ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: 1.1. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the 3 rd respondent abolition of the elected body and appointing a 2 nd respondent as a special officer in the 1 st respondent society on 11.04.2025 which is produced as Annx-A. 1.2. Issue any other writ or order or directions as this Hon'ble deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case including costs, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner claims to be elected to the post of Director of the 1 st respondent-society in the election conducted on 6.8.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner was elected to the post of President in the election conducted by the office bearers on 19.8.2023. The Board of Directors of the 1 st respondent-society comprising of 12 members. On 25.3.2025, seven members were stated to have submitted their resignation. In pursuance of which, there being no quorum, a Special Officer was appointed, which has been challenged by the Petitioner in this petition. 3. Sri.Adinarayan, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that: 3.1. All the seven Directors have not resigned inasmuch as two of the Directors have sought for withdrawal of their resignation and in this regard, he has filed a memo enclosing the withdrawal letters of Gavirangaiah and Gangaiah, which were submitted on 28.04.2025. 3.2. Earlier resignation of Gavirangaiah and Gangaiah was obtained by fraud by the Secretary, the Secretary has drafted letters on blank papers and obtained signature of Gavirangaiah and Gangaiah by fraud for the purpose of submitting the resignation. 3.3. All the resignations are verbatim the same and written in the same handwriting and therefore, resignation letters cannot be believed. 3.4. If the withdrawal letters of resignation dated 28.04.2025 are accepted, then there would be only five resignations leaving seven continuing Directors, which will form a quorum, not requiring the appointment of a Special Officer. 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 – society would submit that initially resignation having been submitted on 25.3.2025, the alleged withdrawal letters were submitted on 28.4.2025, which is beyond the period of 15 days prescribed under Section 29-B of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act , 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KCS Act’). The withdrawal is not permissible after 15 days. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 – society would submit that initially resignation having been submitted on 25.3.2025, the alleged withdrawal letters were submitted on 28.4.2025, which is beyond the period of 15 days prescribed under Section 29-B of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act , 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KCS Act’). The withdrawal is not permissible after 15 days. The resignation having been acted upon, there being no quorum, the appointment of Special Officer is proper. 5. The above submission is reiterated by the learned AGA to submit that once there is no quorum, Special Officer has to be appointed in terms of Section 31(1) of the KCS Act. 6. Heard Sri Adinarayan, learned counsel for petitioner; Sri Varnakara Reddy K.B., learned counsel for Respondent No.1; and Sri Yogesh D. Naik, learned AGA for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the records. 7. The points that would arise for consideration in the present matter are: 1) Whether the resignation submitted under Section 29-B of the Act can be withdrawn beyond the period of 15 days as prescribed therein? 2) Whether a President of the Co- operative Society, who had not submitted the resignation letter, by relying on the alleged withdrawal of the resignation of the two other Directors, who are not before this Court, seek for setting aside of the order of appointment of the Special Officer? 3) What order? 8. I answer the above points as under:- 9. Answer to Point No.1: Whether the resignation submitted under Section 29-B of the Act can be withdrawn beyond the period of 15 days as prescribed therein? 9.1. Section 29-B of the KCS Act reads as under: Resignation of member of a board or office-bearer of a Co- operative Society - A member of the board of a Co-operative Society or an office-bearer of a Co-operative Society, may resign his membership of the board or as an office-bearer of a society, as the case may be, in writing under his hand addressed to the Chief Executive and it shall become vacant on the expiry of fifteen days from the date of such communication unless within the said period of fifteen days such member of the board or office bearer withdraws such resignation in writing under his hand and addressed to the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive shall place the letter of resignation before the meeting of the board convened next after the communication of such letter. If the member who has resigned, is a nominated member of the society, the chief executive shall inform the nominating society immediately on receipt of the resignation letter. 9.2. A perusal of the above provision indicates that a member of the board of a Co-operative Society or an office-bearer of a Co-operative Society, may resign his membership of the board or as an office-bearer of a society, as the case may be, in writing under his hand addressed to the Chief Executive and it shall become vacant on the expiry of fifteen days from the date of such communication unless within the said period of fifteen days such member of the board or office bearer withdraws such resignation in writing under his hand and addressed to the Chief Executive. 9.3. In the present case, the resignation letters of Gavirangaiah and Gangaiah have been submitted on 25.3.2025 and alleged to have been withdrawn on 28.04.2025 i.e., beyond the period of 15 days. Section 29-B of the KCS Act makes the resignation effective and the resignation is deemed to have been accepted on the expiry of fifteen days from the date of submission of the resignation unless it is withdrawn within fifteen days of such submission. 9.4. In the present case, as could be clearly seen, the alleged withdrawal is beyond the period of fifteen days. The said period of fifteen days having expired on 9.4.2025 and the alleged withdrawal letters of resignation submitted on 28.04.2025, the withdrawal cannot be given effect to. The resignation is deemed to have been accepted on the expiry of 15 days from the date of submission i.e., by the end of 9.4.2025 and no subsequent withdrawal is permitted. 9.5. The further submission that the resignation letters were required to be placed before the meeting of the Board convened next and until then, the resignation cannot be said to have been accepted, is not sustainable inasmuch as the same is only a ministerial act to be followed by the Chief Executive Officer. 9.6. Placing of the resignation before the Board has nothing to do with the acceptance or otherwise of the resignation. 9.6. Placing of the resignation before the Board has nothing to do with the acceptance or otherwise of the resignation. Hence any resignation submitted by the member of the Board of the cooperative society or an office-bearer of the society shall be deemed to have been accepted and shall come into effect on the expiry of fifteen days from the date of submission of the said resignation letters unless the same is withdrawn within fifteen days. 9.7. Hence, I answer Point No.1 by holding that the resignation submitted under Section 29(B) of KSC Act, 1959 cannot be withdrawn beyond the period of 15 days as prescribed therein. The matter would be different if no resignation letter had been submitted and or any allegation of fraud is made as regards the resignation which would have to be considered and determined. 10. Answer to Point No.2: Whether a President of the Co-operative Society, who had not submitted the resignation letter, by relying on the alleged withdrawal of the resignation of the two other Directors, who are not before this Court, seek for setting aside of the order of appointment of the Special Officer? 10.1. The present petition has been filed by the President of the 1 st respondent – society alleging that he has been elected for a period of five years and he shall have to be permitted to continue as such for the complete term. The resignation submitted by Gavirangaiah and Gangaiah on 25.3.2025 has been withdrawn by them on 28.4.2025 and therefore, on such withdrawal, the resignation being only limited to five of the Board members, the quorum continues to be present and therefore, Special Officer ought not to have been appointed. 10.2. The above petition has been filed by the President and not by the persons who are alleged to have withdrawn the resignation. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that Gavirangaiah and Gangaiah had never submitted resignation letters. A perusal of the withdrawal letters dated 28.4.2025 would indicate that said Gavirangaiah and Gangaiah have categorically indicated that they want to take back the resignation letters submitted by them on 25.3.2025. 10.3. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that Gavirangaiah and Gangaiah had never submitted resignation letters. A perusal of the withdrawal letters dated 28.4.2025 would indicate that said Gavirangaiah and Gangaiah have categorically indicated that they want to take back the resignation letters submitted by them on 25.3.2025. 10.3. In the said withdrawal letters, there is no allegation made against the Secretary as regards Secretary having drafted the letter and as the signature of Gavirangaiah and Gangaiah having been obtained by fraud or otherwise, which is the allegation made by the petitioner in the present petition. 10.4. What has to be looked into is the alleged withdrawal letters submitted by Gavirangaiah and Gangaiah wherein they have categorically accepted that they have submitted the resignation letters earlier. 10.5. If that be so, it is not for the President of the society to contend that no resignation has been submitted and therefore, no Special Officer can be appointed. 10.6. Hence, I answer Point No.2 by holding that a person who has not submitted the resignation like the President of the Co-operative Society cannot by himself or herself contend that there is a withdrawal of the resignation by the Directors who had submitted resignation. Any such claim would have to be made by the Directors who alleged that they had not submitted the resignation and/or had withdrawn the resignation and as such, the President could not claim for setting aside the order of appointment of a Special Officer on the ground that a party who is not before this Court had allegedly withdrawn the resignation. 11. ANSWER TO POINT NO.3 : What order? 11.1. In view of my answers to Points No.1 and 2 above, I am of the considered opinion that no grounds have been made out. 11.2. The manner in which the above petition filed by the President who would have no locus insofar as withdrawal of the resignation by the Directors who had submitted and the President/Petitioner in the present matter, having made allegations which are not even contained in the alleged letters withdrawing the resignation as also having made allegation which are contrary to the contents of the alleged withdrawal of resignation letters, I am of the considered opinion that cost would have to be imposed on account of the President/Petitioner having indulged in frivolous, vexatious litigation which has wasted the time of everyone including the Court. 11.3. 11.3. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER : i) The Petition stands dismissed by imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- which shall be payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the KSLSA shall be entitled to recover the same as arrears of land revenue.