- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41027 WP No. 30731 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 30731 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: MOHAMMED HANEEF S/O. HYDER ALI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS ZEENATH MANZIL, SITE NO.304 7TH BLOCK, KRISHNAPURA POST SURATHKAL, MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 014. …PETITIONER (BY SMT: KAVITHA .N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION SOCIETY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR THE RECOVERY OFFICER OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES MANGALORE SUB DVN MANGALORE - 575 014. 3. BHAGAVATHI SAHAKARA BANK LTD (REGISTERED UNDER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT), REP BY ITS CEO MORGAN'S GATE, MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1&2 SRI: KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41027 WP No. 30731 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE FORM NO.8 AND 9 AUCTION NOTICES DATED 08/09/2025 ISSUED BY THE RECOVERY OFFICER OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MANGALORE SUB DVN, MANGALORE IN DECREE NO.66/2024-25, E.P NO.169/2024-25 AT ANNEXURE - A AND B AND ALL OTHER FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO, (IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS CONCERN) AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the records. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash Form Nos.8 and 9 - auction notices dated 08.09.2025 issued by respondent No.2 - the Recovery Officer of Co-operative Societies, Mangaluru Sub Division, produced as per Annexures-A and B. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has produced the copy of Writ Petition No.6665 of 2025, wherein, the petitioner herein has sought similar prayer to quash Form Nos.8 and 9 - auction notices dated 27.01.2025 issued by the Recovery Officer of Co-operative Societies, in the very same - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41027 WP No. 30731 of 2025 proceedings. In the said writ petition, a conditional order of stay was passed and subsequently, it was found that the condition was not complied with by the petitioner and therefore, following order came to be passed: "1. The Petitioner is before this court seeking for the following reliefs: i. To quash the Form No. 8 and 9 auction notices dated 27.01.2025 issued by the Recovery Officer of Co-operative Societies, Mangalore Sub Dvn, Mangalore in Decree No.66/2024-2, E.P.No.69/2024-2 at Annexure-A and B and all other further proceedings pursuant to, (in so far as petitioner’s concern) ii. To grant such other relief as the Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. On enquiry with the learned counsel for the Petitioner as to whether the interim order has been complied with, she fairly submits that the same has not been complied with as the petitioner is unable to do so. If that be so, the interim order having stood automatically vacated on 7.4.2025. Reserving liberty to the respondent – Bank to confirm the auction, the Writ Petition stands dismissed." - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41027 WP No. 30731 of 2025 4. Thereafter, Form Nos.8 and 9 - auction notices was again issued by the Recovery Officer. Immediately the present petition came to be filed. Strangely, in the writ petition there is no reference of filing of earlier Writ Petition No.6665 of 2025. Even though, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is interested in settling the dispute, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the petitioner has never approached respondent No.3 with any proposal. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also not having any idea about the terms of proposal proposed by the petitioner for settlement. 5. Under such circumstances, it is clear that there is no bonafides in the case made out by the petitioner and he has approached this Court only to stall the proceedings. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE *bgn/- CT:VS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 12