Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 46432 (KAR)

C YOGESH v. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

WP/2937/2023 · 2025-11-25

M G Uma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48800 WP No. 2937 of 2023 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. 2937 OF 2023 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: C. YOGESH S/O D CHANDRASHEKAR, AGE: 42 YEARS R/AT NO.6, 2ND CROSS GOWTHAMPURA, ULSOOR, BENGALURU 560007 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAKESH B BHATT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES KARNATAKA STATE SOUHARDA FEDERAL CO OPERATIVE LTD SAUHARDA SAHAKARI SAUDHA #68, 18TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 055 2. RECOVERY OFFICER (RULE-441) AND ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES KARNATAKA STATE SOUHARDA FEDERAL CO OPERATIVE LTD SAUHARDA SAHAKARI SAUDHA, #68, 18TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU 560055 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR, SAMRUDHA SAUHARHA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LTD., NO 518/A, 3RD MAIN ROAD, BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE, SRINAGAR, Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48800 WP No. 2937 of 2023 BENGALURU - 560050 (SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1997) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VISHWANATH R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 SRI. S.R. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R1 & 2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD/ORDER DTD 18.10.2021 PASSED IN CASE NO.DRD/KSSFCOL/465/2020-2021 BY THE R1 ANNEXURE-D AND QUASH THE AUCTION NOTICE IN FORM 9 BEARING E.P.NO.KRSSN/VA/274/2022-23 DTD 05.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE R2 ANNEXURE-F 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 Petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Award/order dated 18.10.2021 passed in Case No.DRD/KSSFCOL/465/2020-2021 by respondent No.1 as per Annexure - 'D' and to quash the Auction Notice in Form 9 bearing E.P.No.KRSSN/VA/274/2022- 23 dated 05.12.2022 issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexure -'F'. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48800 WP No. 2937 of 2023 2. Heard Sri. Rakesh B. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Vishwanath R Hegde, learned counsel for caveator/ respondent No.3 and Sri. S.R.Khamroz Khan, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. perused the materials on records. 3. Sri. S.R.Khamroz Khan, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri. Vishwanath R Hegde, learned caveator/respondent No.3 submit in unison that prayer No.1 challenging the award passed by respondent No.1 is not maintainable before this Court, as the same is to be changed under Section 46 of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997. 4. They further stated that vide order dated 07.02.2023, an interim order of Stay was granted subject to deposit of at least 20 lakhs within six weeks from the date of order. However, the said amount was not deposited by the petitioner. Learned counsel also submitted that even though the petitioner sought for extension of time for deposit of amount, the same was rejected as per the order dated 23.03.2023. In the meantime, another auction notice was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48800 WP No. 2937 of 2023 issued, the same was challenged by the petitioner by preferring WP.No.14537/2023, and the same is pending consideration. In view of the same, the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that prayer No.2 in the petition has rendered infructuous, in view of issuance of second auction notice, which is the subject matter of another Writ Petition. 6. Admittedly with regard to prayer No.1, petitioner has bypassed the statutory remedy of approaching the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Admittedly, there is an efficacious statutory remedy. Hence, the petition does not survive for consideration. 7. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed as having rendered infructuous. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26