UDAYA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Societies Act, 1959
Judgment
(BY SRI. GOODWALA SADIQALI NAZEER, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NO. ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (JSRC) BELAGAVI REGION SAHAKAR BHAVAN, GOA VASE, BELAGAVI-590001.
THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SARASWATI SADAN, 2ND FLOOR, HUBBUWADA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581343.
ANKOLA TALUK KRUSHI HUTTUVALLI MARAT SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT, ANKOLA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581323, REP. BY INCHARGE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. &RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. SRINAND A.PACHCHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO, A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26/12/2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 IN VIDE NO.KRA.DRN/F/ANARAHATTEY/29 ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.,. C/02/2025-26 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:380 WP No. 100233 of 2026 HC-KAR CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers: < i) quashing the impugned order dated 26.12.2025 passed by respondent No.4 in No.Kra.DRN/F/Anarahattey/29 C/02/2025- 26 vide Annexure-E; ii) Such other writ order or direction may kindly be issued under the circumstances of the case.=
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is passed without application of mind and by virtue of the said order, the petitioners are disqualified for a period of five years.
3. Learned HCGP representing the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the petitioners have an effective alternate remedy under Section 106 of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959 (Hereinafter referred to as 8Act, 19599 for short) and thus, the present writ petition is not maintainable. In response to that, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as there is no application of - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:380 WP No. 100233 of 2026 HC-KAR mind while passing the impugned order, though there is an effective alternate remedy, the petitioners can come before this Court.
4. Learned counsel Mr.Srinand A Pachchapure, who takes notice for respondent No.5, submits that the petitioners have an effective alternate remedy under Section 106 of the Act, 1959.
5. This Court has perused the impugned order. When the Act provides for an effective alternate remedy under Section 106 of the Act, 1959, this writ petition is not maintainable. Further, inspite of an effective alternate remedy, when the petitioners are coming before this Court, there should be a specific reason as to why this Court should entertain the writ petition. The reasons that are stated by the petitioners cannot be the grounds to interfere with the impugned order while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:380 WP No. 100233 of 2026 HC-KAR ORDER i) Accordingly, the present writ petition disposed off giving liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy before respondent No.3 under Section 106 of the Act, 1959. ii) All contentions of the petitioners are left open. iii) All I.A.s in this writ petition shall stand closed Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI JTR CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74
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.