- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48755 WP No. 34897 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 34897 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: MAHAYOGI VEMANA SOUHARDHA PATTINA SAHAKARI PATTANA SAHAKARI SANGAHA, CO OPERATIVE, NO.784. A SECTOR, LION SEVA BHAVAN, YELAHANKA, NEWTOWN, BANGALORE-64, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. (REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA SOUHARDHA SAHKARI ACT). …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. ADVOCATE SRI. NARAJJI DEEPAK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF SAHAKARA SANGA SOUHARDA DISPUTE RESOLVING COURT. NO.68, 1ST FLOOR, 17 AND 18TH CROSS ROAD, MAARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 055. 2. SRI. R SAMPANGI REDDY, S/O LATE RAMAYAN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O 38/1, SIVATEJY KAKKOLU MAIN ROAD, VENUGOPALA SWAMY LAYOUT, RAJANKUNTE VILLAGE AND POST BANGALORE - 560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH .D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 SRI. K.S.N. RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2) Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48755 WP No. 34897 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE JOINT REGISTRAR OF SAHAKARA SANGHA SOUHARDA DISPUTE RESOLVING COURT AT BANGALORE IN DISPUTE NO.J.R.D/KA.RAA.SOU.SAM.SA.NI/953/2025-26 ON I.A.NO. 2/2025 DATED 30/10/2025 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F. AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner - Society has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 30.10.2025 passed by respondent No.1 on IA.No.2, produced as per Annexure - 'F' in Dispute No.J.R.D/KA.RAA.Sou.SAM.SA.NI/953/2025-26, by staying the further proceedings and taking action against respondent No.2. 2. Heard Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior advocate for Sri Narajji Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Yogesh D Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri. K.S.N. Rajesh, learned caveator/respondent No.2 through video conference. Perused the materials on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48755 WP No. 34897 of 2025 3. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner contended that respondent No.2 was the member of Society and there was serious allegations made against him. Therefore, he was served with notice. Not being satisfied with the reply, the article of charges came to be framed. After holding an enquiry, an enquiry report was submitted on 12.07.2025. The second show cause notice was issued on 06.09.2025 as per Annexure-C. Respondent No.2 raised the dispute with respondent No.1 on 08.10.2025 seeking to stay the article of charges. He never disputed the enquiry held against him nor challenged the enquiry report dated 12.07.2025. He has also not challenged the second show cause notice dated 06.09.2025 produced as per Annexure-C. 4. Learned Senior Advocate drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure-E - the order sheet maintained by respondent No.1 to contend that the interim order staying the article of charges came to be passed on 10.09.2025. Subsequently, it is extended on 08.10.2025. However, the said interim order was never extended on 14.10.2025 or on 23.10.2025. For the first time, there is reference to IA.No.2 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48755 WP No. 34897 of 2025 seeking stay of all further proceedings including removal of respondent No.2 and posted the matter to 18.11.2025. On 30.10.2025 the matter was preponed and it is recorded that IA.No.2 is disposed off without passing any necessary order in that regard. However, it is presumed that IA.No.2 is allowed and the interim order is granted hurriedly by preponing the matter without notifying the petitioner. 5. In view of the above, learned Senior Advocate contended that when the enquiry report is already submitted on 12.07.2025 and second show cause notice was issued on 06.09.2025, without challenging any of these proceedings, challenging only the article of charges before respondent No.1 cannot be taken into consideration. In the meantime, as per Regulation dated 15.09.2025, respondent No.2 is already removed from service and the said order is also not challenged before respondent No.1. Under such circumstances, he prays for allowing the petition. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48755 WP No. 34897 of 2025 of stay of the show cause notice issued by respondent No.1 was communicated to the petitioner on 15.09.2025 by 10.45 a.m., Inspite of that, the petitioner proceeded to pass the order dismissing respondent No.2 from service on the very same day in the afternoon. That shows the conduct of the petitioner in passing the order hurriedly without affording any opportunity to respondent No.2. Taking into consideration these facts, respondent No.1 passed the order as per Annexure F. There is no illegality in the said order. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submitted that the order impugned is an appealable order under Section 46 of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997. However, on merits he has not addressed any arguments, as the dispute is still pending consideration before respondent No.1. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition. 8. On perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that the show cause notice came to be issued by the petitioner to respondent No.2 on 08.09.2025. On 10.09.2025, the dispute was raised by respondent No.2 with respondent No.1. However, on 15.09.2025, the meeting of the Board of Directors of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48755 WP No. 34897 of 2025 petitioner was convened and the decision was taken to terminate the membership of respondent No.2. 9. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.2 has produced a copy of the letter dated 15.09.2025 communicating the order of stay passed by respondent No.1 against the petitioner staying the notice dated 08.09.2025. As per endorsement seen on the copy of the letter, the same was served on the Manager of the petitioner - Society at 10.45 am. There is no materials that are placed before the Court as to at what time the meeting of Board of Directors was convened and decision of terminating membership of respondent No.2 was taken. 10. In light of the materials placed on record and the arguments addressed by both the parties, it is noticed that respondent No.1 has hurriedly proceeded to pass Annexure -F without providing the copy of application to the petitioner and to have its say in the matter. By the time Annexure-F was passed, the order terminating the membership of respondent No.2 was already passed. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances and also fact that dispute is still - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48755 WP No. 34897 of 2025 pending consideration before respondent No.1, I am of the opinion that it may not be proper on the part of this Court to discuss about the merits of the case. It is suffice, if the impugned order Annexure-F is set aside and at the same time, directing the petitioner not to take any further decision in the matter during the pendency of the dispute before respondent No.1. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the petitioner will not precipitate the decision taken in the meeting of the Board of Directors, terminating the membership of respondent No.2, till the dispute before respondent No.1 is decided. 12. The same is placed on record. 13. It is needless to say that respondent No.1 shall decide the dispute expeditiously atleast within two months from today with the co-operation from both the parties. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48755 WP No. 34897 of 2025 ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) Petitioner is directed not to precipitate on the decision taken on 15.09.2025, terminating the membership of respondent No.2, till the dispute that is pending before respondent No.1 is decided. (iii) Respondent No.1 is directed to decide the dispute expeditiously atleast within two months from today with the co-operation from both the parties. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE PNV/BH CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14