IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 51002/2019(CS-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI SANJAY G KHENY S/O GURUBASAPPA KHENY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS OCC:PRESIDENT BIDAR SAHAKARI SUGARCANE FACTORY LTD., HALLIKHED, HUMNABAD TALUK BIDAR DISTRICT-585414.
2. SRI SHIVASHARANAPPA BASAPPA HALLIKHED S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS HIRLAPUR VILLAGE, HUMNABAD TALUK BIDAR DISTRICT-585401.
... PETITIONERS (BY SMT. NALINA MAYEGOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR CANE DEVELOPMENT AND DIRECTOR OF SUGAR AND EX-OFFICIO ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES KHB BUILDING, CBAB COMPLEX, F BLOCK 5TH FLOOR, KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560 009.
4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND HEAD QUARTER ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR CANE DEVELOPMENT AND DIRECTOR OF SUGAR KHB BUILDING, CBAB COMPLEX F BLOCK, 5TH FLOOR, KAVERI BHAVAN K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
5. INQUIRY OFFICER JOINT DIRECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES KALABURAGI REGION RAICHUR-584140.
6. BIDAR SAHAKARA SQAKKARE KHARKHANE LTD., HUMANABAD, DIST. BIDAR-585401. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.C.KAVITHA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENQUIRY REPORT (ANNEXURE-B) SUBMITTED BY THE R-5 AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 26.08.2019 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE R-4.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 26th August, 2019 passed under section 68 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959(for short ‘the Act’) after conclusion of proceedings under section 64 of the Act.
2. Smt. Nalina Mayegowda, learned Advocate for the petitioners urged that petitioners were not heard before passing an order under Section 68 of the Act.
3. Smt. H.C. Kavitha, learned High Government Advocate supporting the order contended that impugned order passed under section 68 of the Act is appealable under Section 106 (1) (h) of the Act.
4. It is settled that when there exists a statutory appeal, a Writ Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India shall not ordinarily interfere with such appealable orders (See: Commissioner of Income Tax and Others vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal) reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603.
5. In view of the above, petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioners to challenge Annexure-A in an appropriate appeal proceeding.
Petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-