- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27807 WP No. 5861 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 5861 OF 2024 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: MAREGOWDA @ KCM MANI, S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OWNER OF MANI HALLIMANE HOTEL, KOTTAGALU GRAMA, HAROHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562109. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, ALI ASKER ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 2. RAITHARA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA BIDADI, R.NO.D.R.B(R) R G N S 32/76-77 BIDADI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562109, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. 3. RAITHARA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA BIDADI, R NO.D.R.B(R) R.G.N.S.32/76/77, BIDADI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562109, REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, REG. UNDER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT R2 AND R3 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI YOGESH D NAIK, AGA FOR R1, SRI N SHIVAKUMAR, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3) Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27807 WP No. 5861 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND 3 AUTHORITY TOGETHER DTD. 11.11.2023 BEARING ITS NO. NIL AND IMPUGNED LETTER ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND 3 AUTHORITY DTD. 21.12.2023 BEARING ITS NO.RY.SE.SA.SAM.NI/AA.MA. KHA/65/2023-24 PRODUED AT ANNX-A AND B TO VACATE THE CANTEEN PREMISES WHICH HAS BEEN RENTED BY R-2 AND 3 SOCIETY DTD. 22.05.2019 AS PER REGISTERED RENT AGREEMENT REGISTERED BEFORE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, RAMANAGARA FOR THE PERIOD OF 01.06.2019 TO 31.05.2031 PRODUCED AT ANNX-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER Respondent No.2 is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (‘Act, 1959’). The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 has leased a premises belonging to it in favour of the petitioner for running a hotel. However, respondents No.2 and 3 are now demanding that the petitioner vacate the same contrary to the agreed terms and conditions of the agreement. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27807 WP No. 5861 of 2024 petition is filed with a prayer to set aside the demand made by respondents No.2 and 3 to vacate the premises given to the petitioner for running the hotel. 2. Per contra, counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that the demand raised by respondents No.2 and 3 are in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that respondents No.2 and 3 are not a State for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the dispute involves a disputed questions of fact and the petitioner has to approach the civil Court for resolving the same. On the said ground, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Pradeep - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27807 WP No. 5861 of 2024 Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others1 and contends that respondents No.2 and 3 are State for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed upon paragraph No.98 of the said judgment, which reads as under. "98. We sum up our conclusions as under: (1) Simply by holding a legal entity to be an instrumentality or agency of the State it does not necessarily become an authority within the meaning of “other authorities” in Article 12. To be an authority, the entity should have been created by a statute or under a statute and functioning with liability and obligations to the public. Further, the statute creating the entity should have vested that entity with power to make law or issue binding directions amounting to law within the meaning of Article 13(2) governing its relationship with other people or the affairs of other people — their rights, duties, liabilities or other legal relations. If created under a statute, then there must exist some other statute conferring on the entity such powers. In either case, it should have been entrusted with such 1 (2002) 5 SCC 111 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27807 WP No. 5861 of 2024 functions as are governmental or closely associated therewith by being of public importance or being fundamental to the life of the people and hence governmental. Such authority would be the State, for, one who enjoys the powers or privileges of the State must also be subjected to limitations and obligations of the State. It is this strong statutory flavour and clear indicia of power — constitutional or statutory, and its potential or capability to act to the detriment of fundamental rights of the people, which makes it an authority; though in a given case, depending on the facts and circumstances, an authority may also be found to be an instrumentality or agency of the State and to that extent they may overlap. Tests 1, 2 and 4 in Ajay Hasia enable determination of governmental ownership or control. Tests 3, 5 and 6 are “functional” tests. The propounder of the tests himself has used the words suggesting relevancy of those tests for finding out if an entity was instrumentality or agency of the State. Unfortunately thereafter the tests were considered relevant for testing if an authority is the State and this fallacy has occurred because of difference between “instrumentality and agency” of the State and an “authority” having been lost sight of sub silentio, unconsciously and undeliberated. In our opinion, and keeping in view the meaning which “authority” carries, the question whether an entity is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27807 WP No. 5861 of 2024 an “authority” cannot be answered by applying Ajay Hasia tests. (2) The tests laid down in Ajay Hasia's case are relevant for the purpose of determining whether an entity is an instrumentality or agency of the State. Neither all the tests are required to be answered in the positive nor a positive answer to one or two tests would suffice. It will depend upon a combination of one or more of the relevant factors depending upon the essentiality and overwhelming nature of such factors in identifying the real source of governing power, if need be by removing the mask or piercing the veil disguising the entity concerned. When an entity has an independent legal existence, before it is held to be the State, the person alleging it to be so must satisfy the court of brooding presence of the Government or deep and pervasive control of the Government so as to hold it to be an instrumentality or agency of the State." 5. The question that arises for consideration is whether respondents No.2 and 3 are State for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and whether the lis at hand involves disputed questions of fact - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27807 WP No. 5861 of 2024 which require the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for appropriate remedy. 6. It is a well established principle that if an authority is an agency or an instrumentality of the State, then in that event it becomes a State for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The State is required to have pervasive and effective control over the functioning of such an organization, or the authority is required to perform a function of the said State. Admittedly, in the instant case, respondents No.2 and 3- Society is a Society registered under the provisions of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. It is formed by private individuals and they function in accordance with law. The State does not have any pervasive and effective control over the functioning of the Society. Under the said circumstances, the aforementioned case law relied upon by the petitioner does not come to the petitioner's rescue, and it has to be held that respondents No.2 and 3 are not a 'State' for the Article 12 of the Constitution of India. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27807 WP No. 5861 of 2024 7. Insofar as it relates to the nature of the lis between the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3, it pertains to tenancy right claimed by the petitioner over the property belonging to respondents No.2 and 3. It involves disputed questions of fact, and under the circumstances, the petitioner is required to approach the Civil Court for appropriate remedy if he so aggrieved. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is hereby dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum to redress his grievances, if he so desires. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14