- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45484 WP NO.20053 OF 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.20053 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: M/S HIGH RISE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, (REGD. UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT) REP. BY SRI. VENUGOPAL, S/O JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NO.57, GROUND FLOOR, ADHITHYA CIRCLE, DATTAGALLI 3RD STAGE, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 022. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMAKRISHNA S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, XHHQ + 798, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSURU SUB-DIVISION ROOM NO.10, SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, MYSURU - 570 005. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. VEERESH BUDHIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45484 WP NO.20053 OF 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 FO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15TH FEBRUARY, 2024 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SECTION 3(2) OF KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS IN FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT, 2004 ATTACHING THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A INSOFAR AS ITEM NO. 12 IS CONCERNED; AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the Notification dated 15th February, 2024 (Annexure-A) issued under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'KPIDFE Act'), wherein the respondent No.1-Government attached the property of petitioner viz., item No.12 of the of Annexure-1 annexed to the impugned Notification. 2. Heard Sri. Ramakrisnha S. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1; and Sri. Veeresh Budihal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45484 WP NO.20053 OF 2024 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of B. RAVISHANKAR AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS made in Writ Petition No.35914 of 2017 decided on 15th November, 2022 and submits that the petition filed by the petitioners for similar relief as sought for in the present writ petition came to be dismissed. Accordingly, he sought for disposal of the present petition in the same terms. 4. Paragraph 12 of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of B. RAVISHANKAR (supra) reads as under: "12. The dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GREATSHIP (INDIA) LIMITED reported in AIR 2022 SC 4408 wherein it was observed that, "This Court has consistently taken the view that when there is an alternate remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under constitutional provisions". The provisions of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (Financial Establishment) Act is pari materia with the provisions contained under the KPID Act. In view of the aforementioned aspects, I am of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable and same is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45484 WP NO.20053 OF 2024 Special Court for redressal of its grievance in view of the arrangement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No.5, who is willing to purchase the property involved in this petition by depositing the admitted dues to an extent of Rs.16.00 crore. Section 12 of the Act provides for powers of Special Court regarding attachment. The language employed in Section 12(3) of the Act demonstrates that, any person claiming an interest in the property attached, can approach the Special Court at any time before an order is passed under sub-section (4) of sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the KPID Act. The KPID Act is self-contained Act, which provides for protection of the innocent depositors and the rules made thereunder, particularly Rule 6 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors etc. Rules, 2006, empowering the competent authority/special Court to nullify such transfer of property involving the act of financial establishment. In the result, writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed." 5. Having taken note of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, as this Court in an identical circumstances in the case of B. RAVISHANKAR (supra) had dismissed the petition of the similarly placed petitioners, the present writ petition also deserves to be disposed of accordingly. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45484 WP NO.20053 OF 2024 6. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the KPIDFE Act is a self-contained Act, which provides for protection of the innocent depositors and the rules made thereunder, I am of the view that, it is open for the petitioner- Firm to approach the Competent Authority/Special Court for redressal of its grievance. With this observation writ petition stands disposed of. 7. Liberty is reserved to the respondent No.2 to arraign the petitioner and the impleading applicants before the Competent Authority/Special Court for redressal of their grievances. In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15