JUDGMENT : H.P.SANDESH, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the counsel appearing for the State. This Writ Appeal is filed against the order passed by the Single Judge in Writ Petition No.12804 of 2025 wherein the Single Judge made an observation that similar petitions are filed by the other Directors. But the fact is that the present petitioner has not moved any Writ Petition before this Court. An observation is made that already petition filed seeking for the relief being a gross abuse of the process of the Court, the present petition cannot be entertained by this Court and as such, the above petition is dismissed by imposing the cost to be payable by the petitioner to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru. 2. The counsel would vehemently contend that, when the co-option was challenged before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (for short, 'ARCS') and the same was stayed and as a result the petitioner was unable to participate in the election and cast his vote and merely because other Directors have filed the petition and the same were dismissed and the same cannot be a ground to dismiss the petition with exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only). The counsel also would submit that even after disposal of this Writ Petition also, in view of the observations made by the Single Judge, an application was moved before the ARCS to consider his grievances and even application was filed on 29.04.2025 itself and for advancing the case as well as vacating the interim order, but no such applications are considered. The counsel also would submit that matter is adjourned to 16.05.2025, but election date is fixed on 25th of May 2025 and last date for filing nomination is 17.05.2025. The counsel also would submit that, the modus operandi also can be considered, fixing the date on 16.05.2025 and counsel submits that if even the applications are considered, no opportunity will be given to the appellant to move the matter before the appropriate Court since 18.05.2025 is holiday. Hence, the counsel submits that, he may be permitted to file nomination and cast the vote subject to the result of the matter which is pending before the ARCS. 3. Hence, the counsel submits that, he may be permitted to file nomination and cast the vote subject to the result of the matter which is pending before the ARCS. 3. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the State would submit that, the copy is served in the early morning at 10.30am and could not be able to get the instructions. And also counsel submits that not aware of the reason for not considering the matter for vacating the interim order as soon as applications are filed, but not disputes the fact that application was filed before the ARCS for advancement and vacating the interim order granted by the ARCS. 4. The counsel appearing for the appellant also brought to notice of this Court that earlier petition was filed on 26.04.2025, wherein the parties are same and even subsequent petition on earlier petition No.6/2024-25, Anjanappa and Muniraju were also parties and in the other matter also they were the parties along with other Directors and hence, such being the case two petitions have filed before the ARCS and also to be taken note of. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and also the counsel appearing for the respondent/State and also taking into note of the order passed by the Single Judge in WP.No.12804/2025, this Court by the Single Judge take a note of the relief sought in the Writ Petition and the reason mentioned in paragraph No.5 of the order, it is clear that, it is for the petitioner to move the matter before the ARCS and contest the matter before the ARCS. In fact, there is no relief, which has been sought as regards the order passed by the ARCS except to contend that the said order is illegal, arbitrary and without application of mind. In fact, there is no relief, which has been sought as regards the order passed by the ARCS except to contend that the said order is illegal, arbitrary and without application of mind. Having considered this order, it is very clear that an opportunity is given to approach the ARCS and also it is important to note that an observation is made that instead of approaching the ARCS, filed the Writ Petition before this Court and hence, comes to the conclusion that it is a gross abuse of process of the Court and apart from that in paragraph No.6, an observation is made that once earlier, the other Directors who had co- opted the petitioner had approached this Court without making the petitioner a party, challenging the said order, which was also been dismissed by this Court. The manner in which the earlier Writ Petition had been filed has also the present petition seeking for the aforesaid relief being a gross abuse of the process of the Court. 6. Having considered this reasoning of paragraph No.5 wherein an observation is made that petitioner ought to have been approached the ARCS, but in subsequent paragraph No.6 comes to the conclusion that the same is an abuse of process of Court. 6. Having considered this reasoning of paragraph No.5 wherein an observation is made that petitioner ought to have been approached the ARCS, but in subsequent paragraph No.6 comes to the conclusion that the same is an abuse of process of Court. Admittedly this petitioner had not filed any Writ Petition earlier and when he was not a party the earlier petition if any, filed by the other co-opted Directors in WP.No. 8198/2025 is not binding on the petitioner and hence, the very observation made by the Single Judge that it is an abuse of process and imposing of cost is erroneous and once the appellant is not a party to the earlier proceedings, such observation ought not to have been made and if he is a party, then if he has approached the Court again, then it would amount to an abuse of process but, the very approach of Single Judge is erroneous and the Single Judge failed to take note of the said fact into consideration as well as when the observation is made, ought to have been approached the ARCS and accordingly after the disposal of the matter also an application was filed before the ARCS for consideration of advancement as well as for vacation of the interim order already granted and when such attempt was made by the appellant before the ARCS and the same was not taken up and instead of taking up the matter when the application was filed on 29.04.2025 itself, adjourned the matter to 16.05.2025 and hence the ARCS fails to take note of exigency in the matter and when the date is fixed for filing of nomination on 17.05.2025 and adjourning the matter to 16.05.2025, it is nothing but not considering the grievance of the appellant and when such being the case it is appropriate to pass an order to set aside the order passed by Single Judge by imposing the cost as well as in coming to the conclusion that, it was an abuse of process. However, it is made clear by disposing of this Writ Appeal that, appellant is permitted to file nomination and contest the election by casting the vote and the same is subject to the result of decision to be taken by the ARCS in future. With these observations Writ Appeal is disposed of.