High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri.Kedaralingayya Hiremath vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 27 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri.Kedaralingayya Hiremath vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 27 November, 2009
Author: H N Das
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALGRE

DATED THIS THE 27" DAY OF NOVEMBER 29:39,-«..»_T'~V--_

BEFORE

THE I-£ON'BLE MRLIUSTICE H.I§:.,.NAOA:\{:O'H'A':V;; u  u

 

WRIT PETITION.28818[2
BETWEEN :  '

SRI KEDARALINGAYYA HIREMA_TH;»»._ 

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS}   " I
OCCUPATION: PRESIDENT,   _ ,

DISTRICT CO~OPERATIVE B-CAN+<j-," 

GULBARGA, A  = T_ , 
RESIDENT Oi'-" QU'L_,SARG:A.g    PETITIONER

(By SRI PRP-'VEE"I*-T:mmAR£iR,A'II<§TE--,_ ADV.)

AND :

1. THE JOI--NT R_Et§ij5TRA:R»»<OTE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
GuI_RAR1GIA_RESIOIV,.__"_;-

RAICHUR.  ».  V.

 "  _ 2.A-iS"RI:,.,SID.DARA'MR'E*DDv,

, S/O VEERANNA OOUDA,
'T V _A'{3ED_ ASOUT 45 YEARS,
._ ".DIR'EC_TOR,,""

' .__GUL8AR£3A DISTRICT COOPERATIVE
CEN'-TRAL BANK LIMITED,
GULBTARGA.

-   RESPONDENTS

(Ry”‘S’RI K.M.E\3ATARAJ,ADDL.ADV.GENERAL WITH
‘A SRI R.DEVDAS, AGA FOR R1)

SR1 G.Ci-IANDRASHEKARAIAH, ADV. FOR R2)

(j\\i?K/x\./

009 OCS«*RRE,,§>:;1-I * A

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
8: 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE AT ANNEXURE–C ‘DATED
23.6.2009/1.07.2009 AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE.i?.OV_l;LQWIi’i.{3:–“‘

.9,.i.3..!.3.,.E..f3

In this writ petition the .petiti’o.ne’r nasipraiyéa Iifor”

writ in the nature of certiorari’C’i’~tO’ quasVh’~.thIe’I’:noIti§ce dated
23.06.2009/1.07.2009 c arid” the order
dated 23.09.2009/25.o9,V2_oo9 fi§er”‘Ari’.~g[e;;<iIre~_GI'earne._:to«be passed under section 29(c)

of theKarnataléva'Co–o'peVra.tive Societies Act 1959 (for short

Under section'"iO6 of the Act an appeai is provided

passed under Section 29(c). Learned

codnései petitioner concedes this legal position.

7-'~.__"-»AccOrdinQIy, iiberty is reserved to the petitioner to workout

j"'-r}j3_,_re'medy by fiiing an appeal before appropriate forum

ogiestioning the impugned order as per Anriexure–C and G.

vii/vx

14.)

If such an appeal is flied by the petitioner, then the___same

shaii be considered in accordance with law.

3. Since the petitioner had the benefit

hands of this court the same is c;5nAtin’ueid”~«ifor’ aAn’ot_hter:Vtwci

weeks. – =

NJ/DKB