- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23886 WP No. 18306 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 18306 OF 2024 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. B M BHAGYAMMA W/O K T NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 2. K N SHASHIKUMAR S/O K T NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 3. K N RAJATH KUMAR S/O K T NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, (ALL ARE R/O K E B ROAD, KILARA, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, AND DISTRICT - 571 401. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VINAY D HOSMATH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23886 WP No. 18306 of 2024 MANDYA SUB DIVISION, MANDYA - 571 401. 2. THE MILK PRODUCERS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP BY ITS SECRETARY, KILARA, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.S. HARISH., AGA FOR R1; SRI. SREENIVASAN.,ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESOLUTION VIDE ANNEXURE-B DATED 15/11/2019 PASSED BY R2 AND APPROVE THE SAME BY COLLECTING THE AMOUNT DUE TO THEM FROM THE PETITIONERS AND RELEASE THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23886 WP No. 18306 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: ''(a). A writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to act in accordance with the resolution vide Annexure-B dated 15.11.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 and approve the same by collecting the amount due to them from the petitioners and release the properties in question in the interest of justice and equality. (b). Any other writ or order appropriate in the circumstances of the case and (c). Award costs in the interest of justice and equity. '' 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the resolution dated 15.11.2019 at Annexure-B to the petition has not been complied with by the respondent No.2-Society by obtaining permission from the respondent No.1-Assisstant Registrar. 3. The submission of Sri. Vinay D Hosmath, learned counsel for the petitioners is that by way of the said resolution, the society had agreed to transfer the property of the husband of petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, which had been brought by respondent No.2-Society in an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23886 WP No. 18306 of 2024 auction, subject to the petitioner making payment of a sum of Rs.6,52,750/- with interest. 4. Sri. Sreenivasan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that on account of misappropriation of money by the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, the property of the said person had been brought for sale and in the said auction respondent No.2 has purchased the property thirty years ago, which though challenged has been confirmed. The resolution which has been passed at the behest of the petitioners by using their good offices with the then members of the Board of Directors. The said resolution is not in the interest of the Society and as such the Board of Directors who assumed the office subsequently are of the categorical opinion that the said resolution cannot be implemented. 5. Having considered both the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, what essentially is sought to be achieved by the petitioners by seeking for a mandamus of specific performance of the resolution dated 15.11.2019 which at - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23886 WP No. 18306 of 2024 the most can be contented to be an agreement of sale entered into by the Society with the petitioners. 6. There being disputed questions of fact, such a mandamus cannot be issued when there is no vested right in the petitioners under any law, but is only contented to be an agreement by way of a resolution. Hence, reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum, the petition stands dismissed. 7. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petition. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44