Disqualification Under Section 29C KCS Act Not Automatic — Requires Registrar’s Order After Hearing: Karnataka High Court Clarifies Nomination Rejection in Co-operative Society Elections

“Though the grounds for disqualification may be available, the same would require the Registrar to pass specific orders after issuing notice… disqualification is not automatic” — In a recent judgement Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench) clarifying the scope of disqualification from co-operative society elections under Section 29-C(1)(a) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (“KCS Act”). The Court dismissed the petition challenging the acceptance of nomination of Respondent No.5, holding that a person cannot be disqualified from contesting co-operative society elections solely on the basis of an alleged loan default in another society, unless such disqualification is formally declared by the Registrar following the process prescribed under Section 29-C(7) of the Act.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that “a disqualification of a default in payment of dues in any other Co-operative Society would not lead to automatic disqualification in terms of Section 29-C (1)(a) of the KCS Act 1959. The procedure under Sub-section (7) of Section 29-C would have to be followed for declaring a person to be disqualified.”

Returning Officer Rejected Nomination for Alleged Loan Default in Another Society

The case arose out of elections to the Board of Management of a Primary Co-operative Society (Respondent No.4). The petitioner, Golappa Danashetti, challenged the nomination of Respondent No.5 on the ground that he had defaulted on dues owed to Sri Veman Co-operative Society, a different co-operative society. The Returning Officer had initially accepted the nomination but later rejected it based on the petitioner’s objection citing disqualification under Section 29-C(1)(a) of the KCS Act.

Respondent No.5 then made a representation to the District Election Officer, who was also the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (DRCS), seeking reversal of the Returning Officer's rejection. The DRCS, acting as District Election Officer, issued a communication on 16.12.2024 directing the Returning Officer to accept the nomination. The petitioner challenged this direction before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The primary legal issues revolved around:

1. Whether a person who is not yet elected can be disqualified under Section 29C(1)(a) of the KCS Act.

2. Whether a default in another co-operative society amounts to automatic disqualification.

3. Whether the Returning Officer had jurisdiction to reject the nomination on such grounds.

4. Whether the DRCS could validly direct acceptance of the nomination.

The petitioner relied heavily on Gangappa Nagappa Danannavar v. Malaprabha Co-op. Sugar Factory Ltd., arguing that disqualification under Section 29C(1)(a) applies broadly to defaults in any society and bars candidature entirely. He further contended that the DRCS had no jurisdiction to override the Returning Officer’s decision and that the only proper authority to determine disqualification is the Registrar under Section 29C(7).

The respondent argued that the disqualification is not self-operating and must be adjudicated by the Registrar after notice and hearing. As no such order existed, the Returning Officer had no authority to reject the nomination, and the DRCS rightly acted to correct the error.

“No person shall be eligible for being elected or appointed or continued as a member… if he is in default…” — But Not Without Registrar's Formal Declaration

Addressing the petitioner’s contention, the Court clarified that disqualification under Section 29-C(1)(a) applies even to those who seek to be elected, not only to those already holding office. The wording “being elected or appointed” includes candidates. However, the Court rejected the notion that a mere allegation or record of default creates an automatic disqualification.

Justice Govindaraj emphasized:

“Though there might have been a ground for disqualifying respondent No.5, the fact remains that there is no order of disqualification which had been passed in respect to respondent No.5.”

Further, referring to Section 29C(7), the Court stated:

“The methodology of disqualifying is only after issuing a notice and/or a person being heard in terms of Subsection (7)… disqualification being penal in nature, it is but required that the concerned person is heard before such an order is passed.”

Therefore, any finding of disqualification must come only after an adjudicatory process by the Registrar, making it clear that “disqualification is not automatic.”

Returning Officer Had No Jurisdiction to Reject Nomination Without Formal Disqualification Order

The High Court was unequivocal in holding that the Returning Officer erred in rejecting the nomination of Respondent No.5:

“The Returning Officer was not right in rejecting the nomination form of respondent No.5 without there being a disqualification order passed by the Registrar in terms of Sub-section (7) of Section 29-C.”

Though Rule 14-B(2) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 permits the Returning Officer to scrutinize and reject nomination papers, this power must be exercised only when a candidate is actually disqualified under the Act—not merely on allegations.

DRCS Rightly Intervened to Ensure Lawful Conduct of Elections

The Court upheld the DRCS’s decision to direct acceptance of the nomination:

“The DRCS, acting as a District Election Officer was right in directing the Returning Officer to accept the nomination form of respondent No.5.”

Noting that the DRCS was discharging duties to ensure free and fair elections, the Court found no illegality in the DRCS correcting the Returning Officer’s action, especially since no disqualification order existed.

High Court Refuses to Interfere with the Election Process — Orders Declaration of Results Within Seven Days

The Court reaffirmed the principle that courts must avoid interfering in election processes unless there is a jurisdictional error or violation of statutory procedure. Given that there was no disqualification order against Respondent No.5, the Court directed that the election results — including those of Respondent No.5 — be declared:

“The results of the elections are required to be declared including that of respondent No.5.”

However, the Court left open the option to challenge the eligibility of Respondent No.5 under Section 70 of the KCS Act, which allows for disputes post-election.

“Liberty is however reserved to any aggrieved party to file dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, if so advised.”

In a judgment with wide implications for the conduct of elections in co-operative societies, the Karnataka High Court held that disqualification under Section 29C(1)(a) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act does not operate automatically upon default. Only the Registrar, after providing due hearing, may declare such disqualification. Until such an order is passed, the Returning Officer has no authority to reject nominations on that ground, and any corrective action by the District Election Officer, such as the DRCS in this case, is legally valid.

Date of Decision: 23 October 2025