IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.12835 OF 2019 (CS-RES) BETWEEN :
H.S. MAHESH S/O LATE SHIVANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RETIRED DCC BANK OFFICIAL TENGINAMARADA MANE MOTHIHALLI FARM HALEBEEDU BELUR TALUK-573 121 HASSAN DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SHRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573 201 2. URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., BELUR, S.K. PETE BEEDI RASTHE BELUR-587 114 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.C. KAVITHA, HCGP FOR R-1) . . . .
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPEAL NO.225/2016 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-C DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.07.2016 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN DISPUTE NO.2/2014-15 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner initiated proceedings under Section 70(1)(b) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act against second respondent bank in Dispute No.2/2014-15 before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (‘the DRCS’ for short), Hassan, contending inter alia that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which was in his savings bank account was transferred to the loan amount, though petitioner had not availed any loan. The bank contested the said dispute on the ground that it had raised a dispute bearing No.397/2002-03 before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (‘the ARCS’ for short), Sakaleshapur, Hassan, for recovery of loan availed by the petitioner.
2. The DRCS, by his order dated 29th July 2016, dismissed the dispute and directed recovery of amount claimed by the bank in dispute No. 397/2002-03.
3. Petitioner challenged order dated 29.07.2016 passed by the DRCS, before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (‘the KAT’ for short). By order dated 21.12.2018, KAT dismissed petitioner’s appeal No.225/2016.
4. Shri S.V.Prakash, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the ARCS in Dispute No.397/2002-03 is without notice to the petitioner. Therefore, the said order is nullity in the eye of law. The DRCS as also the KAT erred in taking note of proceedings in dispute No.397/2002-03. Hence, the orders passed by the DRCS and the KAT are unsustainable in law.
5. Learned HCGP argued opposing the petition.
6. I have carefully considered rival submissions and perused the records.
7. Undisputed facts of the case are, petitioner approached the DRCS, Hassan, with a specific contention that he had not availed any loan. This contention was resisted by the bank by producing the records. The bank had earlier raised a separate dispute and the ARCS, Sakaleshpur had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,10,616/-.
8. The contention urged by Prakash in this petition that order passed by ARCS is an ex-parte order is untenable because, the said order is in force as on date. If petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, he ought to have challenged the same in the manner known to law instead of approaching the DRCS, seeking a declaration that he had not availed any loan.
9. In view of the admitted facts, this petition does not merit any consideration and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Yn.