IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 5105 OF 2025 (CS-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI MANJUNATHA H S S/O H M SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS SAJJEHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572112 …PETITIONER Digita lly signed by KIRAN (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA K., ADVOCATE)

KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF AND:

KARNATAKA

1. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND RECOVERY OFFICER (U/RULE 441)

TUMAKURU DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD TUMAKURU-57201

2. TUMAKURU DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD BADAVANAHALLI BRANCH BADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISRICT-57212 REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. YOGESH D NAIK, AGA FOR R1 SMT. MANJULA D., ADVOCATE FOR R2(VC)]

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AUCTION SALE NOTICE DTD. 17.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-1 BEARING EP NO. 14/2020-21 IN FORM NO. 9 UNDER RULE 38(2)(d) OF KCS RULES 1960 VIDE ANNX-C.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: *****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner filed this petition challenging the auction sale notice dated 17.01.2025 issued by respondent No.1 bearing EP No.14/2020-21 in Form No.9 under Rule 38(2)(b) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 vide Annexure-C.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of the petition are as follows:

2.1. The petitioner obtained a loan from respondent No.2-Bank and committed a default. Respondent No.2 raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959 (‘Act of 1959’ for short). The said dispute was allowed and the award came to be passed. To enforce the award passed by the Arbitrator, respondent No.1 initiated recovery proceedings by way of issuing the auction sale notice vide Annexure-C. The petitioner, aggrieved by the same, filed this petition.

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, respondent No.2 raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Act of 1959, however, the notice was not served on the petitioner, and the petitioner was not aware about the award passed by the concerned authority. The said award is an ex-parte award. Hence, the auction sale notice issued by respondent No.1 is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that, the petitioner is a borrower and he has failed to repay the loan amount and committed a default. Respondent No.2 raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Act of 1959 and the concerned authority has passed the award in 2019. Despite passing of the award, the petitioner has not paid the award amount. He submits that, respondent No.1 has rightly issued the auction sale notice. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner obtained a loan from respondent No.2-Bank and committed a default; respondent No.2 raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Act of 1959. The said dispute was allowed and the award came to be passed.

8. The petitioner did not challenge the award passed by the concerned authority. Unless the award passed by the concerned authority is set aside, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the auction sale notice. Respondent No.2, to recover the said amount, issued auction sale notice on 17.01.2025. The action of the respondents in issuing the auction sale notice is in pursuance to the award passed by the concerned authority. Hence, I do not find any ground to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dis