High Court Karnataka High Court

M B Devaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 30 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
M B Devaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 30 November, 2010
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 30"; DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010
BEFORE.

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZESER R. if?    "

WRIT PETITION N0.25195£20I0  O'  A

&M1sC.W.N0.1o354/2010 (CS-RES}  " A  A

Between:

MB. Devaiah,

Aged about 60 years,

S/o late M.A. Bopaiah,  
K. Nedugane Village & Post, A A

Abbey Falls road',    t_ 
Madikeri,.rI{od3gu"rDisti%%:ct,     Petitioner.

 _    _ _' (common)
(By Sri C.N_. Satyanaray'ana'r»Shast1fy; Adv.)

And:

 * It _  of .Karnataka,----« *

" re

A '  'By its' Secretary,
 A Dep-*.._oictoefoperation,
._ "'._M.S'; B1dg.w,'VVVi'dhana Veedhi,
A _ 13ang_a1'or'e_ .4 560 001.

The Managing Director,
" : Kodagu District Co--operative
 Central Bank Ltd.,
A' Madikeri.



3 MA. Ramesh,
Aged about 59 years,
S/0 Aiarnma,
President, Kodagu District
C0--operative Central Bank Ltd.,
Madikeri.

4 Binoo Stephen George,
Aged about 46 years,
S/o George Joseph,
No.7/12, Coilege Road,
Madikeri.

5 Kumbera SOIIlEiiahSU['fii.E1l'l,_' 

Aged about 7E years, V

Ananda Estate.,a   . 

Araparru--;m..2't2, i_ 1 .  _

Kodagu £).istric{fi~'._»' .  _V  in p"".V...Respondents.

V’ V (Common)

(By Smt. :75/1.C. Nag’.-m;ere,, HCGJ?__fo_r :11
Sri Jayakumar’ S.’Pati1,’SrfAdV.__for Sri Dayanand S. Patii,
Adv. for R2 and R3 _ 3 J
Sri M. RaVi~ndranath_, AdV’.<for R4 and R5)

4'f'his._iAVV'r,it Peti'tion—-.is«'fiIed under Articles 226 & 227 of the

Co1:st_itutionfof 'Endia, praying to quash the impugned resolution
'dated,1"5,7".'2Q'iO"passed by the 2"d respondent, etc.

it ' yiiifhis is filed under Section 151 of CPC for vacating

V stay, etc'.

V. ‘A Petition and Misc.W. coming on for Orders this
A “day, _the’_Court passed the following:

(4) KLJ 516, has declined to entertain a writ petition where an

alternative remedy under Section 109 of the Act was available

the aggrieved party.

5. As stated above, the matter requires factual adjudivcation: i

The alternative remedy available to the ‘Ir1Ot.wOfiiyi”‘V’V

adequate but also efficacious in nature, Thereis no reasonwhy the’; ‘

petitioner should not avail the alternative remedy available toihim
in law. Therefore, I decline vto”‘entertain_ petition.” It is
accordingly dismissed. However; ._1ibe_rty i”s~., ireserxked to the

petitioner to’cha–lienge’i:he..resolutigo’n._ impugned herein by raising a
dispute. All the eontentio’i1._s are open.

view of”‘th.eidismissal of the writ petition as above,

I’Misc.W,pNo.liO354/12010 does not survive for consideration. It is

accoi’ding_lyy disn_1jsse.d’.”No costs.

Sd/”:2

zaaee