(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 23/01/2026 in No. Ar-ND 11/Rsr/89/2025-26 passed by the 2 Respondent vide Annexure-E and etc.,)

Oral Order

1. The petitioner has instituted the present writ petition questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 23.01.2026 passed by the second respondent, produced at Annexure-E. The petitioner has also sought issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to accord permission for collection of share capital towards the pre-registration of the Proposed Shri Vitthal Biradeva Vividoddesha Prathamik Grameena Krushi Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Galataga, Tq: Nippani, Dist: Belagavi.

2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner submitted a proposal dated 23.12.2025 before the second respondent seeking permission to collect share amounts for the purpose of registration of the proposed co-operative society. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent issued a notice directing the petitioner to appear on 23.01.2026. According to the petitioner, though he appeared before the authority and produced the requisite documents, the second respondent, without properly considering the proposal, without recording the petitioner's statement and without affording an effective opportunity of hearing, rejected the proposal by the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the controversy involved in the present petition is no longer res integra and stands concluded by the decisions rendered by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in Sandeep s/o Kallappa Kobru v. State of Karnataka and Another in W.P. No.103027/2024, Sachin s/o Anand Khot v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P. No.100493/2024, and Kallappa s/o Beera Gawade v. State of Karnataka and Another in W.P. No.100512/2025. It is submitted that the petitioner's application was one made under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960, seeking permission to collect share capital prior to registration of the proposed society, and not an application under Section 7 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act'). Therefore, it is contended that the second respondent has proceeded on an erroneous premise by invoking Section 7 of the Act and consequently treating the matter as one falling under the said provision. Learned counsel would further submit that the impugned order is not appealable under Section 106 of the Act and, therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. She would accordingly submit that the present petition deserves to be disposed of in terms of the orders passed by the Coordinate Benches in the aforesaid cases.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate would support the impugned order and contend that the second respondent has passed the order in exercise of powers under Section 7 of the Act. It is therefore argued that the impugned order is appealable under Section 106(a) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, and consequently the writ petition is not maintainable on account of the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy. On these grounds, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have carefully perused the material placed on record.

6. There is no dispute that the petitioner submitted an application seeking permission to collect share capital for the purpose of registration of the proposed co-operative society. It is also not in dispute that the second respondent issued notice directing the petitioner to appear on 23.01.2026, pursuant to which the petitioner appeared before the authority and produced the relevant documents in support of his proposal. The grievance projected by the petitioner is that the second respondent, without examining the material produced and without extending a meaningful opportunity of hearing, proceeded to reject the proposal by the impugned order.

7. The issue raised in the present petition is no longer res integra. Coordinate Benches of this Court, in Sandeep (supra), Sachin (supra) and Kallappa (supra), while dealing with identical questions arising out of rejection of applications seeking permission for collection of share capital prior to registration of proposed co-operative societies, have held that such orders cannot be sustained where the authority has failed to properly consider the application in accordance with law. In the said decisions, the impugned orders were set aside and the concerned authorities were directed to grant permission for collection of share capital, subject to the applicants satisfying all other statutory requirements, after affording them an effective opportunity of hearing.

8. The facts of the present case stand on an identical footing. Judicial discipline requires this Court to maintain consistency with the view already taken by the Coordinate Benches in the absence of any distinguishing feature or contrary precedent. Since no distinguishing circumstance has been pointed out by the respondents, I see no reason to take a different view. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to the same relief.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

          (i) The writ petition is allowed.

          (ii) The impugned order dated 23.01.2026 passed by the second respondent, produced at Annexure-E, is hereby quashed.

          (iii) The second respondent is directed to accord permission to the petitioner to collect the share amount for floating the shares of the proposed co-operative society for the purpose of its registration, subject to the petitioner satisfying all other statutory requirements. If any further decision is required to be taken in the matter, the same shall be preceded by affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

          (iv) The petitioner shall appear before the second respondent on 15.09.2026 at 11.30 a.m., without awaiting any further notice, and thereafter the second respondent shall proceed to consider the petitioner's proposal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein.