[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri P Shashidhar vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:17867
WP No. 9582 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.9582 OF 2026 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. P. SHASHIDHAR
S/O PRABHUSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCC:- WORKING AS DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
R/O NO.88, 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN,
RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, A AND B BLOCK,
MYSURU-570020.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DEVIPRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION
CHAYA S A
M.S BUILDING
Location: HIGH
COURT OF DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU -560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
BENGALURU REGION, SAHAKARA SOWDHA,
MARGOSA ROAD, 8TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560003.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:17867
WP No. 9582 of 2026
HC-KAR
3. KALYAN HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES LTD
NO.1122, SERVICE ROAD,
VIJAYANAGAR, 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU -560104
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
UNDER SECTION 109(12-A) R/W SECTION 111 IN NO
JRB/GRUHA/KALAM 65/03/2024-25 DATED 03/03/2026 OF THE
KCS ACT 1959 IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts
notice for respondents No. 1 and 2.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
NC: 2026:KHC:17867
HC-KAR
3. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing
the notice issued by respondent No. 2 dated 03.03.2026
(Annexure-D) under Section 109(12-A) read with
Section 111 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act,
1959 (for short, "the Act").
4. It is submitted by Sri. Devi Prasad Shetty,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the
respondent-authorities have no jurisdiction to issue the
impugned notice, as the petitioner was appointed as an
Enquiry Officer and has already submitted his report. It
is contended that unless the said report is accepted or
rejected by the competent authority, the impugned
notice at Annexure-D is not maintainable.
5. Per contra, Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, learned
Additional Government Advocate submits that the
petitioner has already approached on 16.03.2026 and
has filed his reply to the notice at Annexure-D.
NC: 2026:KHC:17867
HC-KAR
6. In light of the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, and
considering that the matter is pending consideration
before respondent No. 2, as well as taking into account
the aforesaid provisions of the Act, respondent No. 2 is
directed to consider the reply filed by the petitioner on
16.03.2026 within an outer limit of 30 days from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
7. It is also made clear that, until such
consideration, respondent No. 2 shall not take any
precipitative action against the petitioner.
8. It is further clarified that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SB: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21
