Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 29237
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.I.Arun, J
Thukaram D – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
WP No. 17407 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kavitha N
For the Respondents: Yogesh D Naik
A writ petition is not maintainable when the petitioner has an alternative, efficacious statutory remedy under the relevant governing legislation.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an auction notice issued due to a loan default. The High Court, observing that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy available under Sections 105 and 106 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, dismissed the petition. The primary issue was whether the writ petition was maintainable given the existence of a statutory remedy. The court reasoned that in the presence of an efficacious statutory mechanism, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked, necessitating that the party exhaust such remedies first. The writ petition was dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority as per law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of proceedings and nature of the challenge. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. requirement to exhaust alternative statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction. (Para 3 , 4) |
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOTO QUASH THE AUCTION NOTICES DATED 05/05/2026 ISSUED BY THE RECOVERY OFFICER, SHIMOGGA DCC BANK IN CASE NO 29/2025-26 AND E P NO.01/2026-27, AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALL OTHER FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL ORDER
Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents No.1 and 2.
2. Petitioner has challenged the auction notice dated 05.05.2026 seeking to auction a property on the ground that there was a default committed in respect of a loan borrowed from respondent No.3-Society.
3. It is seen that the petitioner has an alterative and efficacious remedy under Sections 105 and 106 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
4. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is hereby dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority in accordance with law.
