Satish Bhat v. The Deputy Registrar of Co Operative Societies

NC:(2026:KHC:23756( WP(No.(13303(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( TH DATED(THIS(THE(25 (DAY(OF(APRIL,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(E.S.INDIRESH( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(13303(OF(2026((CS-RES)( BETWEEN:( (( SATISH,BHAT, AGED,ABOUT,55,YEARS,, S/O,LATE,GANAPATI,BHAT,, R/AT,MANADU,HOUSE,, SUBRAMANYA,VILLAGE,AND,POST,,

KADABA,TALUK,,D.K.DISTRICT,-,574,238., …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI,PRASANNA,V.R,,ADV.),

AND:(

(

1., THE,DEPUTY,REGISTRAR,OF, COOPERATIVE,SOCIETIES, OF,CO-OPERATIVE,SOCIETIES,, D.K.DISTRICT,,MANGALORE,-,575,001., ,

2., ADARSH,VIVIDHODHODHESHA,SAHAKARI, SANGHA,,NIYAMITHA,,PUTTUR,,

REP.,BY,ITS,GENERAL,MANAGER,, Digitallytisigned by0NANDINI0M HEAD,OFFICEDARBE,,PUTTUR,, S D.K.,DISTRICT,-,574,202, Location:0HIGH COURT0OF REGISTERED,UNDER,KARNATAKA,, KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE,SOCIETIES,ACT,1959., ,

3., SHARATH,KUMAR, AGED,MAJOR,, S/O,GOPAL,RAO,, R/AT,TIMMADKA,HOUSE,, BILINELLE,VILLAGE,AND,POST,, KADABA,TALUK,,D.K.DISTRICT,-,574,238., ,

4., DINESH,B.N, S/O,NARAYANA, AGE,MAJOR,, R/AT,NIDHIKETANA,HOUSE,

SUBRAMANYA VILLAGE AND POST KADABA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 574 238. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI YOGESH D NAIK, AGA V/O DT:25.04.2026 NOTICE R-2 TO R-4 D/W)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED

30.01.2026 ON IA NO. 1 IN DISPUTE NO. JRM/DDS/1107/2023-24 PASSED BY THE R1 DYRCS TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER

¶1Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondent no.1.

¶2In this petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated

30.01.2026 on IA No.1 in dispute No.JRM/DDS/1107/2023-24 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent no.1.

¶3Sri. Prasanna V R, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, invited the attention of this Court to the order dated 28.08.2025 (Annexure-A1) and submitted that this Court has categorically directed respondent no.1 to re-consider the

application filed by the petitioner. However, despite the order passed by this Court, respondent no.1 has not passed any order and kept the application in abeyance. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner sought for interference of this Court.

¶4Per contra, learned AGA for respondent no.1 sought to justify the impugned order at Annexure - A and submitted that since the matter is pending consideration before respondent no.1, direction may be issued to the respondent. No.1 to dispose of the matter at the earliest.

¶5The operative portion of the order dated

28.08.2025 in WP No. 23055 of 2025 ( Annexure - A1) reads as under: "(i) The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the respondent no.1 is set aside.

(ii) The respondent no.1 is directed to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rules 12 and 13 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure

Code and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law".

¶6Perusal of the relief granted by this Court at paragraph 7(ii) would make it clear that respondent no.1 was directed to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, respondent no.1, has passed the interim order dated 30.01.2026 stating that the application is kept in abeyance and has not obeyed the order passed by this Court as per Annexure - A1.

¶7This Court has pointed out to the learned AGA that if the respondent no.1 has not obeyed the order passed by this Court, how can he obey the order of the government? Under the circumstances, I am of the view that, the order dated

30.01.2026 passed by respondent no.1 at Annexure - A is requires to be set aside and respondent no.1 is directed to obey the order passed by this Court as per Annexure - A1 in WP No.23055 of 2025.

¶8Taking into consideration that respondent no.1 has not obeyed the order passed by this Court at Annexure - A1, despite the direction issued to him, I am of the view that respondent no.1 is directed to pay the cost of ₹.10,000/- to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority from his own pocket within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The copy of this order be sent to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority.

¶9Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13