(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD)
WP.No.104850/2022. This order dated 29.01.2025 reads as
ORAL ORDER
"Respondent No.6 is directed to cause enquiry into the
properties owned by respondent No.10 and ascertain
valuation thereof and attach properties of respondent
No.10 to an extent of Rs.42,00,00,000/-.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3041-DB
Re-list on 17.02.2025 for the Deputy Commissioner to
place his report as regards enquiry made and
attachment effected."
2. It can be seen from the memorandum of writ
petition, a copy of which is produced as one of the
Annexures in the appeal, that this writ petition relates to the
Sugar Factory's grievance with the concerned respondents'
alleged refusal to permit release the sugar stock and with
the order dated 07.06.2018. The writ Court, on 09.11.2022,
has permitted the Sugar Factory to sell 50% of the stock
subject to the condition that the same shall be sold in open
market at the minimum selling price fixed by the Union of
India and that the entire sale proceedings shall be applied
only to pay the sugarcane growers.
3. The controversy has persisted with the contesting
respondents asserting that the Sugar Factory [while the
appellant was the President] has sold the available stock in
violation of the interim order dated 09.11.2022 and has
applied the sale proceeds receipts not just to pay the
sugarcane growers but also to defray certain expenditures
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3041-DB
but these transactions are sham transactions resulting in
misappropriation of funds. The appellant has later resigned,
and with his resignation as the President of the Sugar
Factory, he is impleaded as one of the respondents in the
writ proceedings.
4. It is brought out on behalf of the appellant that
the writ Court has ordered an enquiry, which has resulted in
a Report and that the appellant has filed objections to such
Report contending, amongst others, that there is no
misappropriation and he has not received any amount to his
account personally. However, this Court must observe that
these are circumstances will have to be considered by the
writ Court and there cannot be any observation on any of
these aspects at this stage.
5. Sri. D.R.Ravishankar, the learned Senior counsel
for the appellant, submits that the appellant's grievance with
the direction in the interim order dated 29.01.2025 is not as
much about the enquiry that is directed to ascertain the
details of the properties owned by him, but it is with the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3041-DB
direction to attach the properties for the value of
Rs.42,00,00,000/-[Rupees forty two crores]. In support of
this case, the learned Senior counsel submits that the writ
Court should have examined the question of attaching the
appellant's property in the light of the Report that is filed,
the appellant's objection thereto, and the procedure that
may have to be followed by a reasoned order; otherwise, the
amount of Rs.42,00,00,000/-[Rupees forty two crores] would
not be justifiable.
6. As against these submissions, Smt. Veena Hegde,
the learned counsel for the ninth and tenth respondents,
supported by Sri. Keshavreddy, the learned Additional
Advocate General as also the other learned counsels on
record for the respondents, submits that the writ Court's
order is essentially in the backdrop of the fact that the
respondents are able to demonstrate that the sale of
sugarcane is in violation of the interim order dated
09.11.2022 and is despite certain submissions made
resulting in the appellant's personal enrichment.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3041-DB
7. This Court would only observe at this stage that
even the facets that are brought out by the rival submissions
are matters that will have to be considered by the writ
Court. However, this intra-court appeal must be disposed of
in the light of the following circumstances:
[i] Sri. Keshavreddy, on instructions, submits that
the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner is in the
midst of an enquiry and he is yet to identify all
the properties that the appellant owns and as
such there is no specific order of attachment as of
date.
[ii] The appellant, in continuance of the statements
made before this Court on 12.02.2025 has
furnished revenue records for the land measuring
4 Acres 38 Guntas in Survey No.3/2 of
Jambagi.K.D Village, Lokapura, Mudhol, Property
No.36-9-120 within the limits of Mudhol Town
Municipal Council and 36-9-116 another property
again within the limits of Mudhol Town Municipal
Council.
[iii] The appellant states that these properties value
Rs.15 [Rs. Fifteen] Crores and that these
properties will not be alienated or any
transaction entered into which would create third
party interest or jeopardize the petitioner's
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3041-DB
interest in any manner but without prejudice to to
demonstrate in the writ proceedings that there
cannot be any orders for attachment.
8. This Court must opine that if an enquiry as is
ordered by the writ Court in the impugned order is still
under way without an attachment, the statement on behalf
of the appellant that no third party interest will be created
against the subject properties or his interest in these
properties jettisoned in any other manner, would suffice
until the writ Court considers all aspects as are presented
on behalf of the contestant parties. Therefore, the appeal
stands disposed of observing that all questions, including
the procedure that is to be followed for an order of
attachment before final orders, are left open to be canvassed
and considered by the writ Court.
Sd/-
(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
AM/CT:VG
