- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:302 WP No. 32252 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.32252 OF 2024 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: MR. VENKATESH M., S/O. SRI. S. MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.L-93, 11TH CROSS, LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA, BASHYAM NAGAR, SRIRAMPURAM, BENGALURU-560 021 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH K.A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVT., CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 051. Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:302 WP No. 32252 of 2024 3. THE JANATHA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.156, 8TH MAIN ROAD, 17TH CROSS ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 055, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ MANAGER. 4. MR. SRINIVAS M., S/O SRI. S. MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.L-96, 11TH CROSS, LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA, BASHYAM NAGAR, SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU-560 021 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDHARTH BABURAO, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. SHAILESH S.K., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. MADHUKAR NADIG, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO R-3 BANK HEREIN TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.03.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO R-3 BANK AS PER ANNEXURE-C THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:302 WP No. 32252 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 30.03.2024, as per Annexure-C. 2. The petitioner, the member of respondent No.3 - the Co-operative Society jointly with respondent No.4 availed a mortgage loan of Rs.27,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs only) on 12.12.2011 from respondent No.3-Co- operative Bank, against their Joint property. 3. They defaulted in repayment, consequently respondent No.3 initiated the recovery proceedings against both the petitioner and respondent No.4 in Dispute No.ARD/UBF/1086/2018-19 before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operatives Societies. The dispute was allowed directing both the petitioner and respondent No.4 to pay the amount of Rs.27,67,622/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Two only) along with interest @ 12.5% and compound interest @ 2% until full payment. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:302 WP No. 32252 of 2024 4. Following the order, the mortgaged property was sold in the public auction. After deducting the outstanding amount, the balance amount received in the auction amount was held by respondent No.3. It is the contention of the petitioner that since the mortgaged property was in joint ownership, the petitioner is entitled to 50% of the surplus amount. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation requesting for the release of his share. The petitioner is aggrieved by the delay and inaction on the part of respondent No.3 in releasing the surplus amount to which according to the petitioner he is entitled. 5. Learned AGA relies on Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 (‘the KCS Act, 1959’ for short) and submits that dispute herein relates between the member and the co-operative society and since it provides detailed mechanism for resolving the disputes. 6. Petitioner's counsel argues that the petitioner is entitled to a share of the proceeds from the sale of the joint property, as the auction resulted in a surplus after the loan - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:302 WP No. 32252 of 2024 amount was cleared, however, respondent No.3 rejected the claim for release of the funds, indicating that the petitioner must either provide a joint statement with his brother or obtain an order to facilitate the release of his share. Counsel for the petitioner submits that his claim does not fall under the provision of Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959, as the dispute pertains to recovery and distribution of auction proceeds and thus cannot be resolved within the scope of the statutory forum. 7. The question that falls for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner’s claim falls under the purview of Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959?” 8. The dispute is between the member and the co- operative society, it is well-established principles that when an alternative statutory remedy is available, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is generally not maintainable unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as the violation of fundamental rights, lack of jurisdiction or undue delay. Here the petitioner’s grievance - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:302 WP No. 32252 of 2024 primarily relates to the recovery proceedings and distribution of the auction process, which is squarely covered within the scope and ambit of Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959. The KCS Act, 1959 provides a detailed mechanism for resolving such disputes, more particularly in cases of loans, property recovery and distribution processes. The petitioner has an effective alternative remedy available to him through the cooperative dispute resolution process, and the point for consideration is answered accordingly, holding the writ petition is not maintainable as there exists an alternative and efficacious remedy provided under Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959 the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Sd/- (JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA) TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16