Town Vividoddesha Sahakari Bhandara Niyamitha Vs Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies

TOWN VIVIDODDESHA SAHAKARI BHANDARA NIYAMITHA A REGISTERED COOPERATIVE SOCIETY UNDER THE KARNATAKA CORPORATION SOCIETIES ACT, 1959 SIRA MAIN ROAD TUMKUR DISTRICT 572137 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. M B ANIRUDH., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION, MADHUGIRI, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572139

¶15

MR. G N B ARADHYA S/O LATE K GUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS RESIDING AT SHANTHI NIVAS, MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, KOTE, SIRA TOWN, TUMKUR 572137

¶16

MRS. SUMANGALAMMA D/O LATE K GUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS RESIDING AT SHANTHI NIVAS,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:15554 WP No. 6531 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, KOTE, SIRA TOWN, TUMKUR 572137

¶21

MRS BRAMARAMBA D/O LATE K GUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT SHANTHI NIVAS, MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, KOTE, SIRA TOWN, TUMKUR 572137

¶22

MS KAVITHA S D/O LATE SHIVANNA MAJOR BY AGE YALIYURU VILLAGE, YALIYURU POST, KASABA HOBLI, SIRA, TUMKUR 572137

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. SARITHA KULAKARNI, AGA FOR R1 SRI. SUNIL KUMAR PATEL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 R5 SERVED V/O DATED 03.03.2026 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4 IS H/S)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 16.12.2021 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION No. AR33 / CASE No.1/2024-25 PASSED BY THE R-1 – ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES (ANNX-A).

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:15554 WP No. 6531 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶33

“(i) Issue a writ or certiorari or any such writ or order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, quashing the certified copy of the order dated 16.12.2021 in Execution Application No AR33 / case No.1/2024-25 passed by the respondent No.1 – Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (Annexure - A);

¶34

(ii) Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶35

This writ petition takes exception to the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 16.12.2021 passed in Execution Application No.AR33/Case No.01/2024-25 by respondent No.1 / Asst. Registrar of Co-operative Societies and for other reliefs.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:15554 WP No. 6531 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3; and

¶41

perused the material on record.

¶42

On perusal of the material on record will indicate that one late G.Jaganmatha Devi was working as a Sales Girl in the petitioner-Society, during the course of which, she was dismissed from service, alleging misconduct. The said G.Jaganmatha Devi challenged the order of her dismissal by approaching this Court in Writ Petition No.43377 of 1999, which was disposed of by this Court, relegating the aforesaid G.Jaganmatha Devi to work out her remedy before respondent No.1.

¶43

In pursuance of the same, said G.Jaganmatha Devi raised a dispute in Case No.2 of 2000-01 before respondent No.1, which was allowed on 09.02.2007, thereby setting aside the order of dismissal and directing reinstatement of G.Jaganmatha Devi together with all consequential benefits.

¶44

Aggrieved by the said order dated 09.02.2007 passed by respondent No.1, the petitioner-Society approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 328 of 2007,

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:15554 WP No. 6531 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

during the pendency of which, G.Jaganmatha Devi expired and respondent Nos.2 to 5 were brought on record as her legal representatives, and continued the proceedings.

¶49

By final order dated 28.01.2017, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-Society.

¶50

Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner-Society approached this Court in Writ Petition No.52946 of 2017, so also, respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein preferred Writ Petition No.8736 of 2020 in relation to the execution proceedings.

¶51

Both the aforesaid writ petitions were clubbed/tagged together and disposed of by this Court vide final order dated 23.04.2024, whereby the petition filed by respondent Nos.2 to 5 was allowed and the petition filed by the petitionerSociety was dismissed. The said order reads as follows:

¶52

“(i) The Writ Petition No.8736/2020 is allowed .

¶53

(ii) Impugned Annexure-H dated 09.03.2020, and the letter dated 03.08.2020 issued by

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:15554 WP No. 6531 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

the 2^nd respondent marked at Annexure-J are quashed.

¶58

(iii) The 2nd respondent Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies is directed to proceed with the execution proceeding in case the petitioners in W.P. No.8736/2020 seek to recover the alleged difference of service benefits.

¶59

(iv) In case, the execution proceeding is prosecuted by the petitioners, the 2nd respondent Assistant Registrar shall decide the questions relating to alleged arrears including the date of birth/superannuation of late G. Jaganmatha Devi on its own merits as this Court has not adjudicated on the alleged arrears of service benefits payable.

¶60

(v) The respondent-Society shall pay Rs.72,996/- the admitted amount due to the petitioners within 60 days from the date of this order. If the amount of Rs.72,996/- is not paid within 60 days from today, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 09.02.2007 the date of the award till the payment of the amount.

¶61

(vi) The Writ Petition No.52946/2017 is dismissed .”

¶62

As could be seen from the aforesaid order passed by this Court, for the first time, the petitioner-Society having taken

¶63

up a contention that the aforesaid G.Jaganmatha Devi was

¶64

7 -

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:15554 WP No. 6531 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

born on 08.09.1941 and not on 08.09.1949, as contented by respondent Nos.2 to 5, this Court directed the Executing Court to decide the said issue and also pass an appropriate order.

¶68

Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions, the Executing Court proceeded to pass the impugned order holding that G.Jaganmatha Devi was born on 08.09.1949 and not on 08.09.1941, as contented by the petitioner-Society, who is before this Court by way of present writ petition.

¶69

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶70

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Society has reiterated the various contentions urged in the petition and invited my attention to the impugned order and the material on record In order to point out that, the Executing Court committed an error in accepting the date of birth of G.Jaganmatha Devi as 08.09.1949 without considering the school admission records, which indicate that she was born on 08.09.1941,

¶71

8 -

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:15554 WP No. 6531 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

which has resulted in erroneous conclusion and the

¶75

impugned order deserves to be set aside.

¶76

Per contra , learned Additional Government Advocate and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would jointly submit that, having regard to the undisputed fact that the date of birth of the aforesaid G.Jaganmatha Devi had been entered in her service register at the time of joining the services as 08.09.1949 as recorded by the Executing Court. Hence, the Executing Court was fully justified in passing the impugned order, and the said date of birth having not been changed in the Official service records of G.Jaganmatha Devi maintained by either the department or by the petitioner-Society itself, which had intimated the Department about the date of birth of G.Jaganmatha Devi as 08.09.1949, the Executing Court was fully justified in passing the impugned order, which does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court in the present petition.

¶77

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.

¶78

9 -

¶79

NC: 2026:KHC:15554 WP No. 6531 of 2025

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, in the light of the undisputed fact that the date of birth of late G.Jaganmatha Devi had been shown as 08.09.1949 at the time of her joining into services in the petitioner-Co-operative Society, which was Intimated by the petitioner itself to the Department, which had also recorded the date of birth of G.Jaganmatha Devi as 08.09.1949, a stray/lone/solitary entry in the school records, in the absence of any corroboration, and that too, after a lapse of 70 years from the date she was born, cannot be made the basis to come to the conclusion that she was born on 08.09.1941, and not on 08.09.1949, as contended by the petitionerSociety. In other words, since the date of birth of the said G.Jaganmatha Devi had not been disputed by the petitionerSociety in the earlier round of proceedings and at the time of joining the services so also while initiating the enquiry, it is too late in the day now for the petitioner-Society to contend that she was born on 08.09.1941 and not on 08.09.1949, particularly when the date of birth given by herself at the time of joining into service with the petitioner had been indicated

¶82

10 -

¶83

NC: 2026:KHC:15554 WP No. 6531 of 2025

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

by the petitioner and was recorded in her service records and reflected in the Service Register of G.Jaganmatha Devi maintained by the Department.

¶86

In the circumstances, I am of the view that the Executing Court was fully justified in passing the impugned order, which cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity in order to term the same to be capricious or perverse, warranting interference at the hands of this Court, in the present writ petition.

¶87

Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby accordingly dismissed .

¶88

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶89

RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Town Vividoddesha Sahakari Bhandara Niyamitha v. Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Town Vividoddesha Sahakari Bhandara Niyamitha v. Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J. Anthonyraju Vs Director (a and Hr)

Sri. P Venkat Naik Vs the Commissioner

Central Board of Direct Taxes Vs the Competent Authority for

Sri. Vijay B.v, Vs the State of Karnataka

H N Veerabhadrappa Vs H N Shivamurthy

B C Kiran Kumar Vs the Assistant Registrar of