IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

WRIT PETITION NO. 27906 OF 2025 (CS-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. K. KUMAR,

S/O KAMBADA RANGAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT SRIVATSA

NILAYA, GANNGAPPA LAYOUT,

ARALIMARADA PALYA MAIN ROAD,

1^ST CROSS ROAD, SIRA GATE

TUMAKURU - 572 106

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VIVEK .S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PRATHAMIKA KRISHI

SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA,

VADDAGERE, KORATAGERE TALUK,

TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 129.

Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V

Location: High 2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,

Court of

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,

Karnataka

MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION,

MADHUGIRI - 572 132

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RUDRAIAH M.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1

SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY R2 DATED 07.07.2025 IN ARM-33/ADIBHARA- SECTION 69/03/2024-25 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A). AND II)

QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY R2 DATED 07.07.2025 IN ARM-33/ADIBGARA-SECTION 69/03/2024-25 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A1). 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 Annexures-

A and A1 dated 07.07.2025 passed by respondent No.2.

2. Heard Sri. Vivek S., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Rudraiah M.S., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, as per Annexures-A and A1-the attachment before award came to be passed under Section 103 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, 'the KCS Act") without following the principles of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the petitioner to put-forth his contention. Therefore, the impugned orders are to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, opposing the petition, submitted that the petition itself is not maintainable as the statutory remedy under Section 105-E of the KCS Act is very much available to the petitioners. There is no reason to bypass the said statutory remedy and therefore he prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Annexures-A and A1 are the orders passed attaching the properties before award. Obviously, these orders were passed under Section 103 of KCS Act. Section 105 under Chapter-13 of KCS Act deals with the appeals to the Tribunal. Sub Clause (E) refers to an order that was passed under Section 103 of the KCS Act. Therefore, any order passed under Section 103 is appealable under Section 105-E of KCS Act.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Radha Kishan Industries V/s State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, 2021 (6) SCC 771, to contend that, even when the alternate remedy is available, there is no bar for invoking the authority of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered the contentions of the parties before it and held in para 27.4 as under:

"27.4- An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law."

(emphasis supplied)

7. Thus, it is made very clear that, in every case where there is an allegation that the principles of natural justice are not followed, the aggrieved is not required to knock the door of this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court has made very clear that only in an appropriate case, such remedy could be made available and that, ordinarily, a writ petition shall not be entertained when such efficacious alter