[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. K. Lalitha vs Hanumanthnagara Co-Operative Bank Ltd on 25 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:17061
WP No. 7820 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 7820 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. K. LALITHA
W/O SRI. K. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 248, 6TH MAIN,
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 011.
2. SRI. NAVEEN KRISHNA B
S/O SRI. BALAKRISHNA K,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 151/2, 26TH CROSS,
Digitally signed
by
SHARADAVANI 6TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
B
Location: High
Court of BANGALORE - 560 081.
Karnataka
THE SECOND PETITIONER IS
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER,
SRI. K. LAKSHMINARASIMHA MURTHY.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MARILINGE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:17061
WP No. 7820 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
HANUMANTHNAGARA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
REGISTERED UNDER THE
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1904,
NO. 7/29, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
1ST CROSS, HANUMANTHANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 019,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.S. VENUGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. DEVARAJA A, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT BANK TO RETURN THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS
FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONERS AT THE TIME OF
BORROWING THE LOAN. SINCE THE PETITIONERS ARE READY
AND WILLING TO PAY THE LOAN AMOUNT AS PER THE
DEMAND LETTER DTD 08.08.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-T AND
ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:17061
WP No. 7820 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed seeking direction
against the respondent/co-operative society to accept the
balance loan dues and return the original documents.
2. The petition is stoutly opposed by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent on two principal
grounds. Firstly, it is contended that the respondent being
a co-operative society registered under the provisions of
the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, does not
answer the description of "State" or "other authority"
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and, therefore, a writ petition under Article 226
seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus is not
maintainable against such a private body. Secondly, it is
urged that the secured asset mortgaged by the petitioners
has already been brought to sale in a public auction
conducted on 11.03.2026 and the auction proceedings
having been concluded, the relief sought in the writ
NC: 2026:KHC:17061
HC-KAR
petition has become infructuous and cannot be granted at
this stage.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties. Perused the pleadings and the material placed on
record.
4. Having given anxious consideration to the rival
submissions, this Court finds considerable force in the
preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the
respondent as to the maintainability of the writ petition. It
is a well-settled principle of law that a writ in the nature of
mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
would lie only against the State or its instrumentalities or
against such bodies which discharge public duties or
statutory functions having a public element. A co-
operative society registered under the Karnataka Co-
operative Societies Act, 1959, in the absence of any
material to demonstrate that it is either controlled by the
State or discharging any public duty, remains essentially a
NC: 2026:KHC:17061
HC-KAR
private body. In such circumstances, no writ of mandamus
can be issued to compel performance of obligations which
are purely contractual or arise out of private law remedies.
The petitioners have not placed any material to bring the
respondent within the ambit of Article 12 or to establish
that the respondent is discharging any public function so
as to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226. On this ground alone, the writ petition is
liable to be rejected.
5. Even otherwise, this Court finds that the
respondent-society has already initiated recovery
proceedings and the secured property of the petitioners
has been put to auction and the auction process has been
concluded on 11.03.2026. In view of the subsequent
development, the relief sought in the present writ petition
does not survive for consideration. If the petitioners are
aggrieved by the auction proceedings or the manner in
which the recovery has been effected, it is always open to
them to avail such statutory or other remedies as are
NC: 2026:KHC:17061
HC-KAR
available in law to assail the said proceedings. This Court,
in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, would not entertain a
challenge to such concluded transactions, particularly
when disputed questions of fact may arise and when
efficacious alternative remedies are available.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition stands
dismissed as not maintainable. However, it is made clear
that this order shall not preclude the petitioners from
challenging the auction proceedings or seeking appropriate
relief before the competent forum in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
HDK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
