SRI. P. SHASHIDHAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
- Bench
- E S INDIRESH
- Neutral citation
- 2026:KHC:17867
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 s. 111
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. It is further clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.9582 OF 2026 (CS-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. P. SHASHIDHAR S/O PRABHUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC:- WORKING AS DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES R/O NO.88, 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, A AND B BLOCK, MYSURU-570020. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEVIPRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION M.S BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU -560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BENGALURU REGION, SAHAKARA SOWDHA, MARGOSA ROAD, 8TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560003. - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:17867 WP No. 9582 of 2026 HC-KAR
KALYAN HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD NO.1122, SERVICE ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, 2ND STAGE BENGALURU -560104 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. (BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER SECTION 109(12-A) R/W SECTION 111 IN NO JRB/GRUHA/KALAM 65/03/2024-25 DATED 03/03/2026 OF THE KCS ACT 1959 IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents No. 1 and 2.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:17867 WP No. 9582 of 2026 HC-KAR
3. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the notice issued by respondent No. 2 dated 03.03.2026 (Annexure-D) under Section 109(12-A) read with Section 111 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, “the Act”).
It is submitted by Sri. Devi Prasad Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the respondent-authorities have no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice, as the petitioner was appointed as an Enquiry Officer and has already submitted his report. It is contended that unless the said report is accepted or rejected by the competent authority, the impugned notice at Annexure-D is not maintainable.
Per contra, Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the petitioner has already approached on 16.03.2026 and has filed his reply to the notice at Annexure-D. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:17867 WP No. 9582 of 2026 HC-KAR
In light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing the parties, and considering that the matter is pending consideration before respondent No. 2, as well as taking into account the aforesaid provisions of the Act, respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the reply filed by the petitioner on
16.03.2026 within an outer limit of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
It is also made clear that, until such consideration, respondent No. 2 shall not take any precipitative action against the petitioner.
Operative part
It is further clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 — s. 111.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.