IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL NO.927 OF 2019 (CS-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI K.P. CHAMPAKADHAMASWAMY SON OF LATE K.S. PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDENT OF PREMISES BEARING NO.291 1ST ‘A’ MAIN, WEST OF CHORD ROAD II STAGE, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BENGALURU-560 086.
2. SRI A.H. KOTRAPPA SON OF LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS NO.184, SHIRDI SAI SOUDHA RMS COLONY, BATTARAHALLI OLD MADRAS ROAD BENGALURU-560 044.
3. SRI C.R. HALAPPA SON OF LATE REVANNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS CARE OF PUTTAPPA NO. 32, KPTCL QUARTERS RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010.
4. SRI CHAMUNDAIAH SON OF LATE CHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS NO.1357/A, 5TH MAIN ‘E’ BLOCK, 2ND STAGE RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010.
5. SRI H.M. KRISHNAPPA SON OF MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS NO 134/1, LAXMAIAH LAYOUT GANGANAGAR BENGALURU-560 024.
6. SMT. B.N. ANASUYA WIFE OF D.M. THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS NO.50, PALACE LOWER ORCHARDS MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003.
7. SRI MIRZAMA HUSSAIN SON OF LATE MD. ILYAS AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS NO.851/6, 10TH CROSS DIRANAPALYA GOKUL, 1ST STAGE BENGALURU-560 054.
8. SRI P.N. MUNIRATHNAM SON OF PERIYAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS NO.26/5, 9TH ‘C’ CROSS ROAD PARIMALA NAGAR NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 096.
9. SRI MAHADEVA SON OF LINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS NO.70, SRIRANGA NAGARA BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU-560 085.
(BY SRI: K. SUMAN, ADVOCATE) ...APPELLANTS AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ALI ASKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BENGLAURU REGION CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018.
4. ENQUIRY OFFICER KPTC EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ANANDA RAO CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 009 AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BENGALURU 4TH ZONE BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT K.H.B. COMPLEX, CAUVERY BHAVAN BENGALURU.
5. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: I. THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI: K.S. KALLESHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R4 SERVED-UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NOS.13650- 13658 OF 2017 (CS-RES), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the interim order dated 07.03.2019 passed in Writ Petition Nos.13650-658 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge, in setting aside the interim order dated 19.04.2017 and directing the concerned authorities to proceed with the notice, the writ petitioners therein are in appeal.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous. The only reason assigned by the learned Single Judge is that if the interim order is continued, no purpose would be served in allowing the petitioner to keep this matter pending in eternity. He further pleads that a detailed order was passed when the interim order was granted. None of the reasons assigned therein have been dislodged by the impugned order. Hence, he pleads that the appeal be allowed.
3. The same is disputed to by the learned Counsel for respondent No.5. He submits that there is no error committed by the learned Single Judge that calls for any interference.
4. Heard learned Counsels.
5. In terms of the order dated 19.04.2017, a detailed order was passed as to why the writ petitioners were entitled for an interim order of stay. Hence, while granting the stay of the impugned order therein, Rule-nisi was also issued. An application was filed by respondent No.5 herein seeking to vacate the said order. The reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge could be seen at para 4 of the order, which reads as follows:
“4. In the present set of facts, this Court is of considered opinion that the interim order which is granted, would not serve any purpose except in allowing the petitioner to keep this matter pending in eternity. In that view of the matter, the interim order granted on 19.04.2017 is hereby set aside and the concerned authority is directed to proceed with the notice which is already passed and also to pursue the order passed by respondent No.3.”
6. We are unable to accept the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. The findings recorded when the exparte order of interim order of stay was granted requires to be considered while vacating the same. However, there is no reference at all to the reasons assigned when the interim order was granted. The only reason assigned is that if the interim order is continued, the matter would be kept in eternity. If that was the view of the learned Single Judge, he was always at liberty to take up the matter for final disposal. To vacate the detailed interim order only on the ground that the matter would be pending, is inappropriate. There is not even a single reason assigned for vacating the interim order on facts or on law. Pendancy of the matter cannot be a ground to vacate the interim order. Hence, we are of the view that the impugned order herein becomes unsustainable.
For the reasons assigned, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 07.03.2019 passed in Writ Petition Nos.13650- 658 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge, is set aside.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE *bgn/-