IN THE HIGH COURT 01:' KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 27TH my OF AUG_I%.¥Sf3\3.f:20(§;€:3vV ' H
BEFOREfW' M Wk ' &
THE H{)N'BLE MR. JUS'I'ICE:A N
WRIT PE"'I'ITION No.2532M%'*%0_§go@9 I{3$T:-<}i'E?S'$}"
BETWEEN :
.. AA ' BY ITS MANAGING PARPNER
_,-NO. 13, WEST OF' CHORD RGAQ,
1 SMT B R ;$EELA*;JATH:£: = ~
W/O VENK;%'ZT_ARAMAPPA. 'M:
AGE13 AB'0t;?;?'--.52'%:T1aAR_S, %
R/AT E~3Q;--1i'.;§?;TI~I CROS-S_, KE,éMPAIAH LAYOUT
cH0LA§:§AYA;. 1, 8TH moss, KEMPAIAH
' "Lac: 1"?._._ CHOLANAYAKANAHLLI MAIN ROAD,
'-_R '1' BANGALORE 32.
3 M13 SURAKSHA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE
Lzwrm
BASAVESHWAR NAGARA, BANGALQRE
. .. . ?E'I'i'I'IONERS
{By smv. LAKSHMINARAYANA AJI)V.,)
AN{)
1
THE STATE 0}? KARNA'i'AKA.~~~ %
REPRESENTED BY ITS SEQZRETARYT *' k Y
CO»-()PE'.RA'I'ION DEPARTMENT7, T * ' '
M.s.BUIL1:)1NG, BANGALORE"*]_
mg: ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF ~ '
C~o1=-*ERAT1v13: 3001311333 2
I CIRCLE, MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE -560
THE ASS}S'}'ANT _{31'+'
CO«O1?Ei§A'§£\{E.vSOQIET_IESv '
II;
BANGAmR_E»%%3% Q %
THE'v--(§0M'M--ESSiO§'i'E§?10F POLICE
I_NFAN"£"RYRC)A1i), "
3 ._iBA1\¥GAL0RE - 1. V
A. TIE, I$IfS~PECTOR OF POLICE
_ "1{mMAK3,H:PALYA POLICE STATION,
x'--.._BAi*I§3AL{_'3RE-- 79.
KARNATAIQA URBAN HOUSING
C30__¥{)PERATIV'E SOCIETY LIMYTEE,
" * NQ352, 3RD A moss
H " -- _ £1 STAGE, III PHASE, WEST OF CHQRD
ROAD, BANGALORE '?9, RERBY ITS
ADMNIS'I'RA'I'0R/ LIQUIDATOR
. .. RESi"ONI)EN'}'S
{BY SRLBEVADAS AGA)
TEES wmr PETITION FILED UND_.E.¥E,.}'aR'FIC1;ES " u S
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTFYUTIQN'OP1ND1A PRAYII'€(}-V'
TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD ':.'_12.:1A£>.,.i)8"SO,PAS'SEI)-..__B3{SA
THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 7fC)F_
SQCIETIES, CIRCLE 1, BANGALORE COPY"OE?.WH:§CH
IS PRODUCED AT ANNEX~-.N';V.S' ISSUE' OF
MANDAMUS TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
COOPERATIVE SOCIETEES,:I"(3ERf3};E_, OR 1H~C1:Rc:LE,
DANGALORE AS THE: _cAS:;«i "Minx BE NOT TO
EXERCISE ANY POWER _.D IS;'i'.U'_I_'E NO.ARB-
i:DAS:90:2008--09 PENEVING HISAVFELE TILL THE
DISPOSAL, OF APPEAL N:O.35'1./'2(}{}7 ON THE FILE OF
THE «V :AI~'*PEL'L.!§TE TTRIDUNAL, AT
BANGALOFE. .
TH1'S'"' PE.§fiTION"""' "COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY :e:,E5:?ING"TH3S DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE F()LLOWiN(§:.
;\ORDER
this writ petition is to an
..:Oijder passed by the 2115 respundent in
Na..A;§}3i1;DAS:90:2Oos-2009 dated 12.12.2003,
'-mpy O§;".;§?E1ich is as at axmexmtz --- N. The Said Order has
' in a dispute, which has been filed by the
5.??? respendent herein, flfldfir Sectien '?0 Of the
' Karnataka CO-0perative Sociefies Act, 19§9 {for Sh()I't
'tha Act').
2. A dispute filed under Section 70 of the Act is
required to be dealt and disposed of by the Reg'str*:;§~--,,jby
exercising his powers under Sectien 71 of
Rule 31 cf the Karnataka Co-operative K
1960. Secticm 7 1(3) of the Act, eihéeiesithe
make 'mter-iequtary ordere,» as heA. :G3.ay in *'
interest of justice i.e., _t11e 'de§:i:'§io1i:§of the
dispute. The "erdc.':§ }.. is one,
which the said aumority in exercise
of the power euxiaei-ee;«3ecz::ti;i§: '7 1(3) of the Act. Final order
pasfsedf' by in exercise of the powers under
the Act i,.e., decision dispesing of the
a subject matter of an appeal under
V V . Seefionv'-.V: of the Act. Any interdoqutory orders
H K a dispute under Section 70 0f the Act, can be
-' by the Tribtmal either sue motu or an
T " "é£jjp1ieatio11 filed by any awieved person, by exercise of
the Revisiofla} power ecnferred under Section 107 of the
E
Act. The Tribunal has 'seen eenfemed-.4":
jurisdiction to call for the rec0rds"0i'-
which an appeai lies to it, far
itself, as to the legality or V. of. ths or 'V
order passed and if if; to the
Tribunal that, such is should be
modified. or may pass
such orc§erith<:£*e{:iii;"'£atS 'i'tjj§ fit ;}.eém~fit.
3}._ In viewsof statutory provisions, Sri. V.
Lakshmmmjayaxiét, counsel for the petitioner
_ was submit, as to how this writ petition
by-passing the statutory remedy
of the Act.
4. V. Laks1nni11arayana,, though conceded
'A V' ' _1:h:é"'re is a statutory provision under Section 107 of
to avail the revisional remedy, still contended
" hffiat, the 2M respondent has actect in a highly iilegal
manner in entertaining the dispute and in passing the
E
/6′.
impugneti order. According to the _
theze was no dispute, as such, for b€iDg”~3fit$F§£§jflfid ” ~ ..
much less any interim order of the pre$er1t,;iat’ure” AA
passed. Learned Counsel to
pendency of appeal No.35 1 Tfibunal,
wherein the interimv ‘igjafjier, was aise
extended on 2 1.'(}.7_.. such being
the case, part of the 2nd
imaginary dispute of
the 6&1 itjaaesing the impugned order.
In t13,e., eirctimetefiees, he contended that, this
” V. {ieurt isehould net “” ‘take into account the alternate
under Section 107 of the Act and may
pefmit ttxejiietitioner to invoke the writ remedy through
“this fietifion. He centended that, the case being an
_ ‘eXt;rae”ordinary one, there is no legal immdiment for
-»e;iter1:ainir1g the writ petition. E
5. I have perused the record. The submieeiegis
made by Sri. V. Lakshmfilamyaxm though _
enough in the first instance, but ” ‘V
laid down by the Supreme “deeiSiGt}.s;
and 22130 in View of the mamdate of ttie ”
Censtitution of India, I tat enteI’té;iI1 writ
petition, without exptessing{.,’ ; ::’op3′.r1ion on the
contentions raised as Well as on
the merit __ _-;’.w’:bij:__&_’petiti0t1, ‘ sifiee the same are
required to’ Tribunal, in exercise of its
Revisionaxlt j,t1tisd’ictit21i.’A.._–Sufiice it note, if the dispute is
V. ,_ not petitioner can avail the remedy
‘®fe~re ,Rt§§§–SB”ar himself, as provided under Section
’70(3’} ‘of
.. L In the ease of Thansiafl Hathma! 83 Others
The Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri & Others,
.1964 SC 1419, the Constitutional Bench of the
‘vs
L, –
which demand an elaborate examinafioq ..
evicience t0 establish the right to
which the writ is claimed. The
does net therefore act as cq11ftj. cf» t _ T
against the decision ef a com: fiibHfj;§31,”tO
Cerrect errors of faét;-.:fi83j;d ttiages
assuming jurisdiction 2:126
trench upon an’ provided
by statute for it is
open tn move
itself in another
j1;1:risdAiiSt§s:§n__Vvtforféistaining redress in the
mgtauatzarft statute, the High
not permit by
.V45:gfitertai§1izzgV__§_petition uncle: Article 226
of Constitution the machinery
‘V ¢raé”ate¢iV”fn}§der the statute to be bypassed,
leave the party applying to it to
to the machinery so set up.
V’ (Emphasis suppliw by me)
7. Bound by the said mandate, in simian’
.. circumstances, this Court declined to erltzertain simlar
writ pefitions, but permitted the petitionersto avaii the
é/g”