Allowed

N. Krishna v. M/S Bamul Nowkarara Vividoddesha Sahakara Niyamitha

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2024WP/825/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition and quashed an order transferring proceedings regarding a cooperative society dispute from the Joint Registrar to the Assistant Registrar. The court directed the Joint Registrar to consider the matter and dispose of it within six months due to a prolonged delay.

What did the court decide?

Certiorari issued to quash order of transfer and subsequent proceedings; matter remitted to Joint Registrar for disposal within six months.

N. Krishna Vs M/S Bamul Nowkarara Vividoddesha… — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:51766 WP No. 825 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 825 OF 2024 (CS-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

N. KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O LATE S K NARAYANASWAMY R/AT NO 532 SLV IDEAL NEST KENCHANAHALLI R R NAGAR BANGALORE 560098

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H C., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

1 . M/S BAMUL NOWKARARA VIVIDODDESHA SAHAKARA NIYAMITHA BANGALORE DAIRY NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE DR M.H. MARIGOWDA ROAD DHARMA RAMU COLLEGE POST BANGALORE 560029 REP BY ITS SECRETARY SRI N S SRIDHAR

¶14

2 . THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES III CIRCLE SAHAKARA SOUDHA MARGOSA ROAD MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE 560003

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:51766 WP No. 825 of 2024

¶16

3 . THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIIVE SOCIETIES II CIRCLE SAHAKARA SOUDHA MARGOSA ROAD MALLESWARAM BANGALORE 560003

¶17

4 . THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ZONE 3, SAHARKARA SOUDHA MARGOSA ROAD MALLESWARAM BANGALORE 560003

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. KALLESHAPPA K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK., AGA FOR R2 TO R4)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2023 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN DISPUTE NO.JRB/MD/69/2016-17 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14/07/2023 PASSED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT ON THE MEMO FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN DISPUTE NO. JRB/MD/69/2016-17 AT ANNEXURE-F1 AND ALSO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FOURTH RESPONDENT IN DISPUTE NO. JRB/MD/69/2016-17 AT ANNEXURE-F1 AND ETC.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 06.12.2024, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:51766 WP No. 825 of 2024

¶25

CAV ORDER

¶26

The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶27

a. To issue a writ, of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the second respondent in Dispute No. JRB/MD/69/2016-17 produced at Annexure-F consequently quash the impugned order dated 14.07.2023 passed by the R4 on the memo filed by the petitioner in Dispute No.JRB/MD/69/2016-17 at Annexure-F1 and also quash the entire proceedings before the fourth respondent in Dispute No. JRB/MD/69/2016-17 at Annexure-F1; and

¶28

b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondents deem fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶29

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.4, entertaining the Dispute No.69/2016, filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioner. The matter earlier being pending with respondent No.2, respondent No.4 had written to respondent No.2, that the dispute filed before him was not maintainable, therefore, has to be transferred to respondent No.4. In pursuance of which respondent No.2 on 17-01-2023 transferred

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:51766 WP No. 825 of 2024

¶32

the said dispute to respondent No.4 and in that background, the petitioner contends that respondent No.2 could not have acted upon the advice of respondent No.4 to transfer the matter to respondent No.4 and as such, the order of transfer and the proceedings before respondent No.4 are required to be set aside.

¶33

On service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance.

¶34

Sri.Kalleshappa K.S., learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that it does not matter who is going to decide the matter, whether it is respondents No. 2, 3 or 4. The respondent No.1 Society is awaiting for resolution of the dispute which was filed in year 2016. The petitioner has been filing application after application which has resulted in the delay of the proceedings and as such, he submits that any order passed by this Court directing any authority to dispose the matter would be acceptable to

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:51766 WP No. 825 of 2024

¶36

respondent No.1 so long as necessary orders are passed within a reasonable period of time more so when huge amounts of money have been misappropriated by the petitioner.

¶37

Sri.Yogesh Naik, learned AGA appearing for respondents No.2 to 4, submits that the transfer of the proceedings to respondent No.4 has been made for administrative reasons and the same would not have any adverse impact insofar as he made an application or respondent No.1 was concerned.

¶38

Heard Sri.H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Kalleshappa K.S., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Yogesh Naik, learned AGA for respondents No.2 to 4 and perused papers.

¶39

The jurisdiction of the Joint Registrar, the Deputy Registrar and the Assistant Registrar is defined under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. For

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:51766 WP No. 825 of 2024

¶41

¶42

the purpose of administrative reasons, the

¶43

proceedings pending before the Joint Registrar cannot be transferred to the Assistant Registrar. It was but required for the Joint Registrar to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders instead of transferring the same to respondent No.4. However,

¶44

the matter has been pending for the last nearly 9 years now, it is required that appropriate directions are issued to respondent No.2 for expeditious disposal of the matter.

¶45

In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i) The Writ Petition is allowed .

¶48

ii) A certiorari is issued, the order dated 17.01.2023 passed by respondent No.2 in Dispute No.69/2016-17 at Annexure-F and further proceedings taken up before respondent No.4 at Annexure-F1 are quashed.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:51766 WP No. 825 of 2024

¶51

iii) The matter is remitted to respondent No.2 for consideration from the stage at which the matter was on 17.01.2023 and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶52

iv) The submission of Sri.H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Kalleshappa K.S., learned counsel for respondent No.1 that they will cooperate with Respondent No.2 for expeditious disposal of the matter and would not seek for any unnecessary adjournments is placed on record.

¶53

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶54

PRS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

N. Krishna v. M/S Bamul Nowkarara Vividoddesha Sahakara Niyamitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Krishna v. M/S Bamul Nowkarara Vividoddesha Sahakara Niyamitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. Kruthi Priya. M Vs the State of Karnataka

H S Basavaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Ms. Afifa Azmi Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Sri Shambulingeshwara Educational Trust (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravichandra G Vs State of Karnataka