IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION No.40408/2018 (CS-EL/M) BETWEEN:
MYSORE AND CHAMRAJNAGAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK ASHOK ROAD, NEHARU CIRCLE, MYSORE-570001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT S.CHANDRASHEKAR. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.MAHESH.C.M, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-01, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION OFFICER MYSORE-570001.
3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES MYSORE DIVISION PALACE OFFICE BUILDING MYSORE-570001.
4. C.BASAVEGOWDA S/O SINGREEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS DIRECTOR, MYSORE AND CHAMRAJNAGAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK ASHOK ROAD, NEHARU CIRCLE, MYSORE-570001.
5. G.D.HARISH S/O G.T.DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS DIRECTOR, MYSORE AND CHAMRAJNAGAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK ASHOK ROAD, NEHARU CIRCLE, MYSORE-570001.
6. VICE PRESIDENT MYSORE AND CHAMRAJNAGAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK ASHOK ROAD, NEHARU CIRCLE, MYSORE-570001.
7. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MYSORE AND CHAMRAJNAGAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK ASHOK ROAD, NEHARU CIRCLE, MYSORE-570001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.K.VASANTH, AGA FOR R1-R3, SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 7.9.2018 PASSED BY THE R-3 IN APPEAL NO. 252/2018-19 VIDE ANNEX-A AND QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 1.9.2018 ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEX-C.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘ORDERS’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The instant writ petition is preferred calling in question the interim order passed by the Appellate Authority on 07.09.2018.
2. It is now submitted by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 that respondent Nos.4 and 5 who are the appellants before the Appellate Authority below have withdrawn the appeal. In that view of the mater, the instant writ petition does not survive for further consideration.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly concurs with the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.Nos.2/2018, 3/2018, 4/2018, 5/2018, 6/2018 do not survive for consideration and hence, they are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE VM CT:HR