SRI SANJAY G KHENY vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

PDF · subscribers
WP/51002/2019HC KarnatakaKAHC01048046201927 November 2019Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since the impugned order was appealable under Section 106(1)(h) of the Act, it would not ordinarily interfere in its writ jurisdiction. The petitioners were granted liberty to file an appropriate appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioners challenged an order passed under Section 68 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, and an inquiry report. They argued that the order was passed without hearing them.

What were the issues?

Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available. The procedural fairness of passing an order without hearing the affected parties.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 106(1)(h)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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/-

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →