- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31615 WP No. 22945 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 22945 OF 2025 (GM-CON) BETWEEN: TALACAUVERY HOUSE BUILDING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD OFFICE AT NO. 3/3 2ND FLOOR VAMSH HEIGHT APARTMENT 4TH CROSS NEHARU NAGARA BENGALURU 560020 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXCUTIVE OFFICER H N RAVISHANKAR S/O NAGANNA AGED 53 YEARS R/A 3/2 2ND FLOOR VANSH HEIGHT PARTMENT 4TH CROSS NEHRU NAGAR BENGALURU 560020. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GAURAV G.K.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS ROOM NO. 141/142 VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31615 WP No. 22945 of 2025 BENGALURU URBAN 8TH FLOOR CAUVERY BHAVAN BWSSB BUILDING BENGALUR URBAN -560009 REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR. 3. SMT SUMA V W/O S SHANKARA NARAYAN AGED 59 YEARS R/AT NO.22 14TH CROSS 22ND MAIN PADMANABHANAGAR BANGALORE 560070 PRESENTLY R/AT NO.2191 19TH FLOOR LEARNING OF FLY 17TH CROSS 29TH MAIN ROAD J P NAGARA 6TH PHASE BENGALURU 560078. 4. KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT GROUND FLOOR BASAVA BHAVAN SRI BASAVESHWARA CIRCLE HIGH GROUNDS SHIVAJINAGARA BENGALURU 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP FOR R1, R2 AND R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 PRAYING TO-A) QUASH ALL PROCEEDINGS IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.47/2025 PENDING BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 (ANNEXURE - A); B) TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2025 PASSED BY THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31615 WP No. 22945 of 2025 RESPONDENT NO. 2 IN EP NO. 47/2025 (ANNX-A); C) ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT NO. 4 - STATE COMMISSION TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER NO. 1 SOCIETY TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 IN C.C.NO. 04/2024 WITHOUT INSISTING ON PAYMENT OF ANY STATUTORY DEPOSIT. (ANNX-B). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a Co-operative Society, that has to answer directions by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru Urban [for short, 'the Commission'], is aggrieved by the Commission's decision to take cognizance to convert enforcement proceedings into a complaint and issuing summons to the petitioner. The Commission's order is dated 05.07.2025 and is in Execution Petition No.47/2025 on the file of the Commission. The extract of the impugned order is as follows: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31615 WP No. 22945 of 2025 "Jdr counsel prays time. Dhr & counsel present filed petition u/s. 72 of CP Act & U/s. 223 of BNSS. Hence, the statement of Dhr recorded, as PW1. Ex.P1 is marked. Hence, EP is converted into criminal complaint. Cognizance taken. Issue summons to Jdr through RPAD, if complied." Sri Gaurav G K, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Rahul Cariappa, a learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the first respondent, are heard. Sri Gaurav G K submits that this Court must intervene with the impugned order on grounds such as that the Commission could not have taken cognizance given the appellate remedy available to the petitioner and the petitioner's own circumstances. The learned counsel seeks to elaborate based on the grounds set forth in the memorandum of the writ petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31615 WP No. 22945 of 2025 However, this Court is of the considered view that the Commission before proceeding to convert the execution petition into a complaint and taking cognizance ought to have heard the petitioner and passed a reasoned order. Hence there is ground for interference but for the limited extent of disposing of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to file an application for recall of the order leaving open all contentions to be urged by the petitioner. Further, this Court is of the view that there cannot be any precipitation until the petitioner's application, if filed in terms of this liberty, is decided. In the light of the afore opinion, the following: ORDER [a] The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an application in the pending execution application with the Commission. [b] It is observed that all questions are left open and that there should be no - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31615 WP No. 22945 of 2025 precipitation if the petitioner files application in terms of liberty within six [6] weeks from today. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-