IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.402 OF 2012 CONNECTED WITH WRIT APPEAL NOS.4 OF 2011 AND 3 OF 2011 (CS-RES) WRIT APPEAL NO.402 OF 2012:
BETWEEN:
AMANATH CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED AMANATH HOUSE NO.43, HOSPITAL ROAD SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU-1 REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO.
(BY SRI: K.S.KALLESHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OP SOCIETIES (URBAN BANKS) ... APPELLANT NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 052.
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP SOCIETIES NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 052.
3. SHRI K. P. APPANNA JRCS (RETD) AND THE INQUIRY OFFICER NO.99, NAJAPPA LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU.
4. AZEEZ MOHAMMAD SON OF MOHAMMAD DADA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS M D TOWERS, NO.84 II MAIN ROAD, N T PETE BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.1735 OF 2011 (CS-RES) DATED 04/11/2011 AND ETC., WRIT APPEAL NO.4 OF 2011: BETWEEN:
AMANATH CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.43, HOSPITAL ROAD SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR.
(BY SRI K. S. KALLESHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. H. ATHEEQ ANWAR SON OF LATE H. ABDUL BASITH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS NO.3808, 14TH CROSS INDIRANAGAR, 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 038.
... APPELLANT 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (URBAN BANKS) NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 052.
3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, (RETD) AND INQUIRY OFFICER APPOINTED UNDER SECTION 64 OF KCS ACT OFFICE OF THE INQUIRY OFFICER AMANATH CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU.
(R-3 IS DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 07.08.2012) 4. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA (INDUSTRIAL AND ORS) ALI ASKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT: SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-4; R-3 DELETED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.23995 OF 2010 (CS-RES) AND MISC.W.NO.10489 OF 2010 DATED 18/11/2010.
WRIT APPEAL NO.3 OF 2011:
BETWEEN:
AMANATH CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.43, HOSPITAL ROAD SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR.
(BY SRI K. S. KALLESHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. K. RAHMAN KHAN SON OF LATE KASIM KHAN AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS NO.200 OF C, 7TH MAIN ... APPELLANT 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 011.
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (URBAN BANKS) NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 052.
3. SRI K. P. APPANNA THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (RETD) AND INQUIRY OFFICER APPOINTED UNDER SECTION 64 OF KCS ACT OFFICE OF THE INQUIRY OFFICER AMANATH CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU.
4. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA ALI ASKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, SMT: SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.26673 OF 2010 (CS-RES) AND MISC.W.NO.10047 OF 2010 DATED 18/11/2010.
***** THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Sri.K.S.Kalleshappa, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has argued the appeals on merits.
2. We have considered the same. In terms of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, it was noted that subsequent to the instructions, proceedings under Section 69 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, is initiated.
3. The order of the learned Single Judge reads as follows:
“Subsequent to the instructions, proceedings under Section 69 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is initiated. Properties are attached and legal action is being taken.
In view of the same, considering the subsequent developments to proceed under Section 68 of the Act may not be necessary.”
4. Therefore, when the petitions has been disposed off, we fail to understand as to how respondent No.3 before the learned Single Judge could maintain these appeals. Therefore, the writ appeals being devoid of merit are dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE *bgn/-