AJEET v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
(ii) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. There is no dispute about the fact that along with the appeal under Section 106 of the Act, two applications were filed i.e., I.A. No.1 and I.A.No.2, one for condonation of…
Judgment
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P.MUDHOL, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BELAGAVI, AT. BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-590001.
THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BAILHONGAL SUB DIVISION, AT. BAILHONGAL, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-590004. NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2009 WP No. 100679 of 2026 HC-KAR
THE ENQUIRY OFFICER, PRATHAMIK GRAMEEN KRUSHI SAHAKAR SANGH NIYAMIT, PATAGUNDI, TQ. GOKAK AND CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BAILHONGAL AT. BAILHONGAL, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591204.
VIVIDH UDDESHAGALA PRATHAMIK GRAMEEN KRUSHI SAHAKAR SANGH NIYAMIT PATAGUNDI, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE PIN-591204. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. MAHANTESH R.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26/11/2025 ON I.A. NO. II IN NO. DRL/DAP/02/2025-2026 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-E. 2. TO ISSUE ANY OTHER ORDERS DIRECTIONS AS DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2009 WP No. 100679 of 2026 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers: “1. To issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 26/11/2025 on I.A. No. II in No. DRL/DAP/02/2025-2026 passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-E.
2. To issue any other orders directions as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.”
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act’) and the petitioner was appointed to the post of Chief Executor and since then he has been discharging his duties satisfactorily. An enquiry under Section 64 of the Act was initiated by the competent authority by appointing the respondent No.1 as an Inquiry Officer for holding an inquiry under Section 64 of the Act.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.4 has not served the notice, not heard the petitioner and no statement of the petitioner was recorded. Inquiry proceedings were initiated behind the back of the petitioner. It is submitted - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2009 WP No. 100679 of 2026 HC-KAR that without providing an opportunity to the petitioner, an inquiry was conducted and an order was passed on 11.11.2024. The petitioner has carried this before the respondent No.2 and he filed two interlocutory applications, one is to condone the delay and the second is seeking stay. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 herein has allowed I.A.No.1 and condoned the delay in filing the appeal but however, rejected I.A.No.2 seeking stay. It is submitted that this order is passed exercising the jurisdiction in an appeal under Section 106 of the Act. The order should contain the reasons. It is submitted that no reasons are assigned why the stay petition is not entertained. It is submitted that on that ground alone, the order impugned needs to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that when it comes to condonation of the delay, without reasons it is condoned. So the petitioner cannot find fault with an order where the stay application is rejected without reasons and it is submitted that no interference is called for.
5. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the respondent is aggrieved by the order of - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2009 WP No. 100679 of 2026 HC-KAR condoning the delay, he can file a separate writ petition raising all these grounds.
Operative part
Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. There is no dispute about the fact that along with the appeal under Section 106 of the Act, two applications were filed i.e., I.A. No.1 and I.A.No.2, one for condonation of delay and another one for stay. The delay was condoned. However, stay was not granted. While rejecting the stay application, the respondent No.2 ought to have given cogent reasons for such rejection. Without reasons, the respondent No.2 has mechanically passed an order dismissing the stay application and that cannot withstand the legal scrutiny. The reasoning is heartbeat of any order. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER (i) The order on I.A.No.2 passed in DRL/DAP/02/ 2025-26, dated 26.11.2025, is set aside and the respondent No.2 shall consider - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2009 WP No. 100679 of 2026 HC-KAR I.A.No.2 afresh giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties. (ii) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. (iii) All I.As., in this writ petition stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI YAN CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 82
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: (ii) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
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.