- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36150 WP No. 34285 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 34285 OF 2024 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. DR.M.S.MAHADAVSWAMY S/O M. SHIVAPPA AGE 57 2. MAMATHA H W/O PRADEEP AGE 35 YEARS 3. SRI GNANA MURTHY S/O MALLIKARJUNA AGE 36 YEARS, 4. DR P SRINIVAS S/O PARASHIVAMURTHY, AGE - 50 YEARS 5. MANJUNATH N S/O NATARAJU, AGE- 40 YEARS 6. SMT. PREMA S W/O RAJASHEKARA AGE- 36 YEARS, 7. PARASHIVAMURTHY S/O MAHADEVIAH, AGE 52 YEARS Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36150 WP No. 34285 of 2024 8. SHIVAKUMAR G S/O GOVINDRAJU, AGE 50 YEARS, 9. DR P. MANI S/O PONNAAN AGE - 50 YEARS 10. SOMASHEKAR NAIK S/O JAVARAIAH, AGE 55 YEARS, 11. SMT ABHILASHA W/O KIRAN, AGE 26 YEARS, 12. PRAJWAL R S/O RAVISHANKAR, AGE 28 YEARS, 13. KUMARI N. AKHILA D/O NAGARAJU, AGE 26 YEARS, (ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE ALL DIRECTORS OF KARNATAKA STATE COLLEGE LECTURERS AND SCHOOL TEACHERS HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.55/1, 3RD CROSS GURUKULA LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, KUPPULRU, MYSURU-570031) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36150 WP No. 34285 of 2024 BANGALORE-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (H AND M) DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES NO.1, ALI ASKER ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052 3. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES 4 TH CIRCLE, SHAKARA SOWDHA MARGOSA ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU – 560001 4. KARNATAKA STATE COLLEGE LECTURERS AND SCHOOL TEACHERS HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO 55/1, 3RD CROSS, GURUKULA LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, KUPPULRU, MYSURU-570031 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/CEO 5. SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR B.N S/O NAGAPPA, AGED 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.1300, 1ST FLOOR, 21ST B MAIN, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR 1 BENGALURU-560 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 SRI KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4 SRI S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5 CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 21.03.2025) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36150 WP No. 34285 of 2024 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ON 27.11.2024 VIDE SL.NO. HSG- 1/160/HHS/2024-25 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ON 27.11.2024 VIDE SL.NO. HSG-1/161/HHS/2024-25 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F1, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ON 27.11.2024 VIDE SL.NO.HSG-1/162/HHS/2024-25 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F2, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ON 27.11.2024 VIDE SL.NO. HSG-1/163/HHS/2024-25 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F3, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ON 27.11.2024 VIDE SL.NO. HSG-1/164/HHS/2024-25 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F4, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ON 27.11.2024 VIDE SL.NO. HSG-1/165/HHS/2024-25 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F5, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ON 27.11.2024 VIDE SL.NO. HSG-1/166/HHS/2024-25 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F6, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ON 27.11.2024 VIDE SL.NO. HSG-1/167/HHS/2024-25 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F7, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ON 27.11.2024 VIDE SL.NO. HSG-1/168/HHS/2024-25 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F8, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ON 27.11.2024 VIDE SL.NO. HSG-1/169/HHS/2024-25 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F9, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ON 27.11.2024 VIDE SL.NO. HSG-1/170/HHS/2024-25 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F10, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ON 27.11.2024 VIDE SL.NO. HSG-1/171/HHS/2024-25 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE- F11 AND THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ON 27.11.2024 VIDE SL.NO. HSG-1/172/HHS/2024-25 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F12. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36150 WP No. 34285 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged the notices issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 29-C(8)(b)(c)(d) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act, 1959') of even date i.e. 27.11.2024 vide Annexures ‘F’, ‘F1’ to ‘F12’ to the petition. 2. The petitioners contend that they are the members of the Managing Committee of the Karnataka State College Lecturers and School Teachers House Building Co-operative Society Limited and they were elected for a period of five years on 01.10.2020 and hence, the term of the Board expires on 30.09.2025. They contend that an enquiry under Section 64 of the Act, 1959 was ordered which was challenged in W.P. No.7314/2021. The said writ petition was taken up for consideration along with W.P. No.15330/2023 and W.P. No.8588/2021 and this Court had stayed the proceedings of the order dated 23.03.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 therein - Minister for Co-operation vide order dated 09.04.2021 and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36150 WP No. 34285 of 2024 the corrected order dated 15.04.2021. Thereafter, in terms of the order dated 01.02.2024, the coordinate Bench of this Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable and that the Registrar has suo motu power under Section 64 of the Act, 1959 and accordingly, directed him to conduct an independent enquiry into the affairs of the Society on the points raised in his order dated 15.04.2021. The petitioners have challenged the said order dated 01.02.2024 in Writ Appeal No.1081/2024 where there is an order of stay dated 08.01.2025. The petitioners claim that in the meanwhile, respondent No.2 had passed an order under Section 64 of the Act, 1959 and had framed several charges against the respondent No.4 - Society and appointed the respondent No.3 as the Enquiry Officer who issued notices to the petitioners. Respondent No.3 then proceeded with the enquiry and the petitioners are participating in the enquiry by filing their replies. The petitioners contend that when the enquiry under Section 64 of the Act, 1959 is underway, the respondent No.2 has issued notices under Section 29-C(8)(b)(c)(d) of the Act, 1959 framing four charges against the petitioners. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36150 WP No. 34285 of 2024 3. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said notices, are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the charges against the petitioners arose out of a collective decision of the Board of Management of the respondent No.4 and therefore, the proceedings under Section 29-C(8)(b)(c)(d) of the Act, 1959 were not maintainable as regards the individual Directors of the respondent No.4. He contends that if the respondent No.2 was of the opinion that the entire Board had to be dismissed and a Special Officer had to be appointed, same was subject to the satisfaction under Section 30 of the Act, 1959, and not under Section 29-C(8)(b)(c)(d). In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Appa Saheb R. Kerakalamatti v. Addl. Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka [ILR 1987 KAR 1336]. He also referred to another judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P No.17898/2023 following the judgment in Kerakalamatti’s case (supra). He, therefore, contends that the impugned notices issued by the respondent No.2 are without jurisdiction and hence, the same are liable to be quashed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36150 WP No. 34285 of 2024 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that the petitioners have challenged the notices issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 29- C(8)(b)(c)(d) of the Act, 1959 and it is for the petitioners to explain before the respondent No.2 that the proceedings under Section 29-C of the Act, 1959 are not maintainable. He also contends that the respondent No.2 being a competent Authority both under Section 29C and Section 30 of the Act, 1959 is entitled to take suitable steps against the petitioners if he is of the opinion that the proceedings under Section 29- C(8)(b)(c)(d) of the Act, 1959 is not maintainable and appropriate proceedings would be under section 30 of the Act, 1959. He, therefore, contends that this Court should refrain from exercising jurisdiction as interest of several members of the respondent No.4 is at stake. He further contends that the charges framed against the petitioners cannot be questioned in a writ petition. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [AIR 2007 SC 906]. He also referred to the judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36150 WP No. 34285 of 2024 Through the Authorised Signatory v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited through the Director and Others [2021 (9) SCC 657] and contended that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a panacea for all ills and that mere issuance of a show cause notice does not cloth the petitioners with a cause of action to challenge it before this Court. 6. The respondent No.4 has filed a statement of objections contending that respondent No.5 made an application before the respondent No.4 for allotment of a site and Site No.219 was allotted to the respondent No.5 at a sum of Rs.25,36,875/-. The respondent No.5 had paid a sum of Rs.21,20,000/- was due to pay a sum of Rs.4,16,875/-. It is contended that M/s.Bhavani Minerals Global Infrastructure and Developers Private Limited Company (henceforth referred to as, 'the Company' or 'Developer') is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in development of land and formation of layout, the Company represented by its Managing Director was the associate member of the respondent No.4. An agreement of sale and a Memorandum of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36150 WP No. 34285 of 2024 Understanding (MOU) were entered into between the Company / Developer and the respondent No.4 on 27.09.2010 at Mysuru. According to the Memorandum of Understanding, the responsibility of purchasing the land from its owners and converting it from agricultural to non-agricultural use and to form a layout was with the Company and the respondent No.4 - Society had agreed to purchase all the sites in the proposed layout. It is contended that the Company had agreed to purchase the land from the land owners in a phased manner. Initially, 06 acres 13 guntas was the subject matter of an agreement between the Company and the respondent No.5 apart from 05 Acres 12 guntas. In the first phase, approximately, 250 sites were formed. The respondent No.4 was to purchase the sites in the said phase at the agreed rate. After the negotiations, Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between the Company / Developer and the respondent No.4 on 27.09.2010. Further, Supplementary Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between the Company and the respondent No.4 on 19.10.2011. Accordingly, the Company got the sanction from the Mysore Urban Development Authority ('MUDA' for short) for the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36150 WP No. 34285 of 2024 proposed residential layout in the land bearing Sy. Nos.19/2, 20/1, 60/2, 4, 61, 62 of Kuppalur village, kasaba Hobli, Mysore, measuring 13 acres 9 guntas. Thereafter, MUDA released 226 sites. Several sites were registered in favour of members based on the seniority and those who had paid the sital amount in full and several other members who had not paid the sital amount in full, were not allotted the sites. The respondent No.4 had paid a sum of Rs.20,07,95,025/- to the Company on various dates for the formation of the layout. Thereafter, the Company had registered 200 sites in favour of the members of the respondent No.4 and 26 sites were yet to be registered. Therefore, it is contended that the Company had violated conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.09.2010 and continuation of the agreement of MOU dated 19.10.2011. Although several remainders were issued to the Company to register the remaining 26 sites in favour of the members of the respondent No.4 - Society, the Company failed to adhere to its obligation. The respondent No.4 issued a notice to the Company on 20.04.2022. A resolution was passed by the respondent No.4 on 22.05.2025 to file a dispute under Section 70 of the Act, 1959. The respondent No.4 filed a - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36150 WP No. 34285 of 2024 dispute before the respondent No.2 in dispute No.D-2/NMD- 06/2024-25 which are pending consideration. 7. The respondent No.4 contends that the Company/developer was trying to alienate 26 sites and despite request of the respondent No.4, the Company had not concluded registration of the sites in favour of the members of the respondent No.4 - Society. Therefore, the respondent No.4 filed PCR No.553/2022 before the Civil Judge, Mysuru which is referred the complaint to the Police for investigation. After investigation, FIR is registered in Crime No.203/2023 in Mysuru South Police Station. He contends that once the sale deeds are executed in the name of respondent No.4, the respondent No.5 would be given a site subject to he paying the balance of the sital value. Though respondent No.4 has placed certain material on record for the perusal of the Court has not sought for either dismissal or allowing of the petition. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has reiterated the averments made in the statement of objections. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36150 WP No. 34285 of 2024 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 that what is challenged by the petitioners before this Court is only show cause notices issued by the respondent No.2 and it is for the petitioners to appear before the respondent No.2 and justify that the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 is without jurisdiction. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as the respective learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5. 11. The notices impugned in this writ petition are issued by the respondent No.2 purportedly in exercise of power under Section 29-C(8)(b)(c)(d) of the Act, 1959. A perusal of these notices disclose certain charges against the petitioners. Therefore, the question whether the charges framed by the respondent No.2 fit into Section 29-C(8)(b)(c)(d) of the Act, 1959 or not, has to be decided by the respondent No.2 and not before this Court that too at a preliminary stage when the petitioners are yet to reply to the notices. If the respondent No.2 considers that the proceedings under 29-C(8)(b)(c)(d) of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36150 WP No. 34285 of 2024 the Act, 1959 cannot be taken out against the petitioners on the ground that the transactions, which are the subject matter of the charges were as a result of a collective decision of the Board of Management of respondent No.4, it may still be open for the respondent No.2 to take out proceedings under Section 30 of the Act, 1959. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate, the proceedings are still at an infancy stage and it is too premature to hold that the proceedings before the respondent No.2 have to be halted. 12. In that view of the matter, this petition is dismissed. It is open for the petitioners to file objections to the impugned notice/s issued by the respondent No.2 raising all contentions including the ones raised in this writ petition. It is for the respondent No.2 to decide the matter in accordance with law. 13. The discretion of the respondent No.2 to initiate proceedings under any other provisions of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959 is kept in tact. 14. The petitioners are directed to appear before the respondent No.2 on 30.09.2025 at 3 p.m. and file objections. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36150 WP No. 34285 of 2024 Respondent No.2 is directed to consider all the contentions urged by the petitioners and take an appropriate decision in the matter within a period of three months from 30.09.2025. 15. All contentions of all the parties are kept open. 16. in view of disposal of this petition, I.A. No.2/2025 for vacating stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19