Karnataka High Court
Tadavalaga Mallikarjuna Vidya ... vs The District Registrar And Anr on 10 February, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.201151 OF 2021 (GM-KSR)
c/w
WRIT PETITION No.201211 OF 2021
IN WP No.201151 OF 2021
Between:
Tadavalaga Mallikarjuna
Vidya Vardhana Sangha (Regd.)
Tadavalaga
Taluk: Indi
Represented by its General Secretary
Mahadevi
W/o Mallapa Kappenavar
...Petitioner
(By Sri G.G. Chagashetti, Advocate)
And:
1. The District Registrar
and Registrar of Societies
Vijayapur 586 101
2. Tadavalaga Mallikarjuna
Vidya Vardhana Sanga (Regd.)
Tadavalaga
Taluk: Indi
Represented by its President
Pin 586 101
2
... Respondent
(By Sri Viranagouda, Biradar, AGA for R1;
Sri Shivanand Patil, Advocate for R2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari and to
quash the acceptance letter dated 31.05.2021 issued by the first
respondent in Reg.No.337/2005-2006 produced at Annexure-H;
and etc.
IN WP No.201211 OF 2021
Between:
Tadavalaga Mallikarjuna
Vidya Vardhana Sangha (Regd.)
Tadavalaga
Taluk: Indi
Represented by its General Secretary
Mahadevi
W/o Mallapa Kappenavar
...Petitioner
(By Sri G.G. Chagashetti, Advocate)
And:
1. The District Registrar
and Registrar of Societies
Vijayapur 586 101
2. Tadavalaga Mallikarjuna
Vidya Vardhana Sanga (Regd.)
Tadavalaga
Taluk: Indi
Represented by its alleged President
Sri C.M. Hugar,
Age Major
R/o Bolegaon
3
Taluk: Indi
District: Vijayapur 586 101
...Respondents
(by Sri Viranagouda Biradar, AGA for R1;
Sri Shivanand Patil, Advocate for R2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari and to
quash the order/letter dated 29.05.2020 issued by the first
respondent in Sl.No.DR/J/Aadilata/CR/ /2021-22 produced at
Annexure-J; and etc.
In these petitions arguments being heard, judgment
reserved, coming on for "Pronouncement of Orders", this day,
the Court made the following:-
ORDER
In these petitions, petitioners have assailed the letter
dated 31st May, 2021 and acceptance of fee at vide Annexure-H;
and the letter dated 29th May, 2020 issued by the first
respondent in Sl.No.DR/J/Aadilata/CR/ /2021-22 produced at
Annexure-J.
2. It is the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition
No.201151 of 2021 that, petitioner is a Society registered under
the Bombay Public Trust Act, in the year 1972 and thereafter, it
was registered under the provisions of Karnataka Societies
Registration Act, 1960. It is further stated that the petitioner-
Society is having its own Memorandum of Association and
byelaws for its administration. It is further stated in the writ
petition that the earlier General Secretary of the petitioner-
Society inducted his son-Babu Hilli as Joint Secretary, without
there being any resolution and same is contrary to byelaws. It is
further averred that the said Babu Hilli has filed report along
with resolution dated 09th March, 2000 before the respondent-
authorities. It is also stated that, in the meanwhile, certain
enquiries have been conducted insofar as the administration of
the petitioner-Society. Further, it is stated that one C.M. Hugar,
President of the Petitioner-Society and three Directors submitted
their resignation to their respective posts and thereafter, they
lodged complaint against the management and its functioning.
It is also forthcoming from the writ petitions that, show cause
notice has been issued to some of the members stating that no
Membership fee is paid by such Members for last two years. The
petitioner-Society has submitted Audit Report for the year 2020-
21 and the list of Managing Committee as required under Section
13 of the Societies Registration Act, 1960 and after filing of the
said renewal application, the petitioner-Society came to know
that persons who have resigned from their respective posts
earlier have colluded with each other to constitute new Society
and are interfering with the affairs of the petitioner-Society and
they have been arraigned as respondents in this writ petition. It
is further stated that the second respondent-Society has issued
meeting notice to the Members and have conducted Annual
General Body Meeting on 22nd April, 2021 and without issuing
notice to the petitioner-Society, the second respondent,
prepared the list of Managing Committee and filed Audited report
to the respondent-Authorities. The first respondent, without
considering the rival claim of the petitioner-Society, accepted the
renewal application from the Members of the second respondent-
Society and being aggrieved by the same, petitioners have
approached this Court in Writ Petition No.201151 of 2021.
Insofar as Writ petition No.201211 of 2021 is
concerned, petitioners have challenged the order/letter dated
29th May, 2020 issued by the first respondent.
3. I have heard Sri G.G. Chagashetti, learned counsel for
the petitioners; Sri Viranagouda Biradar, learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondent No.1; and Sri Shivanand
Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
4. Sri G.G. Chagashetty, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the respondent No.1 ought to have held an
enquiry for taking action against the respondent No.2, who are
in no way concerned with the administration of the petitioner-
Society. He further contended that first respondent ought to
have refused the report submitted by the second respondent
convening the Annual General Body Meeting. He also contended
that the President of the second respondent-Society tendered
resignation to the post and thereafter, he is interfering with the
affairs of the petitioner-Society and without obtaining no-
objection certificate from the Auditor, has submitted Audit report
and same is contrary to law. In this regard, he relied upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of HARIJANA GIRIJANA
MATHU ARTHIKA HINDULIDA MANI NIVESHANA RAHITARA
SANGHA, BANGALORE v. STATE OF KARANATAKA AND OTHERS
reported in 2007(2) Kar.LJ 283 and contended that the
respondent No.1 ought to have conducted enquiry on his own
motion and to hold fresh election to constitute new governing
body in view of the illegalities in functioning of the petitioner-
Society.
5. Per contra, Sri Shivanand Patil, learned counsel
appearing for the second respondent contended that the writ
petition is not maintainable as the petitioners are in no way
concerned with the functioning of the second respondent-Society
and accordingly, he submitted that the petitioners have to
establish their right before the competent Court in the light of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.P.
ABOOBAKER MUSALIAR v. DISTRICT REGISTRAR (G),
KOZHIKODE AND OTHERS reported in (2004)11 SCC 247.
6. Sri Viranagouda Biradar, learned Additional
Government Advocate supported the contention of Sri Shivanand
Patil, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and sought for
dismissal of these writ petitions.
7. In the light of the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, the members of the petitioner-
Society and the members of the second respondent-Society are
claiming that their wing of Members are the genuine members of
the petitioner-Society. Perusal of the representation made by
petitioners would indicate that petitioners have sought for
appointment of the Administrator or seeking a direction to the
Registrar to take suo motu action under Sections 25, 27 and 27-
A of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. It is also
forthcoming from the writ papers that both the petitioner and
the second respondent have stated that the petitioner-Society is
continuing its affairs as per the Office bearers of their individual
sect. Taking into consideration the rival claims made by both
the petitioner and the second respondent, I am of the view that
the petitioners have to prove the same before the competent
Court/Forum as declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of ABOOBAKER (supra). Unless the petitioners prove their
identity in the petitioner-Society, as per ABOOBAKER case,
Registrar has no jurisdiction to interfere with the affairs of the
petitioner-Society and therefore, I do not find merit in the
submission made by Sri G.G. Chagashetti, learned counsel for
the petitioner. In the result, writ petitions are rejected.
However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach the
competent authority, if they are so advised.
Sd/-
JUDGE
lnn
