Smt Prema Kumari Vs Assistant Registrar of Co… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt Prema Kumari Vs Assistant Registrar of Co… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to invoke Section 105 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 in accordance with law; pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 105 of the KCS Act, given the alleged violation of principles of natural justice and want of jurisdiction. +1 more

Court's answer

Disputed questions of fact arise regarding the allegations against the petitioner; therefore the dispute is not a pure question of law, and the petitioner must avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 105 of the KCS Act rather than bypass the statutory remedies; the Court declines to assume writ jurisdiction.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to invoke Section 105 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 in accordance with law; the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (CS-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking certiorari to quash the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pandavapura Sub Division (Annexure-H, Application No. AR40/DDS/13/2019-20) to the extent of directing re-enquiry and giving some other post to the petitioner, and the order dated 01.11.2019 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure-F). Counsel relied on Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority (2023 SCC Online SC 95) to urge entertainment of the writ despite the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 105 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, on grounds of violation of natural justice and want of jurisdiction. Held: an enquiry under Section 64 of the KCS Act had earlier been held (exoneration disputed), and the impugned order directed a departmental enquiry against the petitioner, who worked as secretary/employee of the Society; disputed questions of fact arise, so the dispute is not a pure question of law; the petitioner must avail the statutory remedy under Section 105 of the KCS Act. Petition dismissed with liberty to invoke Section 105; pending interlocutory application does not survive.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54703 WP No. 21250 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

WRIT PETITION NO. 21250 OF 2024 (CS-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. PREMA KUMARI W/IO JNANESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS SECRETARY (DISMISSED) MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY S KODAGAHALLI VILLAGE MELUKOTE HOBLI PANDAVAPURA - 571 434 DISTRICT MANDYA

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ABHISHAK PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES PANDAVAPUR SUB DIVISION PANDAVAPURA - 571 434 DISTRICT MANDYA

PRESIDENT MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY S. KODAGAHALLI VILLAGE MELUKOTE HOBLI PANDAVAPURA - 571 434 DISTRICT MANDYA

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. YOGESH D NAIK, AGA FOR R1.

SRI. B. RAVINDRA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:54703 WP No. 21250 of 2024

HC-KAR

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 18.07.2024 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN APPLICATION NO. AR40/DDS/13/2019-20 AT ANNX-H TO THE EXTENT OF DIRECTING RE-ENQUIRY AND GIVING SOME OTHER POST TO THE PETITIONER. AND ETC.,

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLN, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by respondent No.1 produced as per Annexure-H and order dated 01.11.2019 passed by respondent No.2 produced as per Annexure-F.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd., V.s Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Others¹ contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the position of law that the High Courts will be justified in excising the writ jurisdiction, where the principles of natural justice is violated and where the order or the

1 "2023 SCC Online SC 95"

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54703 WP No. 21250 of 2024

HC-KAR

proceedings are only without jurisdiction amongst two other grounds.

In the present case the petitioner has raised the contention that there is violation of principles of natural justice and the order impugned is without jurisdiction. Under these circumstance, he prays to consider the writ petition even though there is alternative statutory remedy available to prefer an appeal under Section 105 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short 'the KCS Act').

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above said judgment categorically stated that when pure question of law is to be considered and if it is felt that the investigation into facts is unnecessary, the High Court would entertain the writ petition in its discretion even though the alternative remedy was available.

When both the learned counsels were heard on facts of the case, it is stated that initially an enquiry under Section 64 of the KCS Act was held and it is stated that the petitioner was said to have been exonerated on the charges. However, this fact is also disputed by respondent Nos.2 and 3.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54703 WP No. 21250 of 2024

HC-KAR

As per the impugned order the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies directed to hold a departmental enquiry, since the petitioner was working as secretary being the employee of the Society. Disputed questions of fact arise for consideration regarding the allegation made against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to accept contention of the petitioner that the dispute is pure question of law. Under such circumstance, the petitioner is required to avail the statutory remedy that is available to him to challenged the impugned Annexure-H invoking Section 105 of the KCS Act, if he so advised to do so. Since, disputed question of fact are involved in this case. I do not find any reason to bypass the statutory remedies available and to assume jurisdiction. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) The petition is dismissed .

ii) The petitioner is at liberty to invoke under Section 105 of the Karnataka Co-operative

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54703 WP No. 21250 of 2024

HC-KAR

Societies Act, 1959, in accordance with law, if

he advised to do so.

In view of dismissal of main petition, pending

interlocutory application does not survive for consideration.

SD/(M G UMA) JUDGE

PNV - CT:VS

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9