- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42823 WP No. 28733 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 28733 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. MARTHA THANGAMANI D/O. LATE SUGANDHIRAJ D.R. AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.188, CHOWDAREDDY LAYOUT, MARIYANNA PALYA, HEBBAL, BANGALORE - 560 024. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. A.S. BRINDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO OPERATION M S BUILDING, DR. BR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS, SECRETARY. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES OFFICE AT NO.62, 2ND FLOOR, MARGOS ROAD, 3RD MAIN, 18TH CROSS, PIPELINE, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 055. 3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER THE VIJAYA PATHINA SOWHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA, NO.5, S.J. ELEGANCE, 4TH FLOOR, (REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA SAHAKARI ACT, 1997) INCOME TAX LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 040. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH .D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & 2 SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR .P. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3) Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42823 WP No. 28733 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE AUCTION NOTICE BEARING NO.426/2024-25 DATED 25.05.2025 INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE AUCTION PROCEEDINGS AND FURTHER RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS FROM ISSUANCE OF CONFIRMATION OF SALE AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the auction notice dated 25.05.2025 issued by respondent No.2, produced as per Annexure-E, and the auction proceedings to restrain the respondents from issuing the sale confirmation letter. 2. Heard Smt. A. S. Brinda, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri. Chandrashekar P. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42823 WP No. 28733 of 2025 "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition?" My answer to the above point is in the 'negative' for the following: REASONS 4. The petitioner is seeking to quash the auction notice dated 25.05.2025. It is stated that the auction was already held on 11.09.2025. The auction purchaser, who is not a party to the petition, had already deposited the portion of the bid amount. My attention was drawn to the order dated 23.09.2025 which reads as under: "Office objection at Sl.No.1 is overruled by accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though this writ petition is not maintainable as there is an efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner contends that she is willing to pay the entire dues to respondent No.3, which is sum of Rs.37,08,616/-, as per the auction notice, which is impugned in this writ petition. Hence, further proceedings pursuant to the auction notice shall remain stayed. This is however, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.37,08,616/- with respondent No.3 within a period of four weeks from today. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42823 WP No. 28733 of 2025 Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to accept notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Issue emergent notice to respondent No.3. The petitioner is directed to takeout hand summons to respondent No.3 showing the date of appearance as 15.10.2025." 5. In-spite of that, the petitioner had not deposited the amount referred to above. The petitioner is having so many reasons for not depositing the amount. But the fact remains that the petitioner being the defaulter has not availed the opportunity of depositing the amount provided by this Court. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to entertain the petition. More-so, when the auction purchaser is not a party to the proceedings before this Court even though a right accrued in his favour. 6. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo, which reads as under: "The petitioner had initiated the bank loan take over process from Neevara Housing Finance and they have sanction of loan in favour of petitioner for the due of loan amount of Rs.37,08,616/- and the same is communicated to respondent No.3 through E-mail today. Hence, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42823 WP No. 28733 of 2025 dispose of the above case by permitting the petitioner to make the payment of due loan amount to respondent No.3 in the interest of justice." 7. The memo is seriously objected by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 by filing objections to the same. In view of the facts and circumstances referred to above and conduct of the petitioner in not paying the amount, committing default and even not availing the opportunity granted as per the order dated 23.09.2025, I do not find any reason to permit the petitioner once again to make payment with respondent No.3. Hence, the memo is liable to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. In view of the above, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER Writ Petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:VS