An administrative rejection of a representation must provide a specific and reasoned answer to the request; a vague statement regarding common membership without addressing the core application is insufficient for a lawful disposal of the matter.

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER IN NO.4092/2025-26 DATED 20.12.2025 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT MARKED AT ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner herein is assailing the letter dated 20.12.2025 bearing No.4092/2025-26 passed by respondent No.5 (Annexure - C).

2. Sri. Naveen J.N., learned counsel for petitioner contended that, the petitioner-Society herein has made an application to respondent No.5 to consider their membership and in this regard, the petitioner herein has made a representation to respondent No.5 and as respondent No.5 has not considered the same, the petitioner-Society herein has filed Writ Petition No.36197/2025 and this Court, vide order dated 08.12.2025 (Annexure - A), directed respondent No.5 herein to consider the case of the petitioner-Society with regard to membership and the same has been rejected on the ground that most of the members of the petitioner-Society were paid employees of respondent No.5-Bank and that there are no specific names of such members who are the members of the petitioner-Society as well as respondent No.5-Bank is concerned. Accordingly, interference of this Court is sought.

3. Per contra, Sri. H.B. Rudresh, learned counsel for respondent No.5 sought to justify the impugned letter at Annexure-C and submitted that, since there are common members in both the petitioner-Society as well as the respondent No.5-Bank, the impugned letter/ endorsement issued by respondent No.5 at Annexure - C requires to be confirmed.

4. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner herein has preferred W.P.No.36197/2025 (Annexure - A), wherein this Court, vide order dated 08.12.2025, directed respondent No.5 herein to consider the case of the petitioner as to the membership in the respondent No.5-Bank.

5. A perusal of the letter dated 20.12.2025 at Annexure - C, indicate that respondent No.5 has stated that most of the members of the petitioner-Society are the members of respondent No.5-Bank. However, there is no specific answer for consideration of the representation made by the petitioner herein seeking membership of respondent No.5-Bank.

6. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, the impugned letter dated 20.12.2025 (Annexure-C) deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to respondent No.5 to reconsider the application made by the petitioner herein seeking membership of the Chikkamagaluru DCC Bank Limited, in accordance with law, within outer limit of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

7. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of.