Smt Parvathamma Vs State of Karnataka

CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577101. REPT. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (RESPONDENT NO. 3 SOCIETY IS REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959).

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3;

¶27

VIDE ORDER DATED 01.08.2025, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.4 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING THE NO.DRC/DAVA/APPEAL/106/2024-25 DATED 17.03.2025 ISSUED BY 3^RD RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A AS BAD, ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, WHIMSICAL, INCOMPETENT AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC.

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioner, an employee of the respondent No.4 has filed this petition challenging an order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the respondent No.3 returning the appeal filed by her, challenging an order passed under Section 68 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (henceforth referred to as ‘the

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:29803 WP No. 22919 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Act of 1959’ for short), on the ground that it was belatedly filed.

¶36

The petitioner contends that she filed an appeal before respondent No.3 challenging an order passed under Section 68 of the Act, 1959. As the appeal was filed belatedly, therefore she filed an application for condonation of delay and hence, it was incumbent upon the respondent No.3 to consider the application and dispose off the same. She contends that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, was applicable to an appeal before the respondent No.3 against the order passed under Section 68 of the Act of 1959. Therefore, the respondent No.3 without entertaining the application for condonation of delay, could not have returned the appeal to the petitioner on the ground that it was filed belatedly. Nonetheless, the respondent No.3 passed the impugned order returning the appeal.

¶37

The learned Additional Government Advocate who has accepted notice does not dispute the fact that provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to an appeal before the respondent No.3.

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:29803 WP No. 22919 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be disposed off , and accordingly the respondent No.3 is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay and if the delay is condoned, the respondent No.3 shall consider the appeal and dispose it off on merits and in accordance with law.

¶42

The learned Additional Government Advocate is

¶43

permitted to file a memo of appearance within ten days.

¶44

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶45

BKN

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Smt Parvathamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Parvathamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Komari Gowda M K Vs the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Dr.Virupaxi Shivalingappa Sadhunavar Vs Karnataka Rajya Souharda Samyukta Sahakari Niyamitha

Smt. Rangamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Aruna Ravi Vs the Chief Executive Officer

M.Nanjegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

M. Muniraju Vs the State of Karnataka