SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39127

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M G UMA
MRS. SYEDA RIZWANA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 42984/2017



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 42984 OF 2017 (CS-DAS)

BETWEEN:

1. MRS. SYEDA RIZWANA W/O ATEEQ AHMED AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.23, F-9 CLEVELAND TOWN BANGALORE - 560 005 (NOT CLAIMING BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO SENIOR CITIZENS) 2. MRS. NASIHA AMATUL AZEEZ D/O MRS. SYEDA RIZWANA &

MR. ATEEQ AHMED AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT: NO.73/A, CIL COLONY

2ND CROSS, SANJAYNAGAR BANGALORE - 560 094 Digitally

3. MRS. UZAMA ANSARI signed by SWAPNA V D/O LATE ATEEQ AHMED Location: & PETITIONER NO.1 High Court of AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS Karnataka R/AT NO.26, CHINNASWAMY MUDALIAR ROAD, TASKER TOWN BANGALORE - 560 001

4. MRS. FAIZA UMME ATHIYA D/O LATE ATEEQ AHMED & PETITIONER NO.1 AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.53, NAL LAYOUT EAST END MAIN ROAD

4TH T BLOCK, BANGALORE

5. MRS. NUSRA AHMED KHAN D/O LATE ATEEQ AHMED & PETITIONER NO.1 AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT: NO.5/1, CHURCH ROAD BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE - 560004

6. MRS. HAFSA UMMUL KHAIR D/O LATE ATEEQ AHMED & PETITIONER NO.1 AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT: NO.22, OAK WOOD APARTMENTS, EAST END MAIN ROAD, C-MAIN

38TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR

9TH BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560041 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G.L. VISHWANATH, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V.C. RAJU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BANGALORE M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001 BY ITS SECRETARY

2. THE SALE OFFICER ATTACHED TO ARCS/RO (U/R 441) AMANATH CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BRIGADE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001

3. AMANATH CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.43, HOSPITAL ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER R3 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 21.09.2017 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHANDINI .S., HCGP FOR R1 R2 - SD/-)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND / OR SETTING ASIDE THE ATTACHMENT NOTICE IN FORM NO. 7 DATED 28.6.2017 ISSUED R-2 VIDE ANNEX-L AND THE SALE PROCLAMATION VIDE FORM NO. 8 DATED 9.8.2017 AT ANNEX-M ISSUED R-2 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the attachment notice issued in Form No.7 dated 28.06.2017 by respondent No.2 produced as per Annexure - L and the sale proclamation vide Form No.9 dated 09.08.2017 produced as per Annexure - M.

2. Heard Sri. G.L.Vishwanath, learned Senior Advocate for Sri.V.C.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Abhinav.R., learned counsel for respondent No.3.

3. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners contended that, the property which is the subject matter of the notice of attachment and proclamation, exclusively belongs to the petitioners, who are the wife and children of late Ateeq Ahmed. After death of Atteq Ahmed, no notice was issued to the petitioners and principles of natural justice is denied and therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposing the petition submitted that, there is a remedy available to the petitioner under Section 101(2)(a) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959. It is the Registrar of cooperative societies, who is the competent authority to pass appropriate orders, as the proceedings were initiated before him, and the orders were passed. Without approaching the appropriate authority, the petitioner has rushed to this Court.

Therefore, the petition is not maintainable.

5. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has placed reliance of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Harbanslal Sahnia and another Vs. Indian Oil Corpn.Ltd and others' and 'Satwati Deswal Vs. State of Haryana and others', (2010) 1 SCC 126 in

1 (2003)2 SCC 107

support of his contention that when patently an illegal order is passed, this Court can interfere and quash the impugned notices.

6. The facts and circumstances highlighted in both these decisions are e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top