- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50378 WP No. 168 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 168 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. KARAVALI CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT, GANIGA BHAVAN, ATTAVAR, MANGALORE, D.K.-575001 2. KARAVALI CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER GANIGA BHAVAN, ATTAVAR, MANGALORE, D.K.-575001 PETITIONERS SOCIETY IS REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT 1959. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MISS. SUJATHA. B D/O LATE SHESHAPPA, KOTEKAR POST, MANGALORE - 575 022 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE - 570 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHESH KIRAN SHETTY S.,ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 READ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 06.12.2024 IN NO. JRM/DDS/02/2022-23 PASSED BY Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50378 WP No. 168 of 2025 THE R-2, AS PER ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION DTD. 04.09.2024 MARKED AT ANNX-J AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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 - Society has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 06.12.2024 in No.JRM/DDS/02/2022-23 passed by respondent No.2 produced as per Annexure-A and consequently to allow the application dated 04.09.2024 produced as per Annexure-J. 2. Heard Sri. Sachin B S, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Mahesh Kiran Shetty S, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri. Yogesh D Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 3. The petitioner - Society has framed certain charge of misconduct against respondent No.1 who was working with - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50378 WP No. 168 of 2025 the Society as an employee. The petitioner - Society has thereby conducted enquiry and passed the order dated 12.03.2022 as per Annexure-B demoting and transferring her to a different branch. The said order was challenged before respondent No.2 by raising a dispute under Section 70 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, she got the interim order staying the operation of the order demoting and transferring her. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner - Society has approached this Court in WP.No.13799/2023. The said petition came to be disposed off vide order dated 18.07.2023, directing respondent No.2 to consider and dispose off the dispute expeditiously, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 4. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.2 held inquiry. Respondent No.1 examined herself as a witness. The petitioners had not cross-examined respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 closed her evidence. It is thereafter, the petitioners filed the application dated 04.09.2024 as per Annexure-J, which came to be rejected by passing the order as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50378 WP No. 168 of 2025 per Annexure-A. The said order is called in question in the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners concedes the position that there was a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and dispose off the dispute within two months as issued by this Court while disposing off the Writ Petition No.13799/2023. However, he contends that on many occasions the matter was adjourned suo motu by respondent No.2 for no fault of the petitioners. It is noticed that the petitioners were also not diligent in cross-examining respondent No.1. However, the same cannot be a ground to deny the right of the petitioners to cross-examine respondent No.1, as serious allegations are made against her. Cross-examination of PW.1 will enable respondent No.2 to dispose off the dispute on merits. Hence, I am of the opinion that a chance may be given to the petitioners to cross-examine respondent No.1. But however, it shall be in a time bound manner. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following. ORDER i) The petition is allowed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50378 WP No. 168 of 2025 ii) The order dated 06.12.2024 in No.JRM/DDS/02/2022-23 passed by respondent No.2 produced as per Annexure-A is quashed. iii) Consequently, the application dated 04.09.2024 produced as per Annexure-J is allowed. iv) It is made clear that, whenever respondent No.2 fixes the date for cross-examination of respondent No.1 hearing, the petitioners shall proceed and complete the cross-examination without seeking any adjournment. It is also made clear that if the petitioners for any reason seeks an adjournment and do not cross-examine respondent No.1, they shall not be entitled for the benefit of this order. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE PNV CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8