Sogalapalya Milk Producers Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY AKKUR POLICE STATION, CHANNAPATNA RURAL CIRCLE, CHANNAPATNA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 138 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

SUPERINTEND OF POLICE BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT RAMANAGARA - 562 159.

¶15

DEPUTY SUPERINTEND OF POLICE CHANNAPATNA, BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT RAMANAGARA - 562 159.

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:23763 WP No. 13672 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHANNAPATNA RURAL, CHANNAPATNA - 562 160 BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA)

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO 4 TO PROVIDE POLICE PROTECTION AS PER THE REQUISITIONS DTD. 03.12.2025, 25.02.2026, 11.06.2026, 09.04.2026 VIDE ANNX-E, J, K AND L RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner, who is presently discharging duties as an Administrator of the Sogalapalaya Milk Producers Cooperative Society, has approached this Court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the palpable inaction on the part of respondent Nos.3 and 4–police

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:23763 WP No. 13672 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

authorities in not extending necessary police aid for effective implementation of the award passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, as evidenced at Annexure-A. It is not in dispute that, the said award, has attained finality, having been affirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and further upheld by this Court in W.P.No.9312/2026.

¶28

The factual matrix, as projected by the petitioner, would indicate that the award in Dispute No.80/2022-23 has culminated in setting aside the order of dismissal of the Chief Executive Officer of the Society and consequently directing reinstatement. The petitioner, being entrusted with the administration of the Society, is under a statutory obligation to give effect to the said award. However, it is specifically averred that certain members of the Society, acting in defiance of the binding adjudication, are creating obstruction and law and order disturbances, thereby frustrating the implementation of the award.

¶29

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:23763 WP No. 13672 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

It is further brought on record that the

¶32

petitioner has submitted a detailed representations dated 03.12.2025, 25.2.2026, 11.03.2026 and 9.4.2026 as per Annexures-E, J, K and L, to respondent Nos.1 to 4, seeking police protection to ensure smooth and lawful enforcement of the award. Despite such request, there has been no effective response from the jurisdictional police, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court.

¶33

This Court cannot lose sight of the settled principle that once an adjudicatory order has attained finality, its implementation cannot be thwarted by extraneous resistance or private obstruction. The rule of law mandates that lawful orders passed by competent authorities are to be respected and enforced, and any resistance thereto is required to be dealt with firmly by the State machinery. The police authorities, being custodians of law and order, are duty-bound to extend assistance to ensure that such orders are implemented in their true letter and spirit.

¶34

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:23763 WP No. 13672 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Learned Additional Government Advocate, on

¶37

instructions, fairly submits that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are willing to extend necessary assistance to the petitioner for implementation of the award in Dispute No.80/2022-23.

¶38

Recording the said submission and having regard to the undisputed fact that the award has attained finality, this Court is of the considered view that appropriate directions are required to be issued to ensure its effective implementation without any obstruction.

¶39

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶40

following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. The writ petition is hereby allowed.

¶43

ii. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to extend necessary and adequate police protection to the petitioner–Administrator to enable him to implement the award passed in

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:23763 WP No. 13672 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Dispute No.80/2022-23, in accordance with law.

¶48

iii. In the event the petitioner approaches respondent Nos.3 and 4 with a requisition seeking assistance, respondent No.4– jurisdictional police shall forthwith act upon such requisition and ensure that full cooperation and protection is extended for due implementation of the award.

¶49

iv. It is made clear that any person or group of persons who obstruct the implementation of the lawful award shall be dealt with in accordance with law, and the jurisdictional police shall take all necessary steps to maintain law and order.

¶50

v. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek further directions, in the event of any continued obstruction or non-compliance.

¶51

Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶52

HDK

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Sogalapalya Milk Producers Co. Operative Society Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sogalapalya Milk Producers Co. Operative Society Ltd. 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 R Somasundara Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Shivappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Syed Hidayat Ulla Vs Criminal Investigation Department

Sri. Vishal.K Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Pradeep Kumar H S Vs the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps

Sandeep T S Vs the State of Karnataka