- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32405 WP No. 55921 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 55921 OF 2017 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., BENGALURU HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001 REP BY ITS MANAGER/PAID SECRETARY SRI. S.N. KANTHARAJU …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.U.NAREN SHAKTI SWARUP, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.N. UMASHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND JUSTICE NEW DELHI-110001 2. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT NEW DELHI-110001 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 4. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32405 WP No. 55921 of 2017 M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION NO.DOH 109 KHB 2017 BENGALURU DATED 10.07.2017 PUBLISHED IN KARNATAKA GAZETTE ON 11.07.2017 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE- A IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER-SOCIETY IS CONCERNED AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner - Society has challenged the notification bearing No.DOH 109 KHB 2017, Bengaluru, dated 10.07.2017 issued by the respondent No.3, by which, the Karnataka Real Estate Regulation and Development Rules, 2017 framed under Section 84 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 were notified. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.3 that the notification referred above is not applicable to it and to declare that the aforesaid notification is not applicable to the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32405 WP No. 55921 of 2017 petitioner as per the Objects and Bye-law No.56(c) of its Bye- laws. 2. The petitioner claims that it is a multipurpose co- operative society comprised of the employees of the Judicial Department. It claims that bye-law 56(c) of its bye-laws provides for development of lands and formation of layouts of residential sites after obtaining approval from the competent Authority and allotting the sites to its members on a no profit no loss basis. It contends that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short, 'the Act, 2016') was promulgated by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the State Government was authorized to frame Rules under Section 84(1) of the Act, 2016 and accordingly, the State Government has formulated the Karnataka Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 in terms of which, co-operative Societies are also included within the definition of a Promoter. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court challenging the notification dated 10.07.2017 and also has sought for a declaration that it is not a Promoter as it is governed by the bye-laws framed by its members. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32405 WP No. 55921 of 2017 3. When this petition is listed for preliminary hearing in 'B' Group, the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo which reads as follows: "It is submitted that the petitioner society is a multi-purpose judicial co-operative society and before the enactment of the RERA Act, the society formed sites and allotted to its members on no-profit/no-loss basis prior to the year 2015. The members are the working staffs of this Hon'ble Court who have purchased the sites on installment basis. The project was closed before the RERA Act came into force. It is submitted that at present, the society is not involved in any projects and in case, the society proposes to start any project in future, the society will obtain RERA registration as prescribed by the Act." 4. In view of the above, nothing survives for consideration in this petition and the Petition stands disposed off. However, if the petitioner ever proposes to start any project in future, it shall obtain registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 as prescribed therein. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68