Writ Petition No. 2928 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5753 WP No. 2928 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.2928 OF 2025 (CS-RES) ... PETITIONER BETWEEN: M. MUNIREDDY S/O. LATE APAYANNA AGE – 69 YEARS, SRI HARI NIVAS VISHVANATHAPURA AREKERE POST, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU – 561203. (BY SRI DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES NO.1, ALI AAKER ROAD, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 2. KARNATAKA RAJYA SOUHARDA SAMYUKTHA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SOUDHA, 1ST BLOCK, BETWEEN 17TH AND 18TH CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. MAHAYOGI VEMANA SOURDHA PATINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NO.784, VEMANA SOWDHA 8TH A CROSS, LION SEVA BHAVANA ROAD, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU-560064. REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA SOUHARDHA SAHAKARI ACT-1997. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5753 WP No. 2928 of 2025 4. SAMPANGI REDDY .R S/O. RAMIAHA AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS, DIRECTOR, MAHAYOGI VEMANA SOURDHA PATINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NO.784, VEMANA SOWDHA 8TH A CROSS, LION SEVA BHAVANA ROAD YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU-560064. 5. M.N. REDDY S/O. MUNISWAMY REDDY AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS, DIRECTOR MAHAYOGI VEMANA SOURDHA PATINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NO.784, VEMANA SOWDHA 8TH A CROSS, LION SEVA BHAVANA ROAD YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU-560064. 6. BABU REDDY S/O. B.H. KRISHNA REDDY AGE-50 YEARS, DIRECTOR, MAHAYOGI VEMANA SOURDHA PATINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NO.784, VEMANA SOWDHA 8TH A CROSS, LION SEVA BHAVANA ROAD, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU-560064. ... RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R-1; SRI M.R. RAJGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI H.N. BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 TO R-6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER PASSED ON 30.05.2024 APPEAL NO.RCS:DAP:D1:17:2023-24 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ALLOWING THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-K; QUASH THE ORDER PASSED ON 24.01.2025 PASSED IN APPEAL NO. RCS:DAP:D1:17:2023-24 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-S; DIRECT HE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONTINUE THE INTERIM ORDER GRANTED ON 09.01.2024 TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL NO. RCS:DAP:D1:17:2023-24 PENDING BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.1. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5753 WP No. 2928 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER Petitioner is seeking for the following prayers: “a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order passed on 30/05/2024 Appeal No.RCS: DAP:D1:17:2023-24 by the respondent no.1 allowing the impleading application produced as Annexure-K. b. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed on 24/01/2025 passed in Appeal No.RCS:DAP:D1:17:2023-24 by the respondent no.1 produced as Annexure S. c. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to continue the interim order granted on 09/01/2024 till the disposal of the Appeal No.RCS:DAP:D1:17:2023-24 pending before the respondent no.1, Annexure-J. d. Pass such other writ, order or direction that this Hon’ble court deems fit under the circumstances of the case.” - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5753 WP No. 2928 of 2025 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press prayer No.(a) of the petition, submission is recorded accordingly, prayer No.(a) is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The order disqualifying the petitioner from the directorship of respondent No.3-society and also from contesting in any of the cooperative societies for a period of two years at Annexure ‘H’ was challenged by the petitioner in appeal No.RCS:DAP:D1:17:2023-24 before respondent No.1 under Section 25(5) of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 (‘the Act’ for short), along with the appeal, an application for stay under Section 151 of C.P.C was filed. Respondent No.1-Registrar of Cooperative Society granted an interim order of stay, staying the impugned order at Annexure ‘H’. Thereafter, respondent Nos.4 to 6 filed an impleading application seeking to implead themselves in the appeal, the petitioner raised objection on their impleadment. Respondent No.1 on hearing allowed the impleading application and permitted the impleading applicant to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5753 WP No. 2928 of 2025 come on record. When the matter stood thus, the impleading applicant filed an application for vacating the interim order granted by respondent No.1 on 09.01.2025, respondent No.1, by the impugned order on 24.01.2025, vacated the interim order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of vacating was without hearing the petitioner, it is submitted that the IA for vacating was heard by the earlier Presiding Officer on 04.07.2024 and after hearing the IA for vacating was posted for orders. Thereafter, the Presiding Officer who had heard the matter was transferred and a new Presiding Officer had taken charge on 09.09.2024. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the new Presiding Officer, who was appointed, did not hear the matter and passed the order on IA by vacating the interim order which was granted in favour of the petitioner on 09.01.2024. 5. Per contra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents Nos.4 to 6 submits that the interim - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5753 WP No. 2928 of 2025 order either by granting or vacating the interim order is purely a discretionary power and unless there is a perversity shown by the petitioner in this regard, the interference of the discretionary order should not be permissible. 6. This Court has carefully considered the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. The order sheet produced by the petitioner in the proceedings before respondent No.1 indicates that on 24.01.2025, the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies- respondent No.1 passed the following order: “24.01.2025 case called out. Appellant represented by DPS Advocate R1 represented by ADR Advocate R3 to R5 represented by KCNR advocate present and R3, & R5 present in person also R3 to R5 advocate submits that the memo is filed today cannot be considered. Therefore, it had to be filed - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5753 WP No. 2928 of 2025 before 20.01.2025 as was directed in the last date of hearing. R1’s advocate also submits that this cannot be accepted and reads out the order passed by R1(the souharda federation) Appellant advocate even today asks for time. No material is placed on record. Heard at length all the arguments of all the sides. Inspite of the order on 25.01.2025 appellant has failed to produce documents even today. The interim order granted in this case stands vacated w.e.f. today. Call for arguments on 07.02.2025 on the main application.” 8. On perusal of the order dated 24.01.2025 would indicate that respondent No.1 has passed the order on IA without hearing the petitioner in utter violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was granted an interim stay on 09.01.2024 against the order of disqualification. Subsequently, an application was filed by - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5753 WP No. 2928 of 2025 the impleading applicants for vacating the stay. The authority, without granting an opportunity of hearing the petitioner, passed the impugned order vacating the interim
Decision
stay, the challenge to the impugned order is mainly on the ground that it violates the principles of natural justice, particularly the doctrine of audi alteram partem. The principle of audi alteram partem, ‘hear the other side’ is a fundamental rule of natural justice that ensures no person is condemned or disadvantaged without being given a fair opportunity to present their case. The basic question regarding the disqualification itself is the subject matter in the appeal and if the appeal pending before the authority is allowed, and if the order of the original authority disqualifying the petitioner is not stayed pending consideration of the appeal, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the granting of an interim order would be required to be granted by setting aside the impugned order, this Court pass the following: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5753 WP No. 2928 of 2025 ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. Impugned order dated 24.01.2025 is hereby set aside. The interim order dated 09.01.2024 is continued till the disposal of the appeal before respondent No.1 and I.A for vacating to be disposed of accordingly. iii. All contentions of the parties are kept open to be urged before respondent No.1. iv. This Court has not expressed the merits or demerits of this case and any observation made would be only to the limited extent of considering this writ petition. v. Respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, not later than four weeks from 12.02.2025. Sd/- ________________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA YKL/MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44