A Krishna Murthy vs The Registrar Of Co-Operative ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4860 Kant

                          1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

                     PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

                         AND

    THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

       WRIT APPEAL NO.1198 OF 2021 (GM-RES)


BETWEEN:

A. KRISHNA MURTHY
S/O. ANGAMUTHU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT V.V. SHREE
HULIYALA ROAD
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
                                       ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. Y.R. SADASHIVA REDDY, ADV.)


AND:

1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES, RANGE II
MALLESWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003.

2. KARNATAKA RAJYA AMATEUR
KABBADI ASSOCIATION
REGISTERED BENGALURU,
NO.9, A E C S LAYOUT,
NEAR RAJMAHAL VILAS
HIGH SCHOOL, RMV 2ND STAGE
                       2

NAGASHETTY HALLI
BENGALURU-560 094.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY

3. ADMINISTRATOR AND
DEPUTY REGISTRAR,
KARNATAKA RAJYA AMATEUR
KABADDI ASSOCIATION
DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BHAVAN
MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003.

4. HASSAN ZILLA AMATEUR
KABBADI ASSOCIATION (R)
HASANAMBA SPORTS CLUB
CHENNAKESAVA COMPLEX
RC ROAD, NEAR MISSION HOSPITAL
HASSAN-573 201.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY

5. CHAMARAJNAGAR
ZILLA AMATEUR KABBADI
ASSOCIATION®, NO.15,
SIDDIAHAYANAPURA VILLAGE,
KOLLEGALA TALUK
CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT-571 313
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY

6. KOPPAL ZILLA AMATEUR
KABBADDI ASSOCIATION ®,
CHAKGES KUSHTAGI TALUK,
KOPPAL DISTRICT-583 277,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY
                              3

7. VIJAYAPURA ZILLA AMATEUR
KABBADI ASSOCIATION ®,
NANDIBASAVESHWARA TEMPLE
NEAR OLD IBRAHIMPUR BADAVANE
VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT-586 101.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY
                                       ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR C/R4)

                             ***

    THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
PASSED IN WP. NO.18300/2021 DATED 28.10.2021 TO
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION NO.18300/2021.


     THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH         PHYSICAL      HEARING/VIDEO
CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, B. VEERAPPA J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



                 JUDGMENT

The present writ appeal is filed by the

appellant against the impugned order On I.A.

No.3/2021 dated 28.10.2021, rejecting the

application for vacating the interim order granted

earlier by the learned Single Judge, on 07.10.2021.

2. The present respondents who are the

petitioners before the learned Single Judge filed the

Writ Petition No.18300/2021 for writ of certiorari to

quash Endorsement - Annexure 'Q' issued by the 3rd

respondent dated 24.09.2021, rejecting the request

of the petitioner for inclusion of their names in the

voter list to the elections of the 2nd respondent and

writ of mandamus, directing the 3rd

respondent/Administrator of the 2nd respondent

Society to continue elections to the 2nd respondent

Society from the stage it was stopped in terms of

the finalized voter list prepared in pursuance of the

calendar of events dated 31.03.2020 as per

Annexure 'H1' and the interim prayer was sought by

the petitioner to issue direction to respondents

Nos.2 and 3 to direct them to permit the petitioners

to participate in the forthcoming election in the 2nd

respondent-Society.

3. The learned Single Judge by an interim

order dated 07.10.2021 considering the contention

of the learned counsel for the parties and

considering the objection filed and hearing of

learned AGA, passed an order as under ;

"The intended elections may go on;

petitioners shall be permitted to vote and their ballot papers should be kept in a sealed cover; result of the election shall not be announced without leave of the court".

4. Thereafter the present appellant who

filed an application for impleading to come on

record, under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w. article 226 of

Constitution of India to implead him as a party as

he is party in WP No.7707/2020 as 3rd respondent

and at the instance of the petitioner, the State

Government has initiated action. The respondent is

challenging the impugned Endorsement dated

24.09.2021 issued by 3rd respondent, wherein

various contentions are raised. Therefore, he was

necessary and proper party.

5. The appellant herein filed I.A.No.2/2021

for impleading and I.A.No.3 for vacating interim

order. The learned Single Judge considering the

application I.A.No.2/2021 for impleadment, has

partly allowed the application, directing the present

appellant to assist the Court as intervener as

contradistinguished from a party to the proceedings

and rejecting I.A.No.3/2021 for vacating Interim

Order since the status of the intervener is granted

to the applicant and not to the status of the party.

The interim Order granted earlier is continued till

next date of hearing. Hence, the present appeal is

filed.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for

the parties to the lis.

7. Sri. Sadashiva Reddy, learned Senior

Counsel for the appellant contends that the

impugned order passed by the learned single judge

rejecting the application for vacating stay and

permitting applicant only as an intervener to assist

the Court is erroneous, contrary to the material on

record and the impugned order cannot be

sustained. He would further contend that the

appellant was a party to the proceedings in an

earlier writ petition. The appellant has submitted a

representation alleging several irregularities in the

conduct of affairs of the Society and also for

appointment of the Administrator for the purpose of

conducting election strictly in accordance with the

bye-laws of the Society. Based on the

representation, the Registrar submitted a report

confirming the irregularities in the matter of

conduct of the affairs of the Society and after

considering the report, the State Government has

appointed an Administrator by the Order dated

19.05.2020. The said order was subject matter in

W.P. 7707/2020, this court after hearing the

parties, directed the Administrator to complete the

election within two months subject to any

restrictions put by the State Government and the

appellant was made as party to the proceedings.

Therefore, he was necessary and proper party to

the proceedings. The said aspect has not been

considered by the learned single judge. He would

further contend that the interim order obtained by

the petitioners by playing fraud on the court by

producing the fake documents. The petitioners have

not approached the court with clean hand. The said

aspect has not been considered. He further

contended that the appellant has produced the

fabricated resolution and fake receipts to claim the

membership. Therefore, the learned Single Judge

has failed to exercise the jurisdiction to implead the

appellant as a party and thereby erroneously

rejected the application filed for vacating interim

order. He would further contend that Koppal and

Bijapur Zilla Amateur Kabaddi Association also filed

W.P. No.17974/2021 seeking similar relief, was

dismissed by this Court on 05.10.2021 on the

ground that this court has no jurisdiction as the

matter pertains to Kalaburagi bench. Without

disclosing these materials, facts, the Administrator

and Deputy Registrar, Karnataka Rajya Amateur

Kabadi Association arrayed as respondent No.3 in

the writ petition, has obtained the order otherwise

denied. Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal.

8. Per contra, Sri. Ravishankar D.R.,

learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 7 sought

to justify the impugned order and contended that

the application filed by the appellants for

impleading the applicant to allowed, only permitted

to assist the court. The learned Single Judge has

rightly rejected the application as the interim order

granted by the learned Single Judge permitting the

petitioner to vote and their ballot paper shall be

kept in sealed cover and the result of the election

shall not be announced without leave of the court.

Hence, no prejudice will cause to anybody including

the applicant and the present appeal filed by the

appellant is not maintainable as he is not an

aggrieved party to raise any grievance and he

should show how he has suffered legal injury.

Generally, a stranger having no right whatsoever to

any post or property, cannot be permitted to

intervene in the affairs of others. He would further

contend that now the calendar of events already

issued on 31.03.2020. The voters' list published on

25.11.2021. The election is scheduled to be held on

07.12.2021, thereby this court should not interfere

with the impugned order permitting the petitioners

to contest in the election in view of the dictum of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'N.P.

Ponnuswamiv. Returning Officer, Namakkal

Constituency reported in AIR 1952 SC 64 and

also in the case of Boddalu Lakshmaiah and

others vs. State Election Commissioner

reported in (1996) 3 SCC 416. Hence, he sought

to dismiss the intra-court appeal.

9. We have given our thoughtful

consideration to the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel for the parties and perused the

available papers carefully.

10. Though several contentions urged by the

learned senior counsel for the appellant and the

learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 7, touching

to the merits of the writ petition, we restrained

ourselves to record any findings on the merits and

de-merits of the case. The fact remains that on the

application filed by the present appellant, the 3rd

respondent passed the impugned order/

Endorsement dated 24.09.2021, rejecting the

request of the petitioners for including their names

in the voter's list for the election of the 2nd

respondent/Society. The learned Single Judge by an

order dated 07.10.2021, has permitted the

petitioners to vote and held that the intended

elections may go on; petitioners shall be permitted

to vote and their ballot papers should be kept in a

sealed cover; result of the election shall not be

announced without leave of the court, thereby only

permission is granted to conduct the election and

the matter is pending before the learned Single

Judge as such the present application is filed for

impleadment. Though the learned single judge

allowed the application filed for impleadment, partly

permitting the petitioner to assist the court as an

intervener and rejected the application for vacating

stay.

11. Though Sri. Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy,

learned senior counsel has vehemently contended

that the impugned order passed by the 3rd

respondent is at the instance of the present

appellant, he was necessary and proper party,

thereby the learned single judge is not justified in

rejecting the application for vacating interim order.

The fact remains that the appellant is not totally

prohibited from the proceedings. He is permitted to

assist the court as intervener. Once the appellant is

permitted to assist the court as an intervener,

certainly, he can produce the documents which was

according to him, suppressed by the petitioners and

obtained the interim order. It is observed that the

Registrar of Co-operative Societies is also made as

party as 1st respondent and the Administrator and

Deputy Registrar, Karnataka Rajya Amateur

Kabaddi Association is made party as 3rd

respondent, who passed an order dated

24.09.2021. It is for the official-respondent to

sustain the interim order of the learned Single

Judge, the appellant who permitted to assist the

court as an intervener can also assist the court as

well as the counsels for the contesting

respondent/Government.

12. It is also not in dispute that during the

pendency of the proceedings after the order passed

by the learned Single Judge rejecting the

application, the calendar of events already issued

on 31.03.2020 and voters' list came to be published

on 25.11.2021 including the name of the petitioners

in terms of the interim order and election is

scheduled to be held on 07.12.2021. The interim

order was granted before the calendar of events

was issued and after the interim order granted, now

the election scheduled to be held on 07.12.2021,

thereby the petitioners were permitted to

participate in the intended election which will be

subject to the result of the writ petition and the

result shall not be announced without leave of the

court. Therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the

present appellant and it is well settled that once the

calendar of events issued during the pendency of

the proceedings, if the interim order is vacated,

nothing would survive in the present writ petition

and no prejudice will be caused to the present

appellant by the interim order and the election is

scheduled to be held on 07.12.2021 is always

subject to the result of the writ petition and rightly

the learned single judge has held that the result of

the election shall not be announced without leave of

the court. Admittedly, the election is scheduled to

be held on 07.12.2021 i.e., after the interim order

passed by the learned single judge and it is always

open for the party to proceed with the election

process in view of the dictums of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court as stated supra.

13. In view of the above, the present intra-

court appeal filed is devoid of merits. However, it is

made clear that since the present appellant was

permitted to assist the court as an intervener, he is

at liberty to produce the documents before the

learned single Judge and it is for the learned single

Judge to consider those documents and proceed

with the matter strictly on merits and in accordance

with law.

14. With the above observations, the writ

appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE Snc