Basavaraj S/O Gurappa Kallur vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1132 Kant

                            1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH
        DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
                        BEFORE
     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
              W.P.NO.200323/2023 (CS-RES)

BETWEEN:

BASAVARAJ S/O GURAPPA KALLUR
AGE: 51 YEARS OCC: FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT,
R/O: PLOT NO.14, ALLAMAPRABHU MARG,
ARVIND ASHRAM ROAD, OM NAGAR,
KALABURAGI-585105.
                                        .... PETITIONER

(BY SRI A.M. NAGRAL, ADVOCATE)

AND:


1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION,
       M.S. BUILDING,
       BANGALORE-560001

2.     THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE
       SOCIETIES, KALABURAGI DIVISION
       VENKATESHWAR NAGAR,
       LINGASUGUR ROAD,
       RAICHUR

3.     THE KALABURAGI AND YADGIRI DISTRICT
       CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK., LTD.,
       GAZIPUR, NEAR VIJAYA HOTEL,
       KALABURAGI
       REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
       EXECUTIVE OFFICER.               ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, AGA FOR R1)
                              2




     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTIONS, QUASHING THE ORDER
UNDER ANNEXURE-H DATED 30.11.2022 IN NO. SURCHARGE
PROCEEDINGS/01/2021-22 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
AND ETC.


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-


                          ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Additional Government Advocate for the

respondent No.1.

02. The petitioner in this case is questioning the

Annexure-H the order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the

second respondent in exercise of power under Section 69

(2) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act.

03. The learned Additional Government Advocate

for the respondent No.1 would submit that the petitioner

has got remedy under Section 105 (1) (f) of the Karnataka

Cooperative Societies Act. The said provision provides for

an appeal before the Tribunal, in case any person is

aggrieved by an order passed under Section 69 of the said

Act. Admittedly, the impugned order is passed under

Section 69 of the said Act.

04. The learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the availability of an alternative remedy itself

is not a ground to reject the writ petition. He would submit

that in case the principles of natural justice are violated

notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedy, the

High Court can exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226

of the Constitution of India. He would place reliance on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Harbanslal Sahnia and Another vs. Indian Oil

Corporation, Ltd., and others, reported in AIR 2003 SC

2120.

05. This Court has considered the contentions

raised at the Bar and the judgment cited.

06. There is no dispute that there is bar of

jurisdiction to entertain the a writ petition, in the event of

alternative remedy being available to the petitioner, is not

a bar under any provision of law, but is only a rule of

discretion. However, the cases in which the High Court

would exercise the writ jurisdiction, despite availability of

alternative remedy are also well settled. Though, the

learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

charges are not framed as required under Section 69 of

the said Act, before the passing the impugned order, this

Court is of the view that said contention would not being

the case under exceptional case.

07. This Court is of the view that the petitioner

was given an opportunity of hearing before the Joint

Registrar before passing the impugned order under Section

69 of the sad Act. Merely, because it is alleged that there

are irregularities in conducting the proceedings, that

cannot be a ground to entertain the petition, when the

remedy available under Section 105 (1) (f) of the said Act.

08. This case does not come under the well settled

exception to entertain the writ petition, despite alternative

remedy.

09. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

10. However, it is made clear that this Court has

not considered the case of the petitioner on merits and

nothing is expressed on the merits of the matter.

11. In the event of an appeal being filed, the

appellate authority, shall consider the appeal on its merit

without any influenced by the observations made in this

writ petition.

12. All contentions of both the parties are kept

open.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KJJ