(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed by Respondent No.3 dated 24.08.2025 bearing DCKM.ELNOELNS(MISC)8/2025/Cno.269585 at Annexuer-A; quash the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by Respondent No.3 in DCCKM-Elnoelns(Misc)8/2025/C.No.269585, at Annexure-B; and Direct Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to complete the process of elections to Respondent No.5 Bank from the stage where it was stopped by re-scheduling the dates and etc.,

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed by Respondent No.3 dated 24/08/2025 dated nil produced as Annexure -G; quash the order dated 26/08/2025 passed by Respondent No.3 in DCCKMELOELNS(MISC)8/2025/Cno.269585 produced as Annexure -H; directing Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to complete the process of elections to Respondent No 5 Bank from the stage where it was stopped by rescheduling the date and etc.,)

CAV Common Order

1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the orders dated 24.08.2025 and 26.08.2025 passed by respondent No.3- the Deputy Commissioner and District Election Officer, produced as per Annexures-A and B in Writ Petition No.27667 of 2025 and produced as per Annexures-G and H in Writ Petition No.26439 of 2025 and to direct respondents No.3 and 4 to complete the process of elections to respondent No.5 by re-scheduling the date.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, petitioner No.1 is a Co-operative Society registered under Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (for short 'the KCS Act') and petitioner No.2 is the Director of petitioner No.1 - Society and also the delegate to respondent No.5 - District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., (for short 'the DCC Bank') in Writ Petition No.27667 of 2025. Petitioners in Writ Petition No.26439 of 2025 are the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies and its members who were elected to respondent No.5 - DCC Bank.

3. It is contended that, the term of office of the Board of respondent No.5 would expire on 29.09.2025. Thereby, the term of petitioners would come to an end. Respondent No.5 passed a Resolution produced in these writ petitions as per Annexures-B and K respectively, dated 03.02.2025 requesting respondent No.2 to make preparations for the purpose of holding election. Annexures-B/K was communicated to respondent No.2 as per Annexures-B1/L on 15.02.2025. Annexures-B2/M dated 20.02.2025 was issued by respondent No.5 as required under Section 13(D) (2-A)(iv) of KCS Act. Pursuant to the same, the Returning Officer was appointed as per Annexures-C/N dated 23.07.2025, as earlier Returning Officer was transferred. Annexures-D/O dated 30.06.2025 was issued by respondent No.3 under Rule 14(1) of the KCS Rules, publishing the calendar of events scheduling the election that is to be held on 13.09.2025. Thereby, the preparations for finalizing eligible and ineligible voters list were undertaken. Respondent No.3 also issued the Notification dated 30.06.2025 as per Annexure-E in Writ Petition No.26439 of 2025 appointing Verifying Officer and Supervisor. As per this Notification, the draft voters list is to be published within 25.07.2025. The objections were to be submitted before 14.08.2025, the scrutiny of voters list will be on 24.08.2025 and the final voters list will be published on 29.08.2025 i.e. 15 days prior to the date scheduled to hold election. Annexures-F/Q respectively dated 30.06.2025 was also issued by respondent No.3 appointing the Nodal Officer for the purpose of holding election. It is at this stage, respondent No.3 issued the order dated 24.08.2025 produced as per Annexures - A/G, directing respondent No.5 to include the Primary Agriculture Credit Co- operative Society Ltd., (PACCS) Antharagatte, Kadur Taluk by holding election for the Board in accordance with law and to include them in the eligible voters list for respondent No.5. The proceedings of respondent No.3 is dated 26.08.2025 as per Annexures-B/H referring to two objections received i.e., one from the President, Yagati Milk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd. Kadur Taluk and the second one by respondent No.6 - S H Kantharaju - Ex-Director, Antharagatte PACCS, Kadur Taluk and referring to Writ Petition Nos.24811 of 2025 and 36394 of 2024 pending before this Court filed by the said - S H Kantharaju, and Thotaduru and Nandipura Primary Credit Co- operative Society respectively and withdrawing the Notification dated 30.06.2025 issued as per Annexures-D/O i.e. the calendar of events published for holding the election on 13.09.2025. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

4. Heard Sri Jayakumar S Patil, learned senior advocate for Sri Devi Prasad Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt Prathima Honnapur, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents Nos.1, 3 and 4, Sri A Devaraj, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Sri H B Rudresh, learned counsel for respondent No.5, Smt Belli Raviverma, learned counsel for respondent No.6 and Sri M Jai Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8 in Writ Petition No.26439 of 2025.

5. Sri K R Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General along with learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri H B Rudresh, learned counsel for respondent No.5 in Writ Petition No.27667 of 2025 have adopted the arguments in Writ Petition No.26439 of 2025. Perused the materials on record.

6. Learned senior advocate for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.26439 of 2025 contended that, in view of the fact that the term of office of the Board of respondent No.5 is to be expired on 29.09.2025, all the preliminary procedures that are required to be followed well in advance was completed and the calendar of events was issued by respondent No.3 as required under Rule 14(1) of the Karnataka co-operative Societies Rules on 30.06.2025 as per Annexure-D. As per this calendar of events, the election for the Board was scheduled to be held on 13.09.2025. Pursuant to the same, preparations of the eligible and ineligible voters list was undertaken to be published in accordance with the calendar of events.

7. Learned senior advocate drew the attention of the Court to Annexure-G to contend that, the entire reference in the proceedings is to the objections raised by respondent No.6 dated 13.08.2025, wherein there is reference to appointment of the Returning Officer on 20.12.2024 to PACCS, Antharagatte for the purpose of holding election for the Board. But non- holding of election even though the eligible and ineligible voters list are available, which led to appointment of a Administrative officer. There is also reference to extension of the term of Administrative Officer by another three months since the procedure for election was not undertaken. Therefore, respondent No.6 who is an aspirant to contest for the post of Director, requested to hold election for the said PACCS, Antharagatte, Kadur as per his objection dated 13.08.2025. The same was considered by respondent No.3 in-detail noting the contentions raised by respondent No.6 and the objections raised by the respondents therein justifying appointment of the Administrative Officer and extension of his term by another three months on the ground that even though a Notice dated 08.04.2025 was issued as required under Section 13D(2A-5)(ii) and informed that no objections were received and thereafter the original Administrator has went on leave for a period one month requesting for change of Administrator. Accordingly, the Co-operative Development Officer of Kadur was appointed as the Administrator as per order dated 20.07.2025 who issued the notice to the members who are the defaulters, calling upon them to repay the loan amount on or before 20.08.2025. He informed that after following the procedure as per Rule 13D of the KCS Rules, the Returning Officer will be appointed for conducting the election.

8. Learned senior advocate submitted that, it is noticed that the Chief Executive Officer of the Society had not brought to the notice of the Directors about the procedure that was to be followed to initiate proceedings in accordance with law. Therefore, finalization of the voters list for PACCS Antharagatte by the Secretary was not complete. The CEO has not initiated any proceedings for conducting election to elect the fresh members of the Board. It is highlighted that the then Administrator - Sri Pavan even though applied for leave for a month on the ground of his ill-health, returned to the duty within a week and respondent No.3 satisfied that it was a deliberate act on the part of Administrator only with an intention to postpone the election to elect the new body. Under these circumstances, respondent No.3 noticed that the CEO has not brought to the notice of the Board about appointment of the Returning Officer and has not undertaken any steps for preparation of eligible and ineligible voters list, even though the term of office of the Board was completed on 20.01.2025. Accordingly, respondent No.3 passed the order as per Annexure-G on 24.08.2025 accepting the objections raised by respondent No.6 dated 13.08.2025 and directing respondent No.5 to prepare the eligible and ineligible voters list for the purpose of conducting the election for PACCS, Antharagatte, Kadur Taluk.

9. Learned senior advocate contended that pursuant to Annexure-G, respondent No.3 held a proceedings on 26.08.2025 again referring to the objections raised by Yagati Milk Producers Co-operative Society, Kadur and by respondent No.6 being the Ex-Director of PACCS, Antharagatte, Kadur and referred to Writ Petition filed by respondent No.6 before this Court in Writ Petition No.24811 of 2025 seeking for a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct holding of election for PACCS, Antharagatte and filing of Writ Petition No.36394 of 2024 by PACCS, Thotaduru, Kalasa Taluk and PACCS, Nandipura, Mudigere Taluk, seeking voting rights in the election for the Board and also taking into consideration the order dated 29.05.2025 issued by the State permitting the members of PACCS, to cast vote in the election, exempting the requirements under Section 20(2)(a) of KCS Act, proceeded to withdraw the Notification Annexure-D dated 30.06.2025, only to consider the objections raised by respondent No.6 since the State Government has already permitted the members of PACCS including PACCS, Nandipura, Mudigere Taluk to cast the vote in the election and there is no point in referring to Writ Petition No.36394 of 2024, which is pending consideration before this Court as the said writ petition has already rendered infructuous pursuant to the order passed by the State.

10. Learned senior advocate contended that, out of total 132 members of PACCS under respondent No.5, 130 members of PACCS who were eligible for voting PACCSs, Nandipura, Mudigere Taluk were already permitted by the Government to cast their votes. The objections regarding non-holding of election for PACCS, Antharagatte, Kadur, the Administrator is already appointed and none of the members of PACCS, Antharagatte have challenged appointment of such Administrator. No dispute was raised under Section 70 of KCS Act, but in-spite of that, respondent No.3 suo-moto taken the steps to withdraw Annexure-D which would effect 130 eligible PACCSs members. This act on the part of respondent No.3 was after issuance of calendar of events publishing the same on 10.11.2025, scheduling to hold election for respondent No.3 on 30.11.2025. In-fact respondent No.5 has nothing to do with holding of election to PACCS, Antharagatte, Kadur taluk.

11. Learned senior advocate contended that, the other reason assigned for withdrawing Annexure-D is that, the delegation list was not prepared in accordance with law. But nobody raised such an issue regarding validity of the delegation list before any competent authority. It is only respondent No.3 who noticed the so-called irregularity and made it a ground to withdraw Annexure-D.

12. Learned senior advocate contended that, even though three reasons are assigned for withdrawing Annexure- D, by passing Annexures-G and H, none of these grounds could be up-held. Even though respondent No.6 said to have raised certain grounds for filing Writ Petition No.24811 of 2025, the same is still pending before this Court and there was no direction whatsoever to the respondents to withdraw Annexure- D. There is no reason assigned by the respondent as to why he acted hastily to withdraw Annexure-D even when Writ Petition No.24811 of 2025 is still pending consideration. With regard to PACCS, Thotaduru and Nandipura, the Government itself permitted the petitioners in Writ Petition No.36394 of 2024 to participate in the election by passing the order dated 29.05.2025, permitting them to vote in the election to be held. Therefore, even this cannot be the reason to justify the withdrawal of Annexure-D.

13. Learned senior advocate contended that the third and last ground highlighted in Annexures-G and H is that, the delegation lists were not prepared in accordance with law. Admittedly, nobody have challenged the validity of such delegation list. It is only the assumption on the part of respondent No.3 that there are irregularities in issuing such delegation list and made a ground to withdraw Annexure-D. Therefore, learned senior advocate contended that, respondent No.3 was bent upon for withdrawing Annexure-D for the reasons best known to him, even though there are no valid and legal grounds. As on the date of Annexures-G and H i.e. on 24.08.2025 and 26.08.2025, even the verification of voters list was completed only publishing the final eligible voters list was pending to be published on 29.08.2025. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.

14. Learned senior advocate has also drawn the attention of the Court to the additional documents that are produced by respondent No.5 to highlight that Annexure-R4 is dated 20.02.2025 which is a notice issued to ineligible voters. The notices were said to have been sent to the addressees on 21.02.2025. Form No.13-D(1) was submitted to the Co- Operative Election Commission on 26.03.2025 as the term of office of the Board would expire on 29.09.2025. Even the defaulters were notified as per notice dated 25.07.2025 to pay the amount due on or before 29.08.2025 with a warning that, on their failure to pay the amount, the same would result in disqualification from casting votes. Therefore, it is contended by the learned senior advocate that, all the formalities as required under the KCS Act were followed in letter and spirit and there was absolutely no impediment for holding the election as scheduled, but respondent No.3 suddenly came up with Annexures-G and H only with an intention to stall the election, which is obviously with an ulterior motive. Therefore, learned senior advocate prays for quashing both Annexures-G and H dated 24.08.2025 and 26.08.2025 and to direct respondents No.3 and 4 to complete the process of election to respondent No.5-Bank by rescheduling the date in accordance with law.

15. Learned senior advocate drew the attention of the Court to various provisions of KCS Act and Rules and contended that, the appointment of an Administrator will have a serious consequence. Such appointment of Administrator as per Section 28(B-2) of the KCS Act would result only on the failure on the part of the members of the Board to make arrangements for holding election, within the time limit specified in Section 39(A) of KCS Act. It is to be deemed that such members of the Board have vacated the office on the last day of time limit and they are not eligible for election for a period of five years. The Administrator who assumes charge is then required to make arrangement of constitution of new Board in accordance with law.

16. Learned senior advocate contended that, as per Rule 13(BB), the appointment of an Election Officer will be for a specified period. In the present case, respondent No.3 - the Deputy Commissioner is appointed as an Election Officer and it is his responsibility to conduct the general election to the Board by advising the Election Authority on the suitability of the dates for conducting such elections. As per the general superintendence and directions by the election authority, it is he who has to prepare the list of eligible and ineligible voters and should sent the consolidated list to the Co-operative Election Authority. The Election Officer is required to take steps for publication of the voters list who are not eligible to vote as per Rule 13-D(2A(i) and notify such members well in advance if any objections are received from such ineligible voters. It is the duty of Election Officer to hear and dispose of such objections once such procedure is completed, the final list of ineligible voters shall be published. Therefore, it is contended by the learned senior advocate that, for each stage the Rules provides for a specific time frame and preparation of ineligible voters list should be at least 195 days earlier to conducting of the election. Once the list of ineligible voters is finalized, the preparation of draft list of eligible voters is to be completed and the same is to be published. Therefore, it is the duty of Election Officer to prepare the electoral list notifying the ineligible list calling for their objections, consider their objections if any, and prepare the final electoral rolls and publishing the same. But he will not have any authority to pass an order either to withdraw the calendar of events or to postpone the election as it is done in the present case.

17. Learned senior advocate contended that, in view of these provisions of law, respondent No.3 has considered the objections raised by Yagati Milk Producers Co-operative Society and rejected such objections as per Annexure-H and categorically held that, it is not eligible to vote. The Election Officer while finalizing the ineligible voters list, observed that in respect of PACCS, Antharagatte, a Special Officer is already appointed and also held that PACCS, Kadur is not eligible for voting. Once such procedure is completed, the only step that is to be taken by the Election Officer is to publish the final eligibility list. If such arbitrary authority of withdrawing the calendar of events and postponing the election, is vested in the Election Officer without there being any valid reason that will frustrate the object of the Act itself. Under these circumstances, learned senior advocate contended that, on perusal of Annexures-G and H, it is very clear that respondent No.3-the Election Officer, only to achieve the illegal object and to take over the authority of the Board has issued Annexures-G and H.

18. Learned senior advocate contended that petitioner No.2 is the delegate elected by respondent No.4-Society to represent in the Apex Bank. He is the President of Apex Bank to hold office till May-June, 2026. If the members of the Board are disqualified by postponing the election on flimsy grounds, petitioner No.2 automatically loses his authority as the delegate and he cannot continue as the President of Apex Bank. Only to achieve such object, a stage is prepared by issuing Annexures- G and H, which is nothing but a legal malice with which, respondent No.3 has acted.

19. Learned senior advocate has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kalabharati Advertising Vs Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and Others ((2010) 9 SCC 437) to contend that, doing something without legal excuse and without reasonable or probable cause is referred as legal malice or malice in law. It was done only with an objective to disregard the rights of the petitioners. He also places reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Raviyashwant Bhoir Vs District Collector, Raigad and others ((2012) 4 SCC 407) to contend that, the Hon'ble Apex Court again referred to legal malice or malice in law as the step which is taken with an oblique motive to disregard the rights of others where intent is manifested by its injurious acts.

20. Placing reliance on these decisions, learned senior advocate contended that, from the facts of the present case, it is a clear case of legal malice only with an intention to remove the members of the Board in a very casual manner without giving strict adherence to the safeguards provided under the statute, Annexures-G and H are liable to be quashed.

21. Learned senior advocate for the petitioners also places reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs The State of Karnataka and Others (WP No.658/2025 DD 01.02.2025) to contend that in a similar circumstances, the Court formed an opinion that there was no fault on the part of the Board in not conducting the election, but election was not conducted due to negligence of the Election Officer and the Returning Officer and therefore, directed them to continue process of election from where it is halted i.e. from the stage of publication of final voters list. He also places reliance on the decision of this Court in K Channaiah and Others Vs State of Karnataka and Ors (ILR 2000 KAR 2572), to contend that where election is interrupted for any reason, other than the fault of the members of the Board, the election process shall continue under the same calendar of events or under fresh calendar of events.

22. Learned senior advocate further places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and others (2001 (8) SCC 509), wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has re-iterated the position of law that the process of election shall continue from where it was interrupted or disturbed.

23. In view of the above, learned senior advocate contended that Annexures-G and H are prima facie passed by respondent No.3 with a oblique motive of disqualifying the members of the Board of respondent No.5-Society, in particular petitioner No.2 who is serving as President of Apex Bank. By passing Annexures-G and H, respondent No.3 by stroke of pen could disturb the authority of elected representative of the Apex Bank and the entire authority could be taken over by the Registrar as an Administrator for an indefinite period. Otherwise, there are absolutely no justification for respondent No.3 to act in such a manner which is nothing but disregarding specific provision of law under the Act and the Rules. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition by quashing Annexures-G and H or a direction to continue the election process from the stage of publishing the final eligibility voters list and the calendar of events.

24. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.27667 of 2025 re-iterating the submissions made by the learned senior advocate in Writ Petition No.26439 of 2025 prays to quash the order dated 24.08.2025 and 26.08.2025 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexures-A and B.

25. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General opposing the petitions submitted that there is no oblique motive on the part of the Deputy Commissioner who is the District Election Officer who issued the impugned orders. The Board of DCC Bank was constituted on 29.09.2020 and therefore, their term will complete on 29.09.2025. In the meantime, the State Co-operative Societies wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner to conduct elections to various DCC Banks. Accordingly, process of submitting 13-1D Forms, appointment of Returning Officer, issuance of 14(1) Notification, appointment of Verification Officer, issuance of draft voters list and notice to defaulters was undertaken. The election was scheduled to be held on 13.09.2025. But in the meantime, several information were brought to the notice of District Election Officer. Pursuant to the same, he issued the impugned orders at Annexures-A, B, G and H by elaborately discussing about the irregularities that were committed before issuing 14(1) Notification. By that time, the election was already scheduled to be held. Under such circumstances, he has no other go, but to recall the Notification issued for conduct of elections.

26. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the election of Antharagatte Primary Credit Co-operative Society is already scheduled to be held on 13.12.2025. Therefore, respondent No.3 will undertake to finalise the voter list only after the said date. She further submitted that in view of the further developments after filing the writ petitions, both Annexures which are impugned in these petitions have lost its importance.

27. Learned Additional Advocate General placed reliance on the decision in Anjali Sanjay Kuligod Vs The State of Karnataka (WP 102217/2021 DD 24.06.2021) and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Laxman Lakappa Ningannavar Vs The State of Karnataka (WA 100111/2021 DD 29.06.2021) to contend that the Courts have repeatedly held that no writ could be issued to continue the term of office or prevent appointment of the Administrator which is required to be followed as per the statute. Placing reliance on these decisions, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the term of office of the petitioners cannot be extended without appointing the Administrator, which is the requirement of law.

28. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that respondent No.3 being the District Election Officer is duty bound to follow the procedure as contemplated under KCS Act and Rules and to hold election for respondent No.5 - Society. Therefore, she prays for dismissal of the petitions.

29. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

          "Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petitions?"

          My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:

REASONS

30. Petitioners in both these petitions are either PACCS or its Directors. Their term of office expired on 29.09.2025. Respondent No.3 being the Deputy Commissioner and the District Election Officer has initiated proceedings to conduct election in accordance with law. Admittedly, 13-1D form was submitted on 26.03.2025. The Returning Officer was appointed on 21.05.2025. 14(1) Notification was issued on 13.06.2025. The Verification Officer is also appointed. The draft voters list were notified on 27.05.2025. Notices were issued to the defaulters calling upon them to pay the amount that was due to the Society and the election was scheduled to be held on 13.09.2025 i.e., before expiry of the term of office of the Directors of these Societies. Respondent No.3 was required to consider the objection that are filed for the draft voters list to finalise the same and to publish the final eligible voters list. But in the meantime, on 24.08.2025 the impugned orders came to be passed recalling the Notification for the election itself which are called in question in these petitions.

31. As rightly contended by learned senior advocate for the petitioners in Annexure-G, the entire reference is to the objections raised by respondent No.6 dated 13.08.2025. Even though there is reference to appointment of Returning Officer on 20.12.2024 to PACCS, Antharagatte for the purpose of holding election for the Board, however, the Administrator came to be appointed and his term of office was extended as the election for the PACCS could not be held.

32. Now admittedly, the election for PACCS, Antharagatte is scheduled to be held on 30.11.2025. Learned senior advocate for the petitioners categorically submitted that the petitioners are not having any objections for PACCS, Antharaghatte to be part of the election to be held to respondent No.5 - Society in accordance with law.

33. There is also reference to Yagatti Milk Producers Co- operative Societies, in the order that are impugned. However, respondent No.3 - the District Election Officer categorically held that it is not eligible to take part in the election to be held for respondent No.5. Therefore, the same need not have to be considered in these writ petitions.

34. There is reference to PACCS, Totadauru Kalasa Taluk and PACCS, Nandipura, Mudigere Taluk who are seeking voting rights in the election for the Board. The impugned order makes it clear that the State has permitted the members of PACCS to cast their vote in the election by exempting the requirements under Section 22A of KCS Act. Since PACCS, Nandipura and Totadauru are already permitted to cast their votes in the election inspite of pendency of the writ petitions filed by them, there was no need for recalling the Notification issued for conducting of elections. Now even PACCS, Antharagatte and Kadur are having its election on 30.11.2025 and the representatives will be elected on the said date. Moreover, none have challenged issuance of Notification by raising any dispute under Section 70 of KCS Act. A suo moto action was taken by respondent No.3 to withdraw Annexure-D. Definitely, it would affect the eligible PACCS members. When none of the members have raised any objection regarding the delegation list, I do not find any justification for respondent No.3 to issue the impugned orders.

35. The provisions under KCS Act and Rules, which provides for appointment for an Administrator will have a very serious consequences. The members of the Board are presumed to have vacated their office and they are considered to be not eligible to participate in the election for a period of 5 years. When Section 39A of KCS Act provides for undertaking preparatory work for preparation of electrol rolls and conduct of election to start atleast 6 months prior to expire of term of office of the Board and when such exercise is already begun well in advance, I do not see any justification for respondent No.3 to pass the orders impugned only at the stage of finalizing the eligible voters list just before holding election. When the aggrieved persons have already approached this Court by filing the petitions referring to the impugned orders, respondent No.3 had no justification to recall the Notification without waiting for the result of writ petitions. By passing the impugned orders, respondent No.3 is responsible for a situation where the term of office of the petitioners has already been expired and it is deemed that an Administrator is appointed for no fault of the petitioners. Under such circumstances, the respondents cannot take advantage of their own fault in recalling the Notification for the election by respondent No.3 suo moto without there being any justifiable cause.

36. Learned Additional Advocate General placing reliance on the decisions in Kishansing Tomar Vs Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Others, ((2006) 8 SCC 352) Hemant Narayan Rasne Vs Commissioner and Administrator of Pune Municipal Corporation and Others, ((2022) 20 SCC 346) Mr.C K Rama Murthy and another Vs State Election Commission and Others, (WP No.7939-40/2015 DD 30.03.2015) Anjali Sanjay Kuligod Vs The State of Karnataka (WP No.102217/2021 DD 24.06.2021) and Laxman Lakappa Ningannavar Vs The State of Karnataka, (WA No.100111/2021 DD 29.06.2021) contended that under no circumstances a writ could be issued to extend the term of office of the Directors. But learned senior advocate for the petitioners places reliance on the decision in Ravi Yashwatn Bhoir (supra) and Kalabharati Advertising (supra), where there is reference to a situation where a malice is attributable to the State, when there is conscious violation of law to the prejudice of another, only to deprive or disregard his rights, the petitioners are entitled for some reliefs. I find considerable force in the contention taken by the petitioners in this regard. Otherwise, it may be a very bad precedent to enable the State to withdraw the Notification at the fag end, before conducting election which will automatically result in appointment of the Administrator as within no time, the term of office of the Directors will expire and the election will not be held as required under law.

37. In Utpadak Sanstha (supra), PACCS Ltd., (supra) and K Channaiah (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court and co- ordinate Benches of this Court consistently held that the process of election if halted, it shall continue from where it was interrupted or disturbed. If the election process is interrupted not at the fault of the members of the Board and if such process is to be undertaken afresh, such elections may not be held for years together which result in taking over the administration of PACCS which is against the object with which the KCS Act and Rules were enacted. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders at Annexures-A and B in Writ Petition No.27667 of 2025 and the impugned orders at Annexures-G and H in Writ Petition No.26439 of 2025 are liable to be quashed by directing the respondents to continue the process of finalizing the voters list once the election for PACCS, Anthargatte is complete on 30.11.2025 and to hold election of respondent No.5 - Society in accordance with law.

38. In view of the above, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

          (i) Writ Petitions are allowed.

          (ii) The orders dated 24.08.2025 and 26.08.2025 vide Annexures-A and B respectively in Writ Petition No.27667 of 2025 and at Annexures - G and H respectively in Writ Petition No.26439 of 2025 are hereby quashed.

          (iii) The Board representing the petitioner-Society shall continue to function till completion of the election process to be held for respondent No.5 - Society.

          (iv) Respondent No.3 is directed to continue the process of finalizing the voters list once the election for PACCS, Anthargatte is complete on 30.11.2025 and to hold election of respondent No.5 - Society in accordance with law.