SRI K KUMAR v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 2141 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: SRI K KUMAR S/O KAMBADA RAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT SRIVATSA NILAYA, GANNGAPPA LAYOUT, ARALIMARADA PALYA MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS ROAD, SIRA GATE, TUMAKURU 572106. (BY SRI. VIVEK S, ADVOCATE) AND:

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PRATHAMKA KRISHI SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA, VADDAGERE, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572129.

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION, MADHUGIRI 572132. Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …APPELLANT …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6413-DB WA No. 2141 of 2025 HC-KAR (BY SRI. RUDRAIAH M S, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 SRI. K.S. HARISH, G.A FOR R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01/12/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.27906/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPEAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.27906 of 2012 (GM-KEB).

2. The appellant has filed the said petition impugning the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Madhugiri Sub-Division, Madhugiri. In terms of the said order, the learned Assistant Registrar had attached certain properties prior to passing an award. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6413-DB WA No. 2141 of 2025 HC-KAR

It is appellant's case that the said order had been passed without following the principles of natural justice. It is contended that although notices had been issued earlier and the date was fixed, the order was passed prior to the scheduled date of hearing.

The learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an efficacious alternate remedy under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act,

The learned counsel does not dispute the existence of an efficacious alternate remedy. However, he submits that since the appellant has alleged violation of principles of natural justice, it was necessary for the Court to entertain the said petition. We find no merit in the said contention.

It is a well settled principle that the Court may refrain from entertaining petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if the petitioner has equally efficacious alternate remedy. Notwithstanding this principle, the Courts have also entertained petitioner in cases where the principles of natural justice are alleged to be violated. However, it is erroneous to presume that in - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6413-DB WA No. 2141 of 2025 HC-KAR every case where violation of principles of natural justice are alleged, it is necessary for the writ Court to entertain the writ petition. Remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of India is a discretionary remedy. In the present case the question whether the principles of natural justice is violated in a contentious question.

We are not persuaded to accept that any interference in the impugned order is called for in the given facts.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Pending application is also disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE Vmb List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7