- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19038 WP No. 27202 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 27202 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. K N SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS SON OF LATE NANJUNDA SHASTRY, NO.18, I FLOOR, 5TH MAIN ROAD, TATA SILK FARM BANGALORE-560 070. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. B R VISWANATH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR M/S. SRI.VASISTA CREDIT SOUHARDHA CO.OP.LTD., 2ND FLOOR, C BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPETENT AUTHORITY SUDARSHANK B K . AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19038 WP No. 27202 of 2024 2. M/S SRI. VASISTA CREDIT SOUHARDHA CO.OP LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (C.E.O) VENKATANARAYANA K N NO. 01 FLOOR, RAMANJANEYA ROAD, HANUMANTHANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 070 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VEERESH R BUDIHAL., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED IN MISC.NO.218/2024 ON 15TH JULY 2024 BY THE XCI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE FOR KPIDFE CASES, BENGALURU (CCH-92) AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner has called in question the validity of order passed in Misc. No. 218/2024. 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondents submit that as against the order passed by the Special Court in terms of Section 16 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (for short 'the Act') any person aggrieved by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19038 WP No. 27202 of 2024 order of the Special Court may appeal to the High Court. Accordingly, it is submitted that the matter that requires adjudication as per the appellate remedy available ought not to be short-circuited by bypassing the substantive remedy available by resorting to writ jurisdiction. 3. Taking note of the availability of substantive remedy under Section 16 of the Act, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail of the substantive remedy. The interim order in operation would continue to operate for a period of 4 weeks from today, within which the petitioner to take necessary steps to challenge the impugned order, if so advised, by resorting to the substantive appeal provision, i.e., Section 16 of the Act as is permissible in law. All contentions of the petitioner are kept open. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the time spent before this Court may be directed to be taken note of. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19038 WP No. 27202 of 2024 5. Needless to state that the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is always open for the petitioner to be sought before the appropriate forum. 6. Accordingly, petition is disposed off. Office to return the original / certified copy, if any to the petitioner. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP