PUTTARAJEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is presenting this writ petition with the following prayers:

(2.) Learned HCGP appears for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent Nos.5 to 7 have entered caveat through their counsel. Learned HCGP and the private counsel oppose the writ petition contending that the action sought to be challenged in this writ petition is not "pregnant with the sufficient elements of public law" in the light of decision of Apex court in LIC OF INDIA VS ESCORTS LTD, (1986) 1 SCC 264 and therefore, no writ lies under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. They also bank upon the amended bye-laws of the respondent society which apparently provide for voting and contesting rights to the associate members as well.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission of the advocates appearing for the respondents that impugned action is a 'private law action' for voiding which writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked. Even otherwise, the disputed facts that arise for adjudication are ill-suited to writ jurisdiction, as rightly contended by the counsel for the State. Added, disputes of the kind can always be adjudicated by the Civil Courts in the light of Apex Court decision in DHULA BHAI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, AIR 1969 SC 78. Thus there is an alternate & more efficacious remedy of suit which the petitioner may avail. No extra ordinary case is made out for invoking constitutional jurisdiction.