- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6248 WP No. 9850 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO.9850 OF 2024 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: THE NAGAPURA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.411, 5TH MAIN ROAD, 12TH CROSS, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, 2ND STAGE, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU-560086 REP. BY ITS: THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SMT. SUMITHRA T.S., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O. LAKSHMI NARAYAN REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 8 OF KARNATAKA REGISTRATION ACT, 1960. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHASHIDHAR S.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, URBAN BANK CELL, ALI ASKER ROAD, BENGALURU-560052. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NO.1 DIVISION, BENGALURU, NO.146, 1ST FLOOR, SAHAKARA SOUDHA, 8TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6248 WP No. 9850 of 2024 MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003. 3. SRI N. ESHWARAPPA S/O SRI NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.1446, 5TH MAIN, ‘D’ BLOCK, II STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010. 4. SRI B.H. SURESH S/O FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.36, 2ND MAIN, GNANAGANGA NAGAR, GNANA BHARATHI POST, RING ROAD, BENGALURU-560056. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI N. RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3 IN CP NO.5988/2024; R-4 – B.H. SURESH, SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.03.2024 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AUTHORITY BEARING NO.RCS UBC- 1/SECTION 64-369-2023-24, VIDE ANNEXURE-C 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 ASHOK S.KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6248 WP No. 9850 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: (i) Issue Writ of Certiorari or in the like nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 passed by respondent No.1 authority bearing No.: RCS UBC-1/Sec.64-369-2023-24, vide - ANNEXURE - C; (ii) Issue Writ of Mandamus or writ or writ of direction to the respondents No. 1 & 2, to refrain from further proceedings and not to take any such measures / steps in respect of the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 passed by respondent No.1 bearing No.: RCS UBC-1 / Sec.64-369-2023-24, vide ANNEXURE - C; (iii) Issue Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the respondent No.1 not to proceed with any further steps or measures or any such kind of initiatives coercive in nature pertaining to conducting enquiry on the basis of the impugned notice dated 19.03.2024, vide ANNEXURE-D; (iv) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: 3. The petitioner's society is a registered Co-operative society under the provisions of Karnataka Co-operative - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6248 WP No. 9850 of 2024 Society Act. Respondent No.3 being a member of the petitioner's Co-operative society submitted a representation dated 13.10.2023 seeking explanation pertaining to the management and administration of the petitioner's society, that in spite of having provided with such details thereon, notwithstanding the same, respondent No.3 approached respondent No.1 and having considered grief of the respondent No.3, respondent No.1 had issued a correspondence to the petitioner Co-operative society directing the petitioner society to address the issue made out by respondent No.3. That having received the said correspondence from respondent No.1, the petitioner submitted its detailed reply on 03.01.2024, therewith answering the questionnaire of in or about 53 questions made out by respondent No.3. Respondent No.1 authority assuming that there exists such irregularities and illegalities in the petitioner cooperative, passed the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 vide Annexure-C and respondent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6248 WP No. 9850 of 2024 No.2 was directed to conduct an enquiry and to submit his report within 2 months from the date of order and further, Respondent No.2 issued a correspondence to the petitioner on 19.03.2024. The petitioner society, aggrieved by the appointment of an enquiry officer, filed this writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and learned counsel for respondent No.3. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the employee of the Co-operative Society filed a complaint against the director, and Respondent No.2 has no authority to initiate an inquiry against the director, on the contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Society Act. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6248 WP No. 9850 of 2024 premature and it is only to initiate the proceedings. Hence, he submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is an undisputed fact that respondent No.3 lodged a complaint against the director of the petitioner society alleging the irregularities in the management. Respondent No.1, considering the complaint, and detailed reply has passed an order directing Respondent No.2 to initiate an enquiry against the directors of the petitioner's society. The directors against whom an enquiry is ordered to be conducted, they are not before the Court, only the petitioner society is before the court. It is only regarding initiating an enquiry against the director and if an enquiry is conducted, the real truth will come. Further, the writ petition challenging the appointment of an - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6248 WP No. 9850 of 2024 enquiry officer is generally not maintainable at the interlocutory stage, as the court prefers not to interfere with the conclusion of the enquiry. Further, appointment of the enquiry officer can be challenged only on two circumstances i.e., if it is biased or if there is lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner has raised neither of the grounds in this writ petition. Hence, I do not find any grounds to entertain the writ petition. 9. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37