Narendra Kumar B R v. The Managing Director

NC:(2026:KHC:23148( WP(No.(11178(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

THDATED(THIS(THE(27 (DAY(OF(APRIL,(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(E.S.INDIRESH( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(11178(OF(2026((CS-RES)( BETWEEN:(( (

1., NARENDRA,KUMAR,B,R,

S/O,LATE,P,RAJU,,AGED,ABOUT,68,YEARS,,, NO.,163/3,,SWATHI,WOODS,, 4TH,CROSS,,8TH,MAIN,ROAD,,, 14TH,BLOCK,,NAGARBHAVI,2ND,STAGE,,,

BENGALURU,-,560,027, ,

…PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,NARAYANA,BHAT,MOVVAR.,ADVOCATE),

AND:( (

1., THE,MANAGING,DIRECTOR,

KARNATAKA,MILK,FEDERATION,LTD., Digitallytisignedtiby M,F,COMPLEX,,D,R,COLLEGE,POST,,, CHAYA0S0A DR.,M,H,MARIGOWDA,ROAD,,Location:0HIGH COURT0OF ,BENGALURU-560,029, KARNATAKA ,

2., THE,DEPUTY,REGISTRAR,(DIARY,AND,FARMING), CO,OPERATIVE,SOCITIES,,OFFICE,OF,THE, REGISTRAR-CO,OPERATIVE,SOCITIES,,NO.1,, ,ALI,ASKAR,ROAD,,BENGALURU-560,052, , …RESPONDENTS, (BY, SRI., YOGESH, D, NAIK,, AGA, FOR, R2,, NOTICE, TO, R1, DISPENSED,WITH,V/O,DATED,27.04.2026), NC:(2026:KHC:23148( WP(No.(11178(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( , THIS,W,P,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND,227,OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, CALL, FOR, THE, ENTIRE, RECORDS, PERTAINING, TO, THE, CASE, OF, THE, PETITIONER,AND,GRANT,HIM,THE,FOLLOWING,RELIEFS,ISSUE, A,WRIT,OF,CERTIORARI,OR,ANY,OTHER,APPROPRIATE,WRIT,, ORDER,OR,DIRECTIONS,SETTING,ASIDE,THE,ORDER,PASSED, UNDER,SEC.,151,OF,THE,CPC,DATED,31.05.2025,ON,IA,IN,A, NI/D, AY-2/157/DAVA/70/2022-23, BY, THE, 2ND, RESPONDENT, PRODUCED,AT,ANNEXURE-H,AS,THE,SAME,IS,ERRONEOUS.B), ISSUE,A,WRIT,OF,MANDAMUS,AND,ETC., , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, FINAL, HEARING,, THIS,DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,E.S.INDIRESH, , ORAL(ORDER( ( Learned,Additional,Government,Advocate,is,directed, to,accept,notice,for,respondent,No.2.,Notice,to,respondent, No.1,is,dispensed,with., , 2., In, this, petition,, the, petitioner, is, assailing, the, order, dated, 16.05.2025, passed, on, I.A., filed, by, the, petitioner, herein,, before, the, respondent, No., 2, as, per, Annexure-H,, interalia, sought, for, direction, to, the, respondent-authority,, to, hold, that, the, respondent, No., 2, has,no,jurisdiction,to,entertain,the,dispute.,,

¶3Heard Sri. M. Narayana Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Yogesh D Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.2.

¶4It is contented by Sri. Narayan Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 has not considered the application filed by the petitioner as to the limitation in raising the dispute before the Competent Authority and therefore sought for interference of this Court. It is also argued that, unless there is any finding with regard to the delay by the Competent Authority, as to raising the dispute as per Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, the respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction to continue the proceedings.

¶5Per contra, learned AGA also submitted that this court is having a limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the pending dispute before the quasi-judicial authority and further

contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order at Annexure-H.

¶6Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and aperusal of the writ papers would indicate that an enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner herein as per the dispute filed before the Competent Authority. Though the counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued with respect to the delay in raising the dispute by the respondent No.1-Society, as per the averments made in the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the said aspect is a mixed question of facts and law and same has to be considered only after the conclusion of the enquiry.

¶7In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the said submission cannot be accepted at this stage and ends of justice would be met if the respondent No. 2 is directed to complete the entire proceedings within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and also the

respondent no. 2 shall consider the plea raised by the petitioner as to delay in raising the dispute under Section 70 of the Act in the said proceedings.

¶8It is also to be noted that the respondent No. 2 shall not be influenced by the impugned order dated

16.05.2025 (Annexure-H) which is passed therein has to reject the application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.

¶9Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

HR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10