Halu Utpadakara Mahila Sahakari Sanga Niyamitha… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Halu Utpadakara Mahila Sahakari Sanga Niyamitha… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 09.01.2023 passed by respondent No.2 set aside; respondent No.2 directed to implead the petitioner and take a fresh decision after hearing it; Additional Government Advocate permitted to file memo of appearance within ten days.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 09.01.2023 passed by respondent No.2 in the appeal filed by respondent No.4, without notice to and without hearing the petitioner, is liable to be set aside.

Court's answer

The impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is set aside, since respondent No.2 proceeded with 'unearthly haste' by deciding respondent No.4's appeal within seven days of its filing, thereby depriving the petitioner of the benefit of the allotment made by respondent No.3 and of an opportunity to participate in the proceedings.

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.2 is directed to implead the petitioner in the proceedings initiated by respondent No.4 and, after hearing the petitioner, to take an appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LB-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by a women's co-operative society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The Grama Panchayath Ganjigere (respondent No.3) had allotted a 30 feet x 20 feet site to the petitioner society. Respondent No.4 appealed to the Taluk Panchayath, Alur (respondent No.2) on 02.01.2023 for cancellation of the allotment resolution; the petitioner was not arrayed as a party, and respondent No.2 allowed the appeal on 09.01.2023, within seven days of filing, setting aside the resolution. The petitioner, who had been granted liberty in WP No.6110/2023 to challenge that order, did so on the ground of absence of notice. Held, respondent No.2 having proceeded with 'unearthly haste', the impugned order was set aside and respondent No.2 was directed to implead the petitioner and take an appropriate decision after hearing it, in accordance with law. Petition allowed (NC: 2025:KHC:47724; decided 19.11.2025 by R. Nataraj, J.).

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47724 WP No. 32516 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 32516 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

HALU UTPADAKARA MAHILA SAHAKARI SANGA NIYAMITHA A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT GARIGHATTA VILLAGE, GANJIGERE POST, KUNDURU HOBLI, ALUR TALUK, HASSAN 573 213 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI.ABHINAY Y.T. ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEPARTMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ. VIDHANA SOUDHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY BENGALURU - 560001.

TALUK PANCHAYATH, ALUR, HASSAN 573 213 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER

GRAMA PANCHAYATH GANJIGERE, ALUR TALUK, HASSAN 573 213 REPRESENTED BY ITS

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:47724 WP No. 32516 of 2025

HC-KAR

PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

SMT. SHAKUNTHALA WIFE OF SWAMI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS AND RESIDING AT GANJIGERE POST, KUNDURU HOBLI, ALUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573 213.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI.A.NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3; SRI.NAGARAJA.B. ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2023 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN TA. PA (AA) APPEAL NO. 03 OF 2022-23 (ANNEXURE-F).

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged an order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the respondent No.2 in Ta.Pa (Aa) Appeal No.03/202223 (henceforth referred as 'impugned order').

(i) The petitioner claims that it is a Co-operative

Society established and operated by women of Garighata Village

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47724 WP No. 32516 of 2025

HC-KAR

and comprises of 125 houses and 100 women are its shareholders. It is claimed that the respondent No.3 had allotted a site measuring 30 feet X 20 feet to the petitioner for construction of a building to enable the womenfolk of the village to run the society. The petitioner claimed that it completed the construction and was using the building for the purposes of the society.

(ii) When things stood thus, the respondent No.4 filed an appeal before the respondent No.2 on 02.01.2023 for cancellation of the resolution passed by the respondent No.3. However, the petitioner was not arrayed as a party before the respondent No.2.

(iii) The respondent No.2 passed an order within seven days therefrom i.e., on 09.01.2023 accepting the case of the respondent No.4 and passed an order setting aside the resolution passed by the respondent No.3. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the order passed by the respondent No.2 on the ground that the same was without notice to it.

The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the above contentions submitted that the respondent No.4 had filed WP No.6110/2023 to enforce the order passed by the respondent No.2, where the petitioner was arrayed as a party. He contends

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47724 WP No. 32516 of 2025

HC-KAR

that this Court in WP No.6110/2023 had permitted the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the respondent No.2. He contends that the impugned order is passed by the respondent No.2 without hearing the petitioner and hence prays that the same be set aside and direct the respondent No.2 to hear the appeal afresh.

The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 does not dispute the fact that the respondent No.4 had filed WP No.6110/2023, where the petitioner was arrayed as one of the respondents and this Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the respondent No.2.

Since the respondent No.2 has proceeded with an unearthly haste by considering the appeal filed by the respondent No.4 within seven days from the date of its filing, the impugned order, which has the consequence of depriving the petitioner of the benefit of the allotment by the respondent No.3 has to be set aside and an opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings before the respondent No.2.

Hence, the following order is passed:

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47724 WP No. 32516 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORDER

i. This petition is allowed.

ii. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is set aside.

iii. The respondent No.2 is directed to implead the petitioner in the proceedings before it initiated by the respondent No.4 and after hearing the petitioner, to take an appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law.

iv. The learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file a memo of appearance within ten days.

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

BKN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17