- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31081 WP No. 8470 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.8470 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. GURURAJ NAGAPPA KOTIYAL S/O. NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 2. NAMITHA GURURAJ W/O. GURURAJ NAGAPPA KOTIYAL AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.10-159/2 (2), SRI BALAJI, PRASHANTI ROAD, PADUVA, 4TH CROSS, SHAKTHI NAGAR(POST), MANGALURU, D.K.-575 016. …PETITIONERS [BY SMT. KAVITHA N., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)] AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION SOCIETY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31081 WP No. 8470 of 2025 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MANGALORE SUB-DVN, MANGALORE-574 151. 3. SRI. LAKSHMANAANADA VIVIDODDESHA SAHAKARA SANGA NIYAMITHA, (REGISTERED UNDER CO-OPERATIVE ACT) REP. BY ITS CEO., JEPPU MORGAN'S GATE, MANGALORE, D.K.-575 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R.1 AND R.2; SRI. ADITHYA R. RAO AND SRI HARSHA M., ADVOCATES FOR R.3.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FORM NOS.8 AND 9 AUCTION NOTICE DATED 06.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MANGALORE SUB-DVN, MANGALORE IN DECREE NO.06/2024-25 E.P.NO.240/2024-25 AT ANNEXURES-A AND B (IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS CONCERN), ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31081 WP No. 8470 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners is absent. 2. The petitioners in the instant writ petition have challenged the recovery proceedings initiated against them under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act'). 3. It is seen that the petitioners are having an alternative and efficacious remedy under Sections 105 and 106 of the Act. 4. As the petitioners are having an alternative and efficacious remedy under the Act, the writ petition is not maintainable. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is hereby dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority in the manner known to law; - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31081 WP No. 8470 of 2025 (ii) The petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if they were to file an appeal. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57