- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8245-DB WA No. 100351 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL NO.100351 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O. NAGARAJ CHALAGERI, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SHREE KOLLUR MOOKAMBIKA WARE HOUSE, KODAMAGGI VILLAGE, MASUR POST, SHIKARIPUR ROAD, HIREKERUR, RATTIHALLI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CANARA BANK, MASUR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER A.K. PATIL, COMPLEX, NEAR OLD BUS STAND, MASUR, RATTIHALLI VILLAGE, HAVERI DISTRICT. 2. THE WAREHOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY, 4TH FLOOR, NCUI BUILDING, SHREE INSTITUTION AREA, AUGUST KRANTI MARG, HAUZ KHAS, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SURESH S.GUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SHASHANK MANISH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE OF THE ORDER DATED 18.06.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP.NO.101644/2025 PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE PRESENT APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8245-DB WA No. 100351 of 2025 THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) Learned counsel Sri Suresh S.Gundi undertakes to appear for respondent No.1. Learned counsel Sri Shashank Manish undertakes to appear for respondent No.2. 2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in W.P.No.101644/2025 which is filed by the 1st respondent – Canara Bank. Since the grievance of the appellant is regarding the non-consideration of the preliminary objection raised at the hands of the appellant regarding maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, sans unnecessary facts, this Court is required to consider the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant who is seeking a direction to the learned Single Judge to firstly consider the preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the writ petition and thereafter to proceed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8245-DB WA No. 100351 of 2025 3. The 1st respondent – Bank has filed the writ petition seeking the following prayer: “The petitioner most respectfully requests the Honorable Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to: 1. Allow the Bank and its duly authorized agents to verify the pledged goods stored in the warehouse immediately. 2. Direct the Respondent No.1 to take the control of the warehouse and pledged goods by enforcing their right and duties as per the WDRA Act and Rules. 3. To preserve the quality and quantity of the pledged stocks and take sufficient and appropriate steps to safeguard the interest of the petitioner bank. 4. Segregate the pledged goods stored in the warehouse e-NWR wise to identify the goods of each debtor. 5. Facilitate the Bank in conducting an auction of the pledged goods in accordance with the law and the terms of the loan agreement.” 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during course of the proceedings before the learned Single Judge and an earlier round of litigation before this Court in W.A.No.100256/2025, certain interim orders have been - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8245-DB WA No. 100351 of 2025 passed, permitting inspection of the premises belonging to the appellant herein i.e. the warehouse in which farmers have stored their goods (arecanut) which have been pledged to the petitioner – Bank. It is the contention of the Bank that the farmers have defaulted in making the payments and therefore they are proceeding to recover the amounts borrowed by the farmers. 5. The learned counsels for the respondents i.e. the Bank and the Warehousing Development and Regulatory Authority would contend that the issue regarding maintainability of the writ petition was earlier raised by the appellant both before the learned Single Judge as well as this Court. However, the learned counsels are not able to point out to any orders where the issue regarding preliminary objection raised at the hands of the appellant have been considered and answered. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the keys to the warehouse have now been handed over to this Court and it is in the safe custody of this - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8245-DB WA No. 100351 of 2025 Court. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submits that before permitting the respondents to inspect the warehouse, a direction should be issued to the learned Single Judge to consider the preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the writ petition, since it is contended by the appellant that a writ petition cannot be maintainable against a private individual. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondents that the warehouse facility is regulated under the provisions of the Warehousing (Development and Regulation) Act, 2007 (for short, ‘Act, 2007’) and every warehouse which is certified by the authority under the provisions of the Act, 2007 are governed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules thereunder and since the warehousing facility is a public service, action can be initiated against the warehousing facility and it is amenable to writ jurisdiction. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsels for the respondents, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the issue goes to the root of the matter, the preliminary issue regarding - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8245-DB WA No. 100351 of 2025 maintainability of the writ petition is required to be considered by the learned Single Judge, having regard to the facts narrated hereinabove. The fact that the keys to the warehouse are already in the custody of the Court, no harm or prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the preliminary issue is decided and thereafter the Court could proceed to permit the respondents to inspect the warehouse and the goods of the farmers which are lying in the warehouse. 8. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands disposed of with a request to the learned Single Judge to consider the preliminary issue raised by the appellant (respondent No.2 before the learned Single Judge) regarding maintainability of the writ petition and thereafter proceed to pass necessary orders. 9. Having regard to the urgency cited by the learned counsels for the respondents, we request the learned Single Judge to consider the issue and pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible and within a period of two weeks - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8245-DB WA No. 100351 of 2025 from today. The learned counsels are permitted to move the learned Single Judge to seek early hearing of the matter in terms of the directions issued by this Court. 10. Needless to observe that till the preliminary issue is decided by the learned Single Judge, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on 18.06.2025 shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE CLK CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39