A statutory authority cannot keep an application in abeyance when specifically directed by the High Court to reconsider it; such non-compliance warrants setting aside the order and the imposition of personal costs on the concerned officer.

BETWEEN:

SATISH BHAT

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

S/O LATE GANAPATI BHAT

R/AT MANADU HOUSE

SUBRAMANYA VILLAGE AND POST

KADABA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 574 238.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI PRASANNA V.R, ADV.)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF

COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

D.K.DISTRICT, MANGALORE - 575 001.

2. ADARSH VIVIDHODHODHESHA SAHAKARI

SANGHA, NIYAMITHA, PUTTUR

REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER

HEAD OFFICEDARBE, PUTTUR

S D.K. DISTRICT - 574 202

REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA

KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1959.

Digitally signed by NANDINI M

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

3. SHARATH KUMAR

AGED MAJOR

S/O GOPAL RAO

R/AT TIMMADKA HOUSE

BILINELLE VILLAGE AND POST

KADABA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 574 238.

4. DINESH B.N

S/O NARAYANA

AGE MAJOR

R/AT NIDHIKETANA HOUSE

SUBRAMANYA VILLAGE AND POST

KADABA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 574 238.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI YOGESH D NAIK, AGA)

V/O DT:25.04.2026 NOTICE R-2 TO R-4 D/W

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2026 ON IA NO. 1 IN DISPUTE NO. JRM/DDS/1107/2023-24 PASSED BY THE R1 DYRCS TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-A.

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

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

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondent no.1.

2. In this petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 30.01.2026 on IA No.1 in dispute No.JRM/DDS/1107/2023-24 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent no.1.

3. Sri. Prasanna V R, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, invited the attention of this Court to the order dated 28.08.2025 (Annexure-A1) and submitted that this Court has categorically directed respondent no.1 to re-consider the application filed by the petitioner. However, despite the order passed by this Court, respondent no.1 has not passed any order and kept the application in abeyance. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner sought for interference of this Court.

4. Per contra, learned AGA for respondent no.1 sought to justify the impugned order at Annexure - A and submitted that since the matter is pending consideration before respondent no.1, direction may be issued to the respondent. No.1 to dispose of the matter at the earliest.

5. The operative portion of the order dated 28.08.2025 in WP No. 23055 of 2025 ( Annexure - A1) reads as under:

(i) The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the respondent no.1 is set aside.

(ii) The respondent no.1 is directed to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rules 12 and 13 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law".

6. Perusal of the relief granted by this Court at paragraph 7(ii) would make it clear that respondent no.1 was directed to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, respondent no.1, has passed the interim order dated 30.01.2026 stating that the application is kept in abeyance and has not obeyed the order passed by this Court as per Annexure - A1.

7. This Court has pointed out to the learned AGA that if the respondent no.1 has not obeyed the order passed by this Court, how can he obey the order of the govern