- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3041-DB WA No. 100090 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 100090 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: RAMAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA TALEWAD, AGE: 65 YEARS, R/O. JAMBAGI KD, POST: KASABA JAMBIGI, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587122 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. D. R. RAVSHANKAR SR. COUNSEL; SRI. ROSHAN SAHEB CHABBI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT, A CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF KARANATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND FACTORY AT RANNANAGR, TIMMAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER (LEGAL) MR. RAVINDRA S/O KUSHNAPPA HALAGATTI AGE. 50 YEARS, R/O. RANNANAGAR TIMMAPUR TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587122. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION, DIRECTORATE OF SUGAR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KRISHI BAHVAN, NEW DLEHI-110 001. 3. THE CHIEF DIRECTOR (SUGAR), DIRECTORATE OF SUGAR, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION, MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, KRISHI BAHVAN, Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3041-DB WA No. 100090 of 2025 DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DLEHI-110 001. 4. THE BAGALKOT DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE SECTOR NO.2, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587203. 5. BANK OF INDIA, MUDHOL BRANCH, OPP. MUNICIPAL OFFICE, NEAR BUS STAND,MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587103. 6. THE COMMISSIONER FOR CANE, DEVELOPMENT AND DIRECTOR OF SUGAR BENGALURU-09. 7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT. DIST. BAGALKOT. 8. THE TAHSILDAR, MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587103. 9. RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE EMPLOYEES UNION, RANNA NAGAR, TIMMAPUR, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT IRAPPAGOUDA G PATIL, AGE: 57 YEARS OCC: PRESIDENT OF RSSK EMPLOYEES UNION, RANNANAGAR TIMMAPUR TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-585122. 10. PRAKASH B KABBUR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: SECRETARY OF RSSK EMPLOYEES UNION R/O.RANNANAGAR TIMMAPUR TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-585122. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVRAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. M. B. KANAVI, CGSC FOR R2 & R3; SRI. S. S. CHALAWADI AND SRI. PRAVEEN P. TARIKAR, ADVOCATES FOR C/R4; SRI. C. V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. KESHAV REDDY, AAG A/W SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R6 TO R8; SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R9 & R10) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3041-DB WA No. 100090 of 2025 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 29.01.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.104850/2022 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE JUDGMENT THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The appellant is a former president of the first respondent – a Co-operative Sugar Factory at Bagalkot [the Sugar Factory], and the appellants is aggrieved by the writ Court’s interim order dated 29.01.2025 in WP.No.104850/2022. This order dated 29.01.2025 reads as under: ORAL ORDER “Respondent No.6 is directed to cause enquiry into the properties owned by respondent No.10 and ascertain valuation thereof and attach properties of respondent No.10 to an extent of Rs.42,00,00,000/-. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3041-DB WA No. 100090 of 2025 Re-list on 17.02.2025 for the Deputy Commissioner to place his report as regards enquiry made and attachment effected.” 2. It can be seen from the memorandum of writ petition, a copy of which is produced as one of the Annexures in the appeal, that this writ petition relates to the Sugar Factory’s grievance with the concerned respondents’ alleged refusal to permit release the sugar stock and with the order dated 07.06.2018. The writ Court, on 09.11.2022, has permitted the Sugar Factory to sell 50% of the stock subject to the condition that the same shall be sold in open market at the minimum selling price fixed by the Union of India and that the entire sale proceedings shall be applied only to pay the sugarcane growers. 3. The controversy has persisted with the contesting respondents asserting that the Sugar Factory [while the appellant was the President] has sold the available stock in violation of the interim order dated 09.11.2022 and has applied the sale proceeds receipts not just to pay the sugarcane growers but also to defray certain expenditures - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3041-DB WA No. 100090 of 2025 but these transactions are sham transactions resulting in misappropriation of funds. The appellant has later resigned, and with his resignation as the President of the Sugar Factory, he is impleaded as one of the respondents in the writ proceedings. 4. It is brought out on behalf of the appellant that the writ Court has ordered an enquiry, which has resulted in a Report and that the appellant has filed objections to such Report contending, amongst others, that there is no misappropriation and he has not received any amount to his account personally. However, this Court must observe that these are circumstances will have to be considered by the writ Court and there cannot be any observation on any of these aspects at this stage. 5. Sri. D.R.Ravishankar, the learned Senior counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant’s grievance with the direction in the interim order dated 29.01.2025 is not as much about the enquiry that is directed to ascertain the details of the properties owned by him, but it is with the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3041-DB WA No. 100090 of 2025 direction to attach the properties for the value of Rs.42,00,00,000/-[Rupees forty two crores]. In support of this case, the learned Senior counsel submits that the writ Court should have examined the question of attaching the appellant’s property in the light of the Report that is filed, the appellant’s objection thereto, and the procedure that may have to be followed by a reasoned order; otherwise, the amount of Rs.42,00,00,000/-[Rupees forty two crores] would not be justifiable. 6. As against these submissions, Smt. Veena Hegde, the learned counsel for the ninth and tenth respondents, supported by Sri. Keshavreddy, the learned Additional Advocate General as also the other learned counsels on record for the respondents, submits that the writ Court’s order is essentially in the backdrop of the fact that the respondents are able to demonstrate that the sale of sugarcane is in violation of the interim order dated 09.11.2022 and is despite certain submissions made resulting in the appellant’s personal enrichment. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3041-DB WA No. 100090 of 2025 7. This Court would only observe at this stage that even the facets that are brought out by the rival submissions are matters that will have to be considered by the writ Court. However, this intra-court appeal must be disposed of in the light of the following circumstances: [i] Sri. Keshavreddy, on instructions, submits that the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner is in the midst of an enquiry and he is yet to identify all the properties that the appellant owns and as such there is no specific order of attachment as of date. [ii] The appellant, in continuance of the statements made before this Court on 12.02.2025 has furnished revenue records for the land measuring 4 Acres 38 Guntas in Survey No.3/2 of Jambagi.K.D Village, Lokapura, Mudhol, Property No.36-9-120 within the limits of Mudhol Town Municipal Council and 36-9-116 another property again within the limits of Mudhol Town Municipal Council. [iii] The appellant states that these properties value Rs.15 [Rs. Fifteen] Crores and that these properties will not be alienated or any transaction entered into which would create third party interest or jeopardize the petitioner’s - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3041-DB WA No. 100090 of 2025 interest in any manner but without prejudice to to demonstrate in the writ proceedings that there cannot be any orders for attachment. 8. This Court must opine that if an enquiry as is ordered by the writ Court in the impugned order is still under way without an attachment, the statement on behalf of the appellant that no third party interest will be created against the subject properties or his interest in these properties jettisoned in any other manner, would suffice until the writ Court considers all aspects as are presented on behalf of the contestant parties. Therefore, the appeal stands disposed of observing that all questions, including the procedure that is to be followed for an order of attachment before final orders, are left open to be canvassed and considered by the writ Court. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM/CT:VG LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 16