- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37771 WP No. 28305 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 28305 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. LATHA W/O LOKESHA M.R. AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT MADALAPURA VILLAGE, MALLIPATTANA HOBLI, ARAKALAGUDU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573102 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.SANJAYAS ADVOCATE FOR SRI.H MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES SAKALESHWARA SUB-DIVISION HASSAN DISTRICT - 573134 2. SMT.SHOBHA W/O PRARAMESHA AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS, 3. SMT.UNDRAMMA W/O VASANTHA KUMAR AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS, 4. SMT.RATHNA W/O MAHESHA AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37771 WP No. 28305 of 2025 5. SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O PAPANNA AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS, 6. SMT.JAYAMMA W/O MANJEGOWDA AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS, 7. SMT.KAMALA W/O M.S.LOKESH AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS, 8. SMT.MANJULA W/O GOVINDEGOWDA AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS, 9. SMT.ASHA W/O VENKATESH AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS 10. SMT.RATHNAMMA W/O LATE CHANDREGOWDA AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS, THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 10 ARE THE DIRECTORS OF MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY AT MADALAPURA AND ALL ARE R/AT MADALAPURA VILLAGE, ARAKALAGUDU TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201 11. SMT.BHAGYA W/O SURESH AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS, SECRETARY OF MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY MADALAPURA VILLAGE, ARAKALAGUDU TALUK, HASSAN DIST - 573201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.YOGESH.D.NAIK, AGA FOR R1) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37771 WP No. 28305 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 3.04.2025 IN DISPUTE NO. AR29/DDS/5/2024-25 VIDE ANNX-G PASSED BY THE R-1 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an interim order passed by respondent No.1 under Section 71(3) of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act, 1959’ for short) in AR29/DDS/5/2024-25 dated 03.04.2025. 2. When this Court suggested to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the remedy of a revision is available under Section 107 of the Act, 1959, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said relief is not efficacious. He also submits that in view of the order impugned, the petitioner is not permitted to deposit the milk in the Milk Producers Women Co-operative Society, Madalapura Village, Arakalagudu Taluk. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37771 WP No. 28305 of 2025 3. Since the petitioner is entitled to an alternate remedy of a revision before the Tribunal, it is not appropriate for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a mundane manner. Accordingly, the said petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate revision petition before the Tribunal in accordance with law. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file a memo of appearance for the respondent No.1 within 10 days. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15