RAMACHANDRA v. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
WP/2272/2022 · 2025-10-14
M G Uma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 57037 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 57037 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40591 WP No. 2272 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 2272 OF 2022 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: RAMACHANDRA, S/O LATE. SANNE GOWDA, AGED 55 YEARS, PRESIDENT, THE PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, CHITTENAHALLI PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 107 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N.R. KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1.
THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES HUNSUR SUB-DIVISION MANJUNATHA LAYOUT NEAR MARUTHI PETROL BUNK, B.M. ROAD, HUNSUR - 571 105 MYSORE DISTRICT.
2.
THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MYSORE SUB-DIVISION, PUBLIC OFFICES BUILDING, MYSORE - 570 001
3.
THE PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, CHITTENAHALLI PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 107 BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER …RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40591 WP No. 2272 of 2022
(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & 2 SRI. L. RAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 (AB))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE R-2 COPY OF THE NOTICE IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-N. AND QUASH THE NOTICE DTD. 22.06.2021 AND 08.01.2021 ISSUED BY R-1 COPIES OF THE NOTICES ARE PRODUCED AT ANNX-E AND 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 The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the proceedings pending before the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Mysuru Sub-Division-respondent No.2 under Section 29(C) of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'KCS Act', for short), issuing the notice as per Annexure-N.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Annexure-N-show- cause notice issued by respondent No.2 and to quash
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40591 WP No. 2272 of 2022
Annexures-E and F-the notices issued by respondent No.1 in the proceedings under Section 29(C) of KCS Act. 3. At the time of addressing the arguments, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that on 13.10.2025 he submitted that he is not pressing prayer No.2 i.e. to quash Annexures-E and F issued by respondent No.1. Accordingly, the petition seeking prayer No.2 in the petition was rejected as not pressed. 4. It is the contention of petitioner that, he was elected as the President of respondent No.3 Society on 15.04.2020. There was an allegation against the earlier President that he had misappropriated huge amount of Rs.1,12,63,724.80. Respondent No.3 Society passed the Resolution on 19.11.2020 authorizing the President to file the case under Section 69 of the KCS Act, against one Mahesh who actually misappropriated the amount and for the purpose of recovery of the same. Respondent No.1 had issued notice under Section 69 of the KCS Act. 5. When the proceedings were pending with respondent No.1, at the request of the petitioner, the Government has
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40591 WP No. 2272 of 2022
transferred the proceedings from respondent No.1 to respondent No.2. Accordingly, respondent No.2 issued notice under Section 29(C) of the Act for conducting an enquiry against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging Annexure-N the show-cause notice issued by respondent No.2 on the ground that the Society in question is situated and functioning in Chittenahalli, within Periyapatna Taluk, Mysuru District within the jurisdiction of Hunsur Sub-Division. Therefore, respondent No.2 is not having any authority to issue Annexure-N.
6. Heard Sri. N.R. Krishnappa, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri. L. Raja, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the materials on record. 7.
In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my
consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings passed by respondent No.2 under Section 29(C) of the KCS Act?"
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40591 WP No. 2272 of 2022
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
8. Initially, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.1-Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hunsur Sub-Division, respondent No.2-Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Mysuru Sub-Division have issued separate show-cause notices, which is bad in law. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Additional Government Advocate that initially the proceedings was initiated with respondent No.1 as respondent No.3 Society is functioning within the jurisdiction of respondent No.1. Subsequently, there appears to be an application for transfer of the said proceedings from Hunsur Sub-Division to Mysuru Sub- Division. Accordingly, there was an order to transfer the proceedings to respondent No.2. The said order transferring the proceedings from respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 was not challenged by anybody. Accordingly, the same has reached finality. Now the contention of the petitioner is that, respondent No.2 being the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
- 6 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40591 WP No. 2272 of 2022
Mysuru Sub-Division could not have issued show-cause notice since respondent No.3 Society is not situated and functioning within its jurisdiction in view of the specific order passed by the Government as per Annexure-M on 09.11.2021. Under the circumstances, discussed above, the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that respondent No.2 has no authority to issue the notice as per Annexure-N cannot be accepted.
Hence, I do not find any merits in the contentions taken by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE
MKM CT:VS