- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36230 WP No. 27536 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 27536 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S PRIMUS LIFE SPACES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2013, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT #41, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BANGALORE 560001 REP BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR MANJUNATH K 2. ADARSH NARHARI S/O B S N HARI AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS R/T 473, 9TH CROSS, 1ST BLOCK, NEAR MADHAVAN PARK JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE SOUTH, JAYANAGAR III BLOCK, BANGALORE SOUTH KARNATAKA 560011 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANIRUDH A KULKARNI., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36230 WP No. 27536 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHAN SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560001 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE JDEPARTMENT (SSLR SERVICES 1 AND SPECIALL CELL) VIDHAN SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560001 3. THE SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST IN DEPOSITS BY FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT (KPIDFE) HAVING OFFICE AT: 3 AND 4TH FLOOR PODIUM BLOCK, V V MINI TOWERS DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1 & R2 SRI. VEERESH BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36230 WP No. 27536 of 2025 CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT NO.3 SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY PERTAINING TO ISSUANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. E-RD 175 GRC 2025 DATED 25.08.2025 UNDER SECTION 3(2) OF THE KPIDFE ACT, 2004, PRODUCED AT ANNX-R AT PAGE NO. 69-81 AND ETC. 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 petitioners, a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and its authorized representative, have filed this petition calling in question the Government Notification dated 25.08.2025 issued under the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 [for short, 'the Act'] and for a declaration that including their properties [the subject properties] in this notification is illegal and arbitrary. 2. Mr. Anirudh A. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that it is incumbent upon the State Government for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36230 WP No. 27536 of 2025 provisionally attaching a property, as contemplated under Section 3(2) of the Act, to record in writing that the such property is acquired from the funds received from the depositors and to record reasons to conclude that such attachment will be necessary to protect the interest of the depositors, and that the impugned notification as regards the subject properties must fail on this ground. 3. Mr. Veeresh Budhihal, the learned counsel for the third respondent supported by Mr. Shamanth Naik, the High Court Government Pleader for the first and the second respondents, submits that the notification under Section 3(2) of the Act is subject to being made absolute by the Special Court under the Act as contemplated under Section 5 thereof, and that every aspect including any deficiency in recording satisfaction or reasons could be examined in such proceedings. The learned counsels emphasize that this Court, because of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36230 WP No. 27536 of 2025 alternative remedy that is available within the statutory mechanism, may not intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India especially when the competent authority, in terms of Section 5(2) of the Act, is granted 30 days time to approach the Special Court. 4. These rival submissions are considered, and this Court is of the view that when a statutory mechanism is self contained and within that mechanism every grievance, including the grievance put forward by the petitioners in the present case can be addressed, there is no reason to intervene. The petitioners therefore must avail the opportunity that would be within the statutory mechanism. 5. At this stage, Mr. Anirudh A. Kulkarni submits that the petitioners will be put to irreparable loss if the third respondent does not move the Special Court within a reasonable time and the petitioner is excluded from such the proceedings because the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36230 WP No. 27536 of 2025 business has come to a stop. In response, Mr. Veeresh Budhihal submits that this Court may take on record a statement that if the application is not already filed, will be filed at the earliest and even otherwise, the petitioners would be made parties so that there is due notice at the earliest. These submissions are taken on record, and the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court if in the event the third respondent does not act within a reasonable time and in the manner as now stated. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB