Karnataka High Court
Madalambika vs Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 26 September, 2016
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER
WRIT PETITION Nos.51265-51273 OF 2016 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MADALAMBIKA
W/O. MAHADEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT HANGALA VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
GUNDALPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR-573 111.
2. BELLEGOWDA
S/O BASAVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT KALIGOWDANA HALLI,
HANGALA HOBLI, GUNDALPET TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR-573 111.
3. SHAMBAPPA
S/O PUTTAVEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
DEVARAHALLI VILLAGE,
HANGALA HOBLI, GUNDALPET TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
4. H. D. DODDANAIAKA
S/O KALANAIKA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
5. H. B. MAHADEVAPPA
S/O BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
6. H. N. RAJU
S/O LATE NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
2
PETITIONER NO.4 TO 6 ARE ALL
R/AT HANGALA VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
GUNDALPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR-573 111.
7. G. MANJUNATH,
S/O GOPAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
KUNAGALLI GRAMA,HANGALA HOBLI,
GUNDALPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR-573 111.
8. MAHADEVAPPA
S/O MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
9. NAGAMALLAPPA
S/O BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
PETITINERS NO.8 AND 9 ARE
R/AT HANGALA VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
GUNDALPET TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR-573 111. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VEERABHADRA SWAMY.H.P, ADV.)
AND:
1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
MYSORE REGION,
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS,
MYSORE- 570 024.
2. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
NO.330, 3RD FLOOR,
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING,
CHAMARAJANAGAR- 571 111. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE R-1 TO DISPOSE OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY
FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S IN APPEAL
3
NO.JRM/DAP/01/2016-17 ON THE FILE OF THE R-1 VIDE
ANNEX-B1.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners contend that they have filed an appeal challenging the order at Annexure-A dated 8.6.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent by filing an appeal No.JRM/DAT/01/2016-17 before the 1st respondent. It is further contended that in the said appeal, an application has been filed seeking interim stay of the order at Annexure-A.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 1st respondent has not passed an order on the said application.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the first respondent has to consider the application at Annxure-B1 in Appeal No.JRM/DAT/01-2016-17 at an early date. Therefore 4 the 1st respondent is directed to consider the application within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE KLY/