Judgment :- K.L. Manjunath, J. Head the learned Counsel for the appellant, Additional Government Advocate for respondents 5 and 6 and Sri Sreevatsa, learned Senior Counsel for respondent 2. Being satisfied with the cause shown by the appellant, delay in filing the appeals is condoned. Misc. W.No.11466 of 2010 is allowed. By consent, appeals are heard on merit. 2. The facts leading to these appeals are as hereunder: Seven Housing Co-operative Societies registered under the provisions of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 questioned the report submitted by the Karnataka Lokayukta in W.P.Nos.5253, 5821 and 2621 of 2007 and in W.P.No.11520 of 2006, dated 16-6-2009 (Spartacus Flat Owners Co-operative Society Limited, Bangalore v. Government of Karnataka and Others ( 2012 (4) Kar.L.J. 226 ). The contention of the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge was whether the amendment provision under Act 6 of 2001 was prospective with effect from 1.4.2001 or with retrospective effect. It was contended by the Government Advocate that it is having retrospective effect and that the writ petitioners had relied upon the judgment in W.A.No.3883 of 2003, dated 17-11-2005 (Dattaprasad Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Bangalore and Others v. State of Karnataka ( 2007 (4) Kar.L.J. 645 (DB)). It was contention of the Government Advocate that the question as to whether the Amendment Act was with prospective effect or retrospective effect was not considered in W.A.No.3883 of 2003 and the same was disposed of based on the memo. However, the learned Single Judge without considering whether the said judgment had considered real question or not, allowed the writ petitions quashing the impugned orders. These are called in question in these appeals. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the entire order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge without considering whether the amendment provision to Act 6 of 2001 is prospective in nature or retrospective in nature without considering how the judgment in the earlier W.A.No.3883 of 2003 (Dattaprasad Co-operative Housing Society Limited’s case) is to be followed, has allowed the writ petitions. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that when the Government Advocate has contended that the said judgment has no application to the facts of the case and that there is no occasion for the Division Bench to consider the question involved in the writ appeal, in all fairness, it was for the Court to consider the contentions raised by the Government Advocate and then to allow the writ petitions or to dismiss the writ petitions. Since no reasoning is assigned by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the appeals are to be followed. 4. In the result, appeals are allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.Nos.5253, 5821 and 2621 of 2007 and W.P.No.11520 of 2006 is quashed. We request the learned Single Judge to reconsider the matter on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the parties. With the above observations, we request the Registry to place the matter before the learned Single Judge with a request to consider the case of the parties on merits. It is needless to state till the matters are decided afresh by the learned Single Judge, respondents shall not participate the matter based on the report of Lokayukta.