or representative in the case of an individual member; (b) the admission number, the name of the society, name of the delegate proposed to represent the society in the case of a member society, and submit the said lists to the Election Officer along with the related books, records documents and any other information as the Election officer may require, at least sixty days before the date of election." 18. Rule 14 of the Rules reads as under: "14. Notification of General Election.- (1) The Election Officer shall with the approval of the CEC notify in Form XI the intended election referred to in Section 39-AA. (2) The Election Officer shall in such notification specify.- (i) the last date for making nominations which shall be the seventh clear day before the date of election; (ii) the date for the scrutiny of nominations, which shall be the day immediately following the last date for making nominations; (iii) the last date for the withdrawal of candidatures, which shall be the fifth clear day before the date of election; (iv) the date on which the poll shall, if necessary, be taken and the hours between 9.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. during which the poll shall be taken; and (v) the date before which the election shall be completed. (3)(a) On the issue of the notification under sub-rule (1), the returning officer shall give a public notice of the intended election in Form XII by displaying it on the notice board in his office and in the office of the cooperative society and at such other places as he deems necessary, inviting nominations for such election. (b) in the said notice, the returning officer shall specify among other things the last date for receipt of nominations, the place at which nominations are to be delivered, date of scrutiny of nominations, the last date for withdrawal of candidature, the date on which a poll shall, if necessary be taken and the hours between 9.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. of poll and the date before which elections shall be completed which shall conform to the dates notified in that behalf by the Election Officer under subrule (2)." Thus, the Chief Executive Officer subsequent to issuance of the notice as contemplated under Rule 13-D(2-A)(ii) of the Rules is required to submit the list of ineligible voters to the Election Officer along with their objections and other records as contemplated under the Rules and the Election Officer has to hear and dispose of the objections filed by the ineligible voters, if any, within 60 days from the date of submission of objections from such voters and thereafter it becomes the responsibility of the Election Officer to prepare the list of eligible voters and finalise the electoral rolls. In the meanwhile, the Election Officer is also required to issue a notification under Rule 14(1) specifying the dates regarding the elections. 19. In the instant case, admittedly, the Chief Executive Officer of the Society has not issued notices to ineligible voters as required in law. The contention of the petitioners that the Society is not required to adhere to the time limit prescribed in the Rules cannot be accepted. Rule 13-D(2-A)(ii) of the Rules makes it mandatory for the Chief Executive Officer to issue notice 15 days prior to expiry of six months to the date of election to the alleged ineligible voters stating the reason thereto. This is because the ineligible voters, if aggrieved, can submit their objections and they also can be heard. Rule 13-D(2-A)(ii) of the Rules makes it mandatory for the Chief Executive Officer to issue notice 15 days prior to expiry of six months to the date of election to the alleged ineligible voters stating the reason thereto. This is because the ineligible voters, if aggrieved, can submit their objections and they also can be heard. The proposition that electoral roll once submitted to the Election Officer by Chief Executive Officer, even if there is any lapse in the same is not a ground for postponing elections does not hold good in respect of the Co-operative Societies because in elections to State Legislature or Parliament or local bodies the responsibility of preparing electoral roll is solely on the Election Conducting Authority or Election Commission as the case may be. However, in the instant case, there is a responsibility on the part of the Chief Executive Officer of the Society as stipulated in the Act and the Rules in facilitating the preparation of electoral rolls. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, admittedly, there has been a delay on part of the Chief Executive Officer of the Society in sending notices to the alleged ineligible members. This has resulted in not giving sufficient time to them to file their objections and appear before the Election Officer to redress their grievances, if any. Under the circumstances, it becomes difficult for the Election Officer to publish the eligible voter list and this can definitely be a ground for postponing the elections. 20. The Election Officer based upon the information provided by the Chief Executive Officer has issued the notification under Rule 14(1) of the Rules in Form No.11. It is not the calendar of events which is required to be issued by the Returning Officer at least 15 days prior to the date of elections as per Rule 13-E of the Rules. The Election Officer after issuance of the notification under Rule 14(1), upon realisation that eligible and ineligible voters have not yet been determined, has withdrawn the same and postponed the elections. I do not see any error in the same. 21. The Election Officer after issuance of the notification under Rule 14(1), upon realisation that eligible and ineligible voters have not yet been determined, has withdrawn the same and postponed the elections. I do not see any error in the same. 21. However, as mentioned above, the Chief Executive Officer of the Society has erred in not issuing the notice to the alleged ineligible voters within time as contemplated under Rule 13-D(2-A)(ii) and the Co-operative Election Authority has failed to publish calendar of events for the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections of the Board of the Society as contemplated under Rule 13-D(2). The said acts has resulted in confusion and postponement of elections to the Society. 22. It is needless to state that whatever may be the mistakes that have happened, in the interest of the Society as well as keeping in view the spirit of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and the co-operative movement it is advisable that an elected body is constituted at the earliest and powers of governing of the Society are vested with the elected body rather than an Administrator appointed by the State. 23. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State and learned Senior Counsel Professor Ravi Verma Kumar appearing for the Co-operative Election Authority fairly submitted that election to the Society was sought to be cancelled because the electoral roll could not be finalized and that election would be conducted to the Society within a period of 120 days from today. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the State has no intention of penalizing the office bearers of the Society by disqualifying them. 24. Thus, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, without making this as a precedent, it would be appropriate to permit the Co-operative Election Authority to conduct elections to the Society within a period of 120 days from today with a direction that they shall not take steps to have the office bearers of the Board of Society disqualified from contesting future election on the ground that there was postponement of elections due to the mistake of the Chief Executive Officer.” (Emphasis supplied) The coordinate Bench clearly holds that Rule 13D has to be followed in letter and spirit. Though the consequence of not following is not enumerated in the Rules, it is axiomatic, as the mandate of the rule is mode of service by a particular method. The said mode cannot be given a go-bye. 12. It is trite that if law prescribes a particular method of execution of the provisions of law, it should be executed in that manner only and not in any other manner. Circumstance of flexibility cannot override or dilute the mandate of law. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that in every society the State has accepted the mode of service by muddam and, therefore the petition has to be allowed is neither here nor there, as several wrongs cannot make them a right. There is no concept of negative equality in law. In this it is apposite to refer to some of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court. The Apex Court in the case of BABU VERGHESE V. BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA in (1999) 3 SCC 422 , has held as follows: “31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1875) 1 Ch D 426 : 45 LJCh 373] which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor [(1936) 63 IA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253 ] who stated as under: “[W]here a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.” 32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. [ AIR 1954 SC 322 : 1954 SCR 1098 ] and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan [ AIR 1961 SC 1527 : (1962) 1 SCR 662 ] . These cases were considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [ AIR 1964 SC 358 : (1964) 1 SCWR 57] and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case [(1936) 63 IA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253 ] was again upheld. These cases were considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [ AIR 1964 SC 358 : (1964) 1 SCWR 57] and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case [(1936) 63 IA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253 ] was again upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognised as a salutary principle of administrative law.” (Emphasis supplied) Further, in the case of STATE OF ODISHA V. ANUP KUMAR SENAPATI in (2019) 19 SCC 626 , the Apex Court holds as follows: “39. It was lastly submitted that concerning other persons, the orders have been passed by the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court and grants-in-aid have been released under the 1994 Order as such on the ground of parity this Court should not interfere. No doubt, there had been a divergence of opinion on the aforesaid issue. Be that as it may. In our opinion, there is no concept of negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. In case the person has a right, he has to be treated equally, but where right is not available a person cannot claim rights to be treated equally as the right does not exist, negative equality when the right does not exist, cannot be claimed.” (Emphasis supplied) In the case of STATE OF ORISSA V. MAMATA MOHANTY in (2011) 3 SCC 436 , the Apex Court holds as follows: “56. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equality. Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh [ (1995) 1 SCC 745 : AIR 1995 SC 705 ] , Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh [ (1995) 1 SCC 745 : AIR 1995 SC 705 ] , Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [ (2003) 3 SCC 548 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 346 : AIR 2003 SC 1241 ] , Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana [ (2005) 9 SCC 164 : AIR 2005 SC 565 ] , K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. [ (2006) 3 SCC 581 : AIR 2006 SC 898 ] , Krishan Bhatt v. State of J&K [ (2008) 9 SCC 24 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 783] , Upendra Narayan Singh [ (2009) 5 SCC 65 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 1019] and Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal [ (2010) 2 SCC 422 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 385 : AIR 2010 SC 3455 ] .) (Emphasis supplied) In the case of R. MUTHUKUMAR V. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR TANGEDCO in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 151 , the Apex Court holds as follows: “28. A principle, axiomatic in this country's constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality. In other words, if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. In Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer 14 , this court ruled that: “8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated.” 29. Other decisions have enunciated or applied this principle (Ref : Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh, Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P.; Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab, and Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab). If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated.” 29. Other decisions have enunciated or applied this principle (Ref : Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh, Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P.; Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab, and Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab). Recently, in The State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati this court observed as follows: “If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision.” (Emphasis supplied) It would have been an altogether different circumstance if no person had objected to the procedure followed. Even one person objecting to the finalization/approval of ineligible voters list would render denial of opportunity to file objections as sub-clause (iii) of Rule 13D(2A) permits an objector to file his objections. Therefore, that opportunity having been lost, it would not lie with the petitioners to contend that any mode of service should be accepted. In all those Societies which have accepted the mode of service adopted therein, there were no objections filed by any member. Here, one of the members has objected and, therefore, the mandate of law could not have been given a go-bye. 13. The learned senior counsel would submit that even if the process had to recommence from the stage of issuance of notice by RPAD to every member in terms of the Rules, the petitioners should be permitted to continue and they should be permitted to hold the elections. This is on the strength of the Government order dated 05-06-2024 which reads as follows:- On the same day, on receipt of objections, the order is changed and a direction is issued to comply with the mandate of Rule 13D(2A) of the Rules. The modified order reads as follows: The said Government order has restrictive application. It was issued in the wake of parliamentary elections being declared only in those societies that had already set the elections in motion. The modified order reads as follows: The said Government order has restrictive application. It was issued in the wake of parliamentary elections being declared only in those societies that had already set the elections in motion. Therefore, none of the grounds urged by the petitioners would enure to their benefit. 14. The matter was posted for its pronouncement on 20-02-2024. At the time of pronouncement, the complainant/ proposed respondent No.7 appeared before the Court through his counsel Sri Avinash Banakar and submitted that he was wanting to withdraw the very complaint, which was the foundation for all the proceedings. Therefore, the pronouncement of the said judgment was deferred. The matter was re-heard. The learned Additional Advocate General contended that the complaint of the proposed 7 th respondent merged into the proceedings and the order impugned. Therefore, the complainant cannot now contend before this Court that he would wish to withdraw the complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend if the complaint itself would not be in existence, the entire impugned proceedings would become a nullity. 15. As contended by the learned Additional Advocate General, the complaint has merged into the order. The order impugned is tested before this Court. This Court has not found favour with the submissions of the petitioners. However, if the complainant wanted to withdraw the complaint, it was open for him to appear before the Authority who passed the order and so contend. I do not find any warrant to interfere with the order even after the re-hearing of the matter. 16. The petition lacking in merit stands rejected and the process as directed by respondent No.3 be continued and taken to its logical conclusion, in accordance with law. Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2024 also stands disposed.” When the matter was posted for its pronouncement, the 7 th respondent/complainant appeared before the Court through his counsel and submitted that he wanted to withdraw the complaint, which was the foundation for all the proceedings which formed the fulcrum in W.P.No.107121 of 2024. However, this Court observed that it is open to the complainant to withdraw the complaint, appearing before the Authority who had passed the order. 10. After the disposal of the said petition, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies passes an order on 14-05-2025 directing the Returning Officer to conduct the election of the Society. The Returning Officer issues calendar of events on 15-05-2025. 10. After the disposal of the said petition, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies passes an order on 14-05-2025 directing the Returning Officer to conduct the election of the Society. The Returning Officer issues calendar of events on 15-05-2025. Elections progressed. The calendar of events so notified was challenged before the Joing Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The Joing Registrar of Cooperative Societies, by his order dated 26-05-2025, stayed the calendar of events. The Societyr files W.P.No.103377 of 2025 assailing the said order. During the pendency of the said petition, an order comes to be passed under Section 29C of the Act disqualifying the petitioner on 02-06-2025. The said order comes to be challenged before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies invoking Section 106 of the Act who grants an interim order dated 30-06-2025 by the following order: The said order of disqualification passed during the pendency of the aforesaid petition thus comes to be stayed on 30-06-2025. In the teeth of the disqualification being stayed, the petitioner continued to be in the status that he was prior to passage of the order dated 02-06-2025. Notwithstanding this, the election was sought to be continued, by a communication dated 03-07-2025. Therefore, the petitioner approaches this Court in W.P.No.104391 of 2025. The coordinate bench grants an interim order on 07-07-2025, the order reads as follows: “Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Jaykumar S. Patil appearing on behalf of Smt.Vidyavathi M. Kotturshettar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned AGA is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Issue notice to respondents Nos.1 and 4. There shall be stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order bearing No.KRA.CHUNAVANE/VAHI.04/2025-26 dated 03.07.2025, till the next date of hearing. Respondents are at liberty to move the Court for modification of this order. Hand delivery permitted.” Notwithstanding the grant of the interim order, the Returning Officer fixed the date of election as 28-07-2025. By an application this is challenged in the pending W.P.No.W.P.103377 of 2025. The coordinate bench, in terms of its order dated 22-07-2025 permits continuation of election from the stage of its stops and makes it subject to the result of the writ petition. By an application this is challenged in the pending W.P.No.W.P.103377 of 2025. The coordinate bench, in terms of its order dated 22-07-2025 permits continuation of election from the stage of its stops and makes it subject to the result of the writ petition. The order reads as follows: “ORDER i. There shall stay of the impugned order dated 26.05.2025 bearing No.Kra/JRL/F/CR-02/XRO/2025-26 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A, order dated 27.05.2025 bearing No.Kra.DRJD/Shivallihallu/CR-18/2025-26 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-B and order dated 27.05.2025 bearing No.Kr.Ri.A/Shivallihallu/CR/2025-26 passed by respondent No.5 vide Annexure-C. Consequently, there shall be stay of the order dated 28.05.2025 bearing No.KRA.DRZ/Shivallihalu/CR-18/2025-26 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-L. ii. The election process shall continue from the stage where it was interjected/stopped. iii. However, this order shall be subject to out come of the writ petition. List this matter on 05.08.2025. Hand delivery of this order is already communicated.” The contesting candidate said to have preferred W.A.No.100455 of 2025. The Division Bench disposes the writ appeal on 04-09-2025 directing election to proceed, but results not to be declared till the disposal of the writ petition. This is challenged before the Apex Court. The Apex Court passes the following order: “UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER On mentioning the matter is taken up. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted declaration of that this Court has specifically granted stay while clarifying that the learned Single Judge shall proceed with a result. However, it has been misconstrued to mean that it is for the learned Single Judge to take a call on that. We make it clear that the intention of our order is to publish the election result which is obviously be subject to Further orders in this Special Leave Petition. In such view of the matter, we clarify that the result of election be declared forthwith. (SWETA BALODI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS (POONAM VAID) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR" The coordinate bench noticing the order of the Apex Court then passes the following order: “ 1. By way of order dated 15.9.2025 in SLP No.26208/2025, the Hon’ble Apex Court had indicated that this Court shall be free to declare the results of the election process already held. (SWETA BALODI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS (POONAM VAID) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR" The coordinate bench noticing the order of the Apex Court then passes the following order: “ 1. By way of order dated 15.9.2025 in SLP No.26208/2025, the Hon’ble Apex Court had indicated that this Court shall be free to declare the results of the election process already held. By way of order dated 19.9.2025, the Hon’ble Apex Court has made its intention clear that the results of the elections are required to be published which would be subject to the further orders in Special Leave Petition. 2. The cover which had been submitted by Returning Officer which has kept in safe custody was secured from safe custody. On examination of the cover, it was found to be untampered and bearing the seal. The counting sheets were taken out from the said cover. In pursuance of which, the following results were announced. 3. In General category, there are being a total of 1237 votes cast, the details thereof are as under: 4. In SC category, there being a total of 215 votes cast, the details thereof are as under: 5. Insofar as ST category is concerned, all the counsel submit that there was no contest and there being only one candidate, the said candidate has already been declared as elected. 6. Insofar as BCA-2 category, there being a total of 371 votes cast, the details thereof are as under: 7. Insofar as Women Category is concerned, there being total of 386 votes cast, the details thereof are as under: 8. All the counsel submit that there are total 13 directors out of which ‘7’ belong to general category, ‘1’ each belong to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category and ‘2’ each to the backward caste ‘A’ category and women category. 9. In all, the following are the declared as elected candidates as per the respective categories: 10. The vote tally sheets are put back in sealed cover and returned to the learned AGA to be handed over to the Returning Officer. 11. The above result shall be subject to further orders in SLP No.26208/2025. Hence, the above writ petition is adjourned sine dine pending the disposal of SLP No.26208/2025. Registry is directed to re-list the matter after such disposal. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner and respondents to move the matter after such disposal. 12. 11. The above result shall be subject to further orders in SLP No.26208/2025. Hence, the above writ petition is adjourned sine dine pending the disposal of SLP No.26208/2025. Registry is directed to re-list the matter after such disposal. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner and respondents to move the matter after such disposal. 12. The Returning Officer shall comply with all other formalities required to be completed, including the issuance of necessary certificates. 13. Hand delivery ordered. In the interregnum a separate problem crops up. On 30-10-2025, a meeting notice is issued. The notice reads as follows: The meeting notice is for the purpose of coopting another Director, on the score that the post of Director of Dharwad, Alnavar, Navalgund, Annigeri has become vacant. The said meeting notice results in W.P.No.108123 of 2025. This Court, on 03-11-2025 passed the following order: “Learned AAG is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel Sri. Aravind D. Kulkarni is directed to accept notice for respondent No.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner to serve a set of papers to the aforesaid counsel forthwith. Heard learned counsel Smt. Vidyavathi M. Kotturshetter appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. The subject petition was moved on a Sunday i.e. 02.11.2025 to be listed today owing to certain urgency in the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioners had projected that a meeting is slated to be held at 11:00 a.m. today for co-opting a director in the teeth of the presence of the second petitioner, a director of the society. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order which projects that there is vacancy so the director should be co-opted, is contrary to the facts. There is no vacancy is her emphatic submission. The learned Additional Advocate General taking this Court through Section 18B of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, would contend that by operation of law i.e. Section 18B, the second petitioner ceases to be a director and he is ceased to be a director with effect from 01.01.2025 and therefore the co-option has to happen, as there cannot be a vacuum. The matter would require consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the meeting is to be held today at 11 o'clock. The matter would require consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the meeting is to be held today at 11 o'clock. I, therefore, direct respondent No. 3 to hold its hands and not to hold the meeting or co-opt the director till the next date of hearing. List the matter on 07.11.2025, in fresh matters list. Objections, if any, to be filed by then, if the State would so desire. Registry to print the name of the counsel appearing for the respondents in the cause list.” It was the case of the learned Additional Advocate General that by virtue of Section 18B of the Act, petitioner ceases to be a Director with effect from 01-01-2025 itself and therefore, the cooption had to happen. The said submission is amplified while submitting on the merit of the matter. The amplification is sans substance. 11. In the teeth of all the aforesaid orders and narration of facts and orders passed, the post of Director would have been vacant, if the proceedings initiated under Section 29C of the Act had become final. The said proceeding is still pending before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The entire fulcrum of the grievance is pending consideration in W.P.No.103377 of 2025 where there are certain orders passed, as also, the interim order granted in W.P.No.104391 of 2025 on 07-07-2025. With all these factors, it is ununderstandable as to how the impugned notice calling for a meeting for the purpose of coopting a Director can even spring. Therefore, the very notice issued calling for cooption of a Director is without authority of law and hence, is to be obliterated, more so, in the light of the fact that several orders are passed in W.P.No. 103377 of 2025. 12. The learned Additional Advocate General and the other respondents disputed the fact that there was any interim order even granted by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies and therefore, this Court directed the original file to be placed on record. Original file would be the file maintained before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The file is produced. The proceedings dated 30-06-2025 are half found. The order dated 30-06-2025 quoted supra, which was produced in writ petition 103377 of 2025 is missing in the file. The appeal memorandum along with the order is placed before the Court. Original file would be the file maintained before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The file is produced. The proceedings dated 30-06-2025 are half found. The order dated 30-06-2025 quoted supra, which was produced in writ petition 103377 of 2025 is missing in the file. The appeal memorandum along with the order is placed before the Court. The prayer in the appeal memorandum under Section 106 of the Act is as follows: “For the reasons stated above this Hon'ble Appellate Authority may kindly be pleased to grant the following reliefs (a) Set aside the order U/S.29 (C), dated 02.06.2025 bearing No.Kra:AR- 15/Kalam29(C)/R-17/2024-25 passed by Respondent No.1, in the interest of justice. (b) Pass any other order as the Hon'ble Appellate Authority deems fit, in the interest of justice.” The prayer is to set aside the order dated 02-06-2025 and an interim order of stay was sought by the following order: “…. …. …. For the reasons stated above, this Hon'ble Authority may kindly be pleased to stay the order U/S.29 (C), dated 02.06.2025 bearing No. Kra:AR-15/Kalam29(C)/R-17/2024-25 passed by Respondent No.1, in the interest of justice. Hence, this affidavit.” The order that is produced along with the memo of documents filed by the petitioner on 10-11-2025 which was also an annexure to the W.P.No.103377 of 2025 are the same, as it is a certified copy given from the office of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies under the seal and sign, but the order is missing from the file. The custodian of the records before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies is the office of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, which considers Appeal No.2 of 2025-26. 13. If a certified copy is available at the hands of the petitioners, as granted by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, it is ununderstandable as to how the said order itself is missing from the file. The said dispute has now enlarged into a huge problem. Therefore, it becomes necessary for this Court to direct an enquiry into the missing order in the file, as to how it has vanished from the file and at whose instance. Therefore, the Principal Secretary – Department of Cooperation shall hold an enquiry, as to how the order in the file can go missing, notwithstanding the affidavit of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies placed before the Court that he has not granted any interim order. Therefore, the Principal Secretary – Department of Cooperation shall hold an enquiry, as to how the order in the file can go missing, notwithstanding the affidavit of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies placed before the Court that he has not granted any interim order. The enquiry shall be conducted, responsibility fixed and appropriate action be taken by the Principal Secretary, within an outer limit of 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 14. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the unsustainability of the impugned notice dated 30-10-2025, the position of the petitioner is to be restored to the stage, at which the writ petition is preferred. All these would however remain subject to the result of the pending W.P.No.103377 of 2025, which stood adjourned on the score that SLP 26208 of 2025 is pending consideration before the Apex Court, in which orders are passed on 15-09-2025 and 19-09-2025 directing results to be announced of the elections and the order in the SLP is the fulcrum of the lis in W.P.No.103377 of 2025. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition No. 108123 of 2025 is allowed. (ii) The entire proceedings dated 30-10-2025 stand quashed. (iii) Sequentially, the status of the 2 nd petitioner is restored status quo ante, as it prevailed as on the date of the impugned proceedings. (iv) In the light of the position of the 2 nd petitioner being restored status quo ante, the companion Writ Petition No.104391 of 2025 would not survive for any further consideration, accordingly, stands dismissed. The parties are at liberty to avail of such remedy, as is available in law. (v) The Principal Secretary, Department of Cooperation, shall hold an enquiry as to how the order has gone missing from the original file, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order, within an outer limit of 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Pending applications if any, also stand disposed.