Karnataka High Court
Gutthigedara Credit Co Operative ... vs State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4555
WP No. 24038 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 24038 OF 2023 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
GUTTHIGEDARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LTD., OFF. MUDA OFFICE PREMISES,
J.L.B ROAD, MYSORE - 570 005,
REP BY ITS C.E.O.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAMACHANDRA N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
RURUAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION
DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING,
DR.B.R.AMBEKDAR BEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
Digitally MYSORE SUB DIVISION,PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,
signed by
PRAMILA G PORT MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 104.
V 3. M. PRATHAP,
Location: S/O P.V. MAHADEVAIAH,
HIGH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA NO. 402, HIGH TENSION DOUBLE ROAD,
3RD PHASE, 4TH STAGE,
VIJAYANAGAR, MYSORE-570014.
4. SRI.Y.T MANJUNATH,
S/O LATE Y.N. THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
NO. 593, 7TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR, 1ST STAGE,
MYSORE-571104.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4555
WP No. 24038 of 2023
5. SMT.P. HEMALATHA,
W/O M PRATHAP,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
NO.402, HIGH TENSION DOUBLE ROAD,
3RD PHASE, 4TH STAGE,
VIJAYANAGAR, MYSORE-571104.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SIDHARTH BABU RAO, AGA FOR R1 AND R2
R3, R4 AND R5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
(NOTE: THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4 IN THE INTERIM ORDER
VIDE ANNEXURE - C ARE NOT NECESSARY AND PROPER
PARTIES FOR THIS WRIT PETITION. HENCE THEY NOT AS
PARTIES AND NO RELIEF SOUGHT AGAINST THEM).
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13/07/2023 PASSED IN APPEAL
NO. DRM/DIS/C7/APPEAL/03/2023-24 BY THE R2 VIDE
ANNEXURE - C.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
2. The petition is filed challenging the order dated
13.07.2023 wherein the 2nd respondent-Deputy Registrar
of Co-operative Societies has granted stay order staying
further proceedings pursuant to the notice issued under
NC: 2024:KHC:4555
Rule 38 (2) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules,
1960 (for short 'the Rules, 1960').
3. It is forthcoming from the record that the
petitioner Society obtained an award against respondents
No.3 to 5. Since the award is not satisfied, execution case
is filed. In the said execution proceeding, the sale notice
was issued to auction the properties of the judgment
debtors. The said notices are marked at Annexures-A and
B. The said notices have been questioned by filing an
appeal under Section 106 of the Karnataka Cooperative
Societies Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act of 1959').
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.M. Abubakar vs State
of Karnataka (LAWS (SC) 2016-11-18) in Civil Appeal
No.10894-95/2016, is not tenable. It is also his
submission that the award is not questioned as such, the
auction proceeding initiated by the Bank cannot be stalled.
NC: 2024:KHC:4555
5. In view of the law in P.M. Abubakar (supra), the
appeal filed by the contesting respondent is not
maintainable. Since the writ petition is filed challenging
the interim order granted by the appellate authority, this
Court is of the view that interim order has to be set-aside
and the same is set-aside. Having regard to the fact that
the date fixed for auction of the property has already
expired the appeal pending before the Appellate Authority
has also become infructuous.
6. The petitioner is at liberty to proceed against
the respondents No.3 to 5 in accordance with law, after
complying the requirements of law.
7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed.
Hence, the following:-
The impugned order dated 13.07.2023 passed by the
2nd respondent (Annexure-C) is set-aside and proceeding
before the Appellate Authority also dropped.
NC: 2024:KHC:4555
In case the respondents are aggrieved by the further
action if any initiated, the liberty is reserved to the
respondents to raise the contention in the manner known
to law.
This Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CHS
