JANATA SHIKSHANA SOUHARDA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
WP/106412/2025 · 2025-09-08
Suraj Govindaraj
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 53307 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 53307 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11468 WP No. 106412 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 106412 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN:
JANATA SHIKSHANA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT, HANGAL- 581104, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI. B.S.AKKIVALLI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. NEAR CIVIL COURT, HANGAL- 581104, DISTRICT: HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP SOCIETIES, MARKET ROAD, SAVANUR, TAL. SAVANUR, DIST. HAVERI- 581118. 3. THE CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HANGAL, TALUKA: HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI- 581104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11468 WP No. 106412 of 2025
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ORDER 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 2 IN BEARING NO. PÀæ: ¸À¤-17/Dgï J¸ï Cgï/¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀé/¹Dgï-40/2025-26 DATED. 19-08-2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, AND THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO PÀæ: ¸À¤- 17/Dgï J¸ï Cgï/¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀé/¹Dgï/2025-26 DATED 19-08-2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, ARE AS NULL AND VOID. B) ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER THE PETITIONER IS FOUND ENTITLED TO. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash impugned notice issued by Respondent no. 2 in bearing no. PÀæ: ¸À¤-17/Dgï J¸ï Cgï/¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀé/¹Dgï-40/2025-26 dated 19-08- 2025 vide Annexure-D, and the communication bearing No PÀæ: ¸À¤-17/Dgï J¸ï Cgï/¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀé/¹Dgï/2025-26 dated 19-08-2025 vide Annexure-E, are as null and void. b) Issue any other writ or direction or order the petitioner is found entitled to. - 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11468 WP No. 106412 of 2025
3. On a newspaper publication about deletion of the names of certain persons from the membership of the petitioner, respondent No.2 vide communication dated 19.08.2025 addressed to respondent No.3, had called upon the respondent No.3 to obtain information relating thereto. 4.
In furtherance of which respondent No.2 vide notice dated 19.08.2025 at Annexure D, had called upon the petitioner to submit necessary documentation in relation thereto, which was communicated by respondent No.3 to the petitioner vide Annexure E.
5. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that there is no provision under the Act which provides for such an enquiry to be made. The enquiry can be made only under Section 35 of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 and as such he submits that the notice which has been issued at Annexure-D and the
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11468 WP No. 106412 of 2025
communication at Annexure-E not being in compliance with Section 35 are required to be quashed. 6. A perusal of Annexures - D and E, would only indicate that in furtherance of the newspaper article, a preliminary enquiry is being made. If at all there is any substance in the said newspaper publication, it is only then that further proceedings under Section 35 would have to be undertaken. 7. The preliminary enquiry, in my considered opinion, is in the interest of the petitioner and it is for the petitioner to satisfy that the newspaper article which has been published is not correct. Such an opportunity has been provided to the petitioner. It need not result in an enquiry under Section 35 which has penal consequences. As such, I do not find any infirmity in Annexures-D and E.
8. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to place on record such documents as the petitioner has in possession to
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11468 WP No. 106412 of 2025
justify the action of the petitioner and or to negate the allegations made in the newspaper article, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE
SH CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37