Ningayya, S/O Sangayya ... vs The Inspector General Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 390 Kant

                            1


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

     WRIT PETITION NO.226437 OF 2020 (EDN-RES)
                        C/W
     WRIT PETITION NO.202274 OF 2014 (GM-ST/RN)

W.P.NO.226437/2020:

BETWEEN:

SRI. SHIVANAND VIDYA VARDHAK SANGH
MASABINAL, TQ: BASVAN BAGEWADI,
DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586203
BY ITS SECRETARY,
SRI. VEERAGONDAPPA M. PARANNAVAR
                                           ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ KAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
        DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
        EDUCATION,
        M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
        RPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

2.      THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER
        PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (EDUCATION) DEPARTMENT
        OFFICE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
        BELGUM DIVISION,
        HALIYAL ROAD, DHARWAD-580001.

3.      THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
        PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
                              2


     OFFICE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
     VIJAYAPUR-586101.

4.   THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES
     VIJAYAPUR-586101.

5.   THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
     BASAVAN BAGEWADI, TQ: BASAVAN BAGEWADI,
     DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586203

6.   NINGAYYA
     S/O SANGAYYA CHOWKIMATH
     AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
     R/O MASABINAL, TQ: BASAVAN BAGEWADI,
     DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586203
                                      ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5;
SRI. B.B.PATIL AND SRI. R.J.BHUSARE, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.6)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER OF RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 02.03.2020 IN FILE
BEARING    NO.f8/SÁ²C/SÁºÀÄvÀ/C£ÀÄ/25/2011-12/3525 VIDE
ANNEXURE-J     AND      ITS    CONSEQUENTIAL      ORDER   OF
RESPONDENT     NO.3      DATED 15.06.2020, IN FILE NO.
f2/SÁ¥Ëæ±Á/².«.ªÀ.¸ÀA./ªÀĸÀ©£Á¼À/2020-21/895 VIDE ANNEXURE-
K AND ETC.

W.P.NO.202274/2014:

BETWEEN:

NINGAYYA
S/O SANGAYYA CHOWKIMATH
41 YEARS, SECRETARY,
SRI SHIVANAND VIDYA VARDHAKA SANGH,
MASABINAL, BASAVAN BAGEWADI,
DISTRICT BIJAPUR.                   ...PETITIONER
                               3


(BY SRI. B.B.PATIL AND SRI. R.J.BHUSARE, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1.     THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
       AND THE COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS
       7TH FLOOR, BWSSB WING, CAVERY BHAVAN,
       K.G.HALLI, D'SOUZA LAYOUT,
       ASHOK NAGAR, BANGALORE-560001.

2.     DISTRICT REGISTRAR
       SOLAPUR ROAD,
       BIJAPUR.

3.     MALLKAJAPPA B. BAGEWADI
       MAJOR,
       CHAIRMAN,
       SHIVANAND V.V.SANGH, MASABINAL,
       (A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE
       KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960)
       TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
       DIST: BIJAPUR

4.     VEERAGONDAPPA M. PARENNAVAR
       S/O MALLAPPA PARENNAVAR
       MAJOR,
       SECRETARY,
       SHIVANAND V.V.SANGH, MASABINAL
       (A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE
       KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960)
       TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
       DIST: BIJAPUR

5.     GOLAPPA
       S/O SHIVAPPA DEGINAL
       AGE: 68 YEARS,
       OCC: AGRICULTURE

6.     ANNAPPA
       S/O MALKAPPA NAGASHETTY
       AGE: 58 YEARS,
       OCC: AGRICULTURE
                             4


7.    GURULINGAPPA
      S/O MALLAPPA NAANDI
      AGE: 68 YEARS,
      OCC: AGRICULTURE

8.    DANAPPA
      S/O BHEEMAPPA NATEKAR
      AGE: 57 YEARS,
      OCC: AGRICULTURE

9.    VEERANAGOUDAPPA
      S/O MALLAPPA PARENNAVAR
      AGE: 55 YEARS,
      OCC: AGRICULTURE

10.   SHIVAPPA
      S/O GUTTAPPA PARENNAVAR
      AGE: 55 YEARS,
      OCC: AGRICULTURE

      ALL ARE R/O MASIBINAL VILLAGE,
      TQ: BASVANABAGEWADI
      DIST: BIJAPUR
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 AND 2;
SRI. BASAVARAJ KAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOs.3 AND 4;
SRI. R.S.LAGALI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.5 TO 10)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE    IMPUGNED     ORDER     DATED     29.01.2014 IN
NO.JINOKAVI/SANGHA/18/2013-14 AT ANNEXURE-S PASSED
BY DISTRICT REGISTRAR, BIJAPUR AND ETC.

     THESE PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDER ON 07.09.2021 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                             5


                         ORDER

Writ Petition No.202274/2014 is filed by a Person

claiming to be the Secretary of a Trust, challenging an

order dated 29.01.2014 (Annexure-S) passed by the

respondent No.2, at an enquiry under Section 25 of the

Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (henceforth

referred to as 'the Act of 1960') by which the annual

returns submitted by Shivanand Vidya Vardhak Sangh for

the year 2011-12 and list of committee members for the

2012-13 and the annual returns for the year 2012-13 and

list of committee members for the year 2013-14 of

Shivananda Vidyavardaka Sangha, a society registered as

Reg.No.68/2004-05, was accepted. The petitioner has

also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus for a

direction to the respondent No.2 to hold an independent

enquiry as regards the audit reports of the society named.

Shivanand Vidya Vardhak Sangha.

2. In this case, both the Trust and the Society carry

the same name and hence wherever relevant they shall be

referred to as "Trust" or "Society". The petitioner claims to

be the secretary of Sri Shivanand Vidya Vardhak Sangh

(henceforth to referred as 'Trust' for short) which was

registered as a public trust on 21.10.1971 under the

Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (henceforth referred to as

'BPT Act, 1950'). He claimed that the Trust had

established an English composite Junior college at

Masabinal and new High school at Basavana Bagewadi. He

claimed that the Trust owned land in Sy.No.89 of

Masabinal measuring 05 acres 10 guntas and Sy.No.135 of

B.Bagewadi measuring 01 acre 38 guntas. The Trust was

allegedly receiving enormous amount in the form of grant

from the Government. The petitioner alleged that he along

with 10 members were elected on 05.06.1992 to the

Governing body of the trust for the period 05.06.1992 to

04.06.1994. A report of the change of management of

Trust was filed before the Assistant Charity Commissioner,

which was contested by certain persons. The Assistant

Charity Commissioner in terms of his order dated

01.07.1994 in Enquiry No.695/1992 accepted the change

in Management, which was challenged by the objectors

before the Charity Commissioner in Appeal No.10/1994

where the parties were directed to maintain status quo.

3. When things stood thus, it is claimed that a

person named Sidramappa Natikar also filed a report in the

change of management of Trust before the Assistant

Charity Commissioner which too was accepted after an

Enquiry in No.534/1994 on 17.09.1994. This was

challenged by a person by named Shivanagouda before the

Charity Commissioner in Revision No.3/1995. He alleged

that the supporters of Shivanagouda submitted a change

report to enter names of 04 persons and 02 office bearers

claiming that they were the co-opted members of the Trust

which was contested by the petitioner herein. The

Assistant Charity Commissioner conducted an enquiry in

No.305/1995 and accepted the report on 29.04.1995. This

was challenged by Basanagouda Sahebagouda Biradar in

R.P. No.10/1995 where the Charity Commissioner stayed

the order of Assistant Charity Commissioner.

4. When things stood thus, Shivanagouda and his

supporters filed another change report before the Assistant

Charity Commissioner, who after an enquiry in

No.292/1996 accepted it on 19.04.1996, which was

challenged by the petitioner before the Charity

Commissioner in Rev. No.9/1997. Later Shivanagouda filed

another application on 08.07.1999 to accept the change

report seeking to enter names of office bearers of the

Governing body, pursuant to an alleged general body

meeting convened by Nagashetty, a self styled secretary.

5. When the disputes were pending between various

groups before the Charity commissioner and Assistant

Charity Commissioner, the Karnataka Religious Institutions

and Endowment Act, 1997 (henceforth referred as 'Act of

1997' for short) came into force w.e.f. 01.05.2004. It

repealed the BPT Act, 1950. Thus, the office of the Charity

Commissioner and Assistant Charity Commissioner under

the BPT Act, 1950 were closed. Consequently, all

proceedings stood closed. The petitioner alleged that the

Trust was not covered by the Act of 1997 in view of a

clarification issued by Government of Karnataka dated

04.06.2005 addressed to the Charity Commissioner, where

it was mentioned that the Charitable and Religious Trust

Act, 1920 would apply to educational institutions and other

institutions that were not covered under the Act of 1997. It

was also stated that institutions not covered by the Act of

1997, may approach the District Court under Sections 3

and 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920 for

necessary orders. This position was again clarified by the

circulars dated 19.03.2004 and 04.06.2005. The

petitioners claim this position of law was affirmed by this

Court in Writ Petition No.2866/2008.

6. The petitioner therefore, approached the Principal

District and Sessions Judge, Bijapur in M.A.No.18/2007 for

quashing the order passed by the Charity Commissioner in

Enquiry No.489/1999. A compromise was entered into in

M.A. No.18/2007 between the warring members of the

Trust by which the petitioner and respondents therein

became members of the Trust.

7. It is alleged that the respondent No.4 in an

attempt to play fraud on the Trust constituted a society

with the same name, which was registered with the

respondent No.2 under the Act of 1960. When M.A.

No.18/2007 was compromised, the respondent No.4 filed a

return with the respondent No.2 stating that the petitioner

and others have become members of the Society. A person

named Shivanagouda declared himself as the Chairman of

the society and issued an advertisement inviting

applications for appointment of 03 teachers in one of the

Institutions of Trust. The petitioner questioned the

advertisement before this Court in Writ Petition

No.30548/2003, where Shivanagouda filed a memo on

25.10.2005 stating that a new governing body had been

constituted for the society and "that many other Trusts

imparting education got themselves registered with the

District Registrar of Societies. Hence, the Trust was also

registered as R.68/2004-05." The petitioner alleged that it

was only then that he came to know that the society

carrying the same name as that of the Trust was

registered. Writ Petition No.30548/2003 filed was disposed

off in terms of the compromise dated 04.10.2010. (The

petitioner has deliberately not produced the memo dated

25.11.2005 though he claimed that it was produced at

Annexure-F.)

8. The petitioner alleged that the Trust was a public

trust and therefore, Shivanagouda and respondent No.4

could not have formed a society parallel to the existing

Trust. He therefore, contended that the constitution of the

society did not supersede the Trust. The petitioner denied

that he was issued with any notice of the alleged meeting

dated 03.07.2004 referred in the memo dated 25.10.2005.

In order to buttress his contention, he claimed that

Shivangouda had declared in an affidavit before the

District Registrar on 17.08.2005 that the petitioner was in

no way related to the society formed by him. Therefore,

the petitioner claimed that the formation of the alleged

committee leading upto the formation of the society was

false and designed to mismanage the Trust. The petitioner

also relied upon a letter dated 03.08.2005 issued by

respondent No.2 that the society was in no way connected

to the Trust. He alleged that the society had filed its

returns for the period ending 31.05.2005 and successive

years, which did not tally with the huge funds and grants

received by the Trust from the State. He alleged that the

total receipts and expenditure of the society were so

insignificant that it debunked that the society had any

connection with the trust.

9. Based on the representation of the petitioner, the

Principal and Ex.Officio DD CTE Jamakhandi recommended

the appointment of an administrator for the society on

22.05.2006. In the meanwhile, the Deputy Director of

Public Instructions, Bijapur submitted a report indicating

various proceedings between the factions in Trust and that

Shivanagouda had formed a society in the year 2004. In

the light of such recommendations, the Commissioner of

Public Instructions, Dharwad appointed Block Education

Officer, Basavana Bagewadi as a Special Officer of the

Trust for six months under Section 67(1) of Karnataka

Education Act, 1983. The term of the Special Officer was

extended from time to time. When things stood thus, the

Commissioner of Public Instructions passed an order dated

25.07.2008 withdrawing the Special Officer and directed

him to hand over charge to the Chairman of Managing

Committee of the society which was registered with

respondent No.2. The petitioner challenged this order in

Writ Petition No.11187/2008. This Writ Petition was

disposed off in terms of a compromise wherein it was

allegedly agreed that the society was in no way related or

connected with the Trust and that they are distinct and

separate. (The petitioner has not enclosed the compromise

petition). Thereafter petitioner filed a suit in

O.S.No.61/2010 under Section 92 of CPC which was

dismissed. The petitioner again followed it up by a

complaint alleging offences against respondent No.4 in

forging the signatures of the members of the Trust for the

purpose of registering the society. This was challenged by

respondent No.4 before this Court in Criminal Petition

No.16031/2013.

10. It is stated that on 15.04.2004, the respondent

No.4 filed an application with the respondent No.2 for

registration of the Society. The said application was

signed by 11 members of the society. Later, out of the 11

members, three members lodged a complaint alleging that

the signatures were forged and the case in that regard was

registered in C.C.No.269/2014 before the JMFC, Basavana

Bagevadi. This being the position, the petitioner alleging

interference in the affairs of Trust by the Society and

respondent No.4 lodged a complaint before the respondent

No.2. The respondent No.2 issued notice to the

respondent No.4 and later passed an order dated

29.01.2014 by which he held that the Society and the

Trust were one and the same and accepted the annual

retrns and the list of committee members for the years

2011-12, 2012-13 and 2012-13, 2013-14. The petitioner

sought and obtained information that the society came into

existence from 16.06.2004 and therefore, claimed that the

respondent No.2 could not hold that the Trust is converted

into a society.

11. Being aggrieved by the order dated

29.01.2014, the petitioner has filed the present petition

contending as follows;

i. That the respondent No.2 could not have

recorded a finding that the societies registration

Act, 1960 and the sanga registered under the

Bombay Public Trust, 1950 were one and the

same as it was beyond its jurisdiction. It is also

contended that such a finding could not have

been recorded in view of the compromise entered

into W.P.No.11187/2008. It is claimed that in

terms of the compromise petition, it was clearly

agreed that the society and the sanga were two

distinct and separate entities and had nothing to

do with each other.

ii. Respondent No.2 has wrongly recorded a finding

unmindful of the various disputes pending before

various courts.

iii. The issue of questioning the registration of the

society should not be interpolated with the issue

of an enquiry under Section 25 of the Karnataka

Society Registration Act. The name of the

respondent No.4 had lapsed by the operation of

the law and therefore, it was incumbent upon the

respondent No.2 to take suitable remedial action.

iv. That the education institutions were run by the

Sanga and the Society was not running any

institutions and therefore, the finding recorded by

the respondent No.2 would have a deleterious

effect on the running of the education

institutions.

12. The learned counsel relied upon the following

case law to contend that even if the society was

constituted for charitable purposes, the Trust continued to

be governed under the BPT Act, 1950 and therefore there

was no need to get it registered under Karnataka Societies

Registration Act, 1960 (Charitable and Religious Trust

Act, 1920) as a charitable Trust:

i) Krishna Kumar G Dholakiya vs. Assistant

Registrar of Societies, Rajkot. [(2002) 3 GLR 567]

(ii) Prakashacherya Kadlasker vs. The Deputy

Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Others

[Writ Petition No.65689/2009 D.D.: 10.03.2011]

(iii) Vinodkumar M. Malavia and others Vs. Maganlal

Mangaldas Gameti and others [(2013) 15 SCC

394] relating to question whether unification of a

society with a trust results in unification of the

property of the society.

(iv) Amiya Vilas Swami and others vs. Shankha Brita

Das and others [2008 (3) Kant L.J. 16]

(v) Sri. Jagadguru Basavaraj Pattadarya

Mahaswamigalu vs. The State of Karnataka and

others [W.P.No.64520/2011]

(vi) Deewan Singh and others vs. Rajendra Pd. Ardevi

and others [(2007) 10 SCC 528]

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the writ petition is not

maintainable in view of the settlement arrived at in

W.P.No.11187/2008, which read as follows;

"In the light of the said agreement and in the best interest of the students, it is agreed between the petitioner and respondent No.6 that the governing body of S.V.V.Sangha so constituted in the meeting convened on 15.02.2010 be given charge of the affairs of S.V.V. Sangha. The parties to be above petition have agreed to withdraw all the petitions and cases pending before various forum as regard the dispute between the members of S.V.V sangha masibinal".

14. It is contended that pursuant to the settlement,

a Governing body was elected for the period 15.02.2010 to

15.02.2015 and the said governing body was approved by

the respondent No.2 under Section 13 of the Act of 1960.

The petitioner herein held the post of Joint Secretary in the

said elected body. Therefore, it is contended that the

petitioner is estopped from now contending that the Trust

was not converted into a society. It is also contended that

the BPT Act, 1950 was repealed and that there was no law

which governed the Trust. They contended that the

Karnataka Hindu Religious Institution and Charitable

Endorsement Act, 1999 repealed the BPT Act, 1950 and in

that regard, the Commissioner of the Department of

Endorsement issued a circular dated 20.01.2005 clarifying

that education and non-religious institutions registered

under the BPT Act, 1950 would be governed by the

Charitable and Religious Act, 1920 or by the Act of 1960.

It was in that context that the deceased Shivana Gowda

and others members unanimously resolved to register the

society under the Act of 1960. He contended that the

proceedings before the Principal District Court, Bijapur in

Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.5, 6 and 7 of 2006 were

compromised and the petitioner herein was a party to the

said compromise. It is contended that due to disputes

between members, an administrator was appointed and

later withdrawn. The petitioner challenged the order

withdrawing the administrator in W.P.No.11187/2014,

which ended in a settlement. The petitioner was appointed

as a Joint Secretary of the Managing Committee of the

Society during the year 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12. It is

claimed that petitioner has filed the present writ petition

by suppressing the above fact. It is claimed that petitioner

himself sought for approval of the governing body of the

society, which was approved in the general body meeting

dated 21.09.2012. This was approved by the District

Registrar in terms of his Order dated 09.04.2013. It is also

claimed that petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent

No.2 regarding conversion of the trust to the society.

Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner admitted the

lawful registration of a society and participated in each and

every proceeding of the society including the maintenance

and administration of the education institution. It is also

contended that in response to the letter dated 16.02.2013

issued by the respondent No.2, the petitioner himself

sought for an amendment of the Trust, which is approved

in terms of the resolution dated 10.03.2013. Therefore, it

is contended that writ petition is wholly mischievous and is

an attempt to derail the smooth running of the institution

by the society. He relied on the Judgment of the Division

Bench of this court in Prakasha Charya Kadlasker vs.

Deputy Registrar, Co-operative society and others in

W.A.No.6134/2011 and contended that the question

whether the Trust was converted into society or whether

the society could be registered the same name as that of

the Trust and the whether the properties of the Trust were

unified with the society, around questions of facts that

have to be adjudicated by the Civil Court and not by the

High Court in a proceedings under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

15. This Court did not have the benefit of perusing

the memo filed in W.P.No.30548/2003 and the

compromise petition entered into in W.P.No.11187/2014

and therefore secured the file from the registry and found

that the compromise reads as follows:

"PETITION UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE.

Petitioner and respondent no.6 in the above petition submit as under:

1. The petitioner had filed the above petition calling in question the order of the Commissioner, Department of Public Instructions, Dharwad withdrawing the Block Education Officer, Basavana Bagewadi as Special Officer of S.V.V. Sangha with immediate effect and further directing the handing over the charge to the Chairman of the Management Committee of the society which was registered with the District Registrar of Societies Respondent No.6 here in.

2. This Hon'ble Court was pleased to issue an interim order. The interim order was extended from time to time and rule was issued pending the disposal of the petition. The parties to the above petition had filed a M.A. No. 18 /2007 before the District Court Bijapur. The Hon'ble District Court

was pleased to refer the matter to mediation and in furtherance of the said mediation a meeting of the petitioner and respondent no.6 and other members of S.V.V. Sangha was called for.

3. During the pendency of the petition the petitioner and respondent no.6 under the auspices of elders taking the need of the hour into consideration and the welfare of the students, and the order of the District Court in M.A. No. 18/2007 convened a meeting of S.V.V. sangha on 15.02.2010. The notice of the said meeting was issued on 01.02.2010 to the members of the S.V.V. Sanghn registered under the Bombay Trust Act and the same was convened at the Pre-University College Masabinal.

4. The said meeting held on 15.02.2010 was presided by Shri Shivanagouda Rudragouda Patil, respondent no.6 in the above petition. The meeting was attended by the petitioner and other members of S.V.V. Sangha. In the said meeting a new governing body was elected. The tenure of the said governing body was fixed as 15.02.2010 to 14.02.2015. The minutes of the said meeting is produced herewith as ANNEXURE - A1.

5. In the light of the said agreement and in the best interest of the students it is agreed

between the petitioner and respondent no.6 that the governing body of S.V.V. Sangha so constituted in the meeting convened on 15.02.2010 be given charge of the affairs of S.V.V. sangha. The parties to the above petition have agreed to withdraw all the petitions and cases pending before various forum as regards the dispute between the members of S.V.V. sangha Masibinal."

Note:- The petitioner in the above petition was the

Secretary of Sri.Shivanand Vidya Vardhak Sangh (Trust)

while the respondent No.6 was Chairman of Sri.Shivanand

Vidya Vardhak Sangh (society).

16. The dispute essentially between the parties in

this writ petition relates to the existence of a Trust and

whether the members of the Trust constituted it as a

Society, in view of the repeal of BPT Act, 1950 by the Act

of 1997. The petitioner claims that the Government of

Karnataka had issued a clarification that notwithstanding

such repeal, educational institutions established shall be

governed by The Charitable And Religious Trust Act, 1920.

On the contrary, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 claimed that

keeping the best interest of the students and a circular

issued by the State that educational institutions

established by a Trust registered under the BPT Act, 1950

would be governed under the Karnataka Societies

Registration Act, 1960, the Trust was converted into a

society.

17. A perusal of the compromise recorded in

W.P.No.11187/2014 makes it abundantly clear that the

petitioner was privy to the fact that the Trust was

converted to a society. The fact that the petitioner was an

office bearer of the Managing Committee of the Society

was not denied by him. He also did not deny that he filed

the list of managing committee of the society elected at

the Annual General Meeting held on 21.09.2012. He

therefore, cannot now turn around and claim that the Trust

was not converted into a society. Though the petitioner

has persistently denied the existence of a Society, yet the

educational institution established by the Trust as well as

the property on which it is situate has come into the

administrative control and management of the society. All

these circumstances undeniably demonstrate that the

erstwhile members of the Trust had transformed it into a

society for ease of administration and the petitioner was

an officer bearer of the managing committee of the

society. The impugned order by which the list of managing

committee for the year 2011-12 and 2012-13 was

approved, cannot be challenged by the petitioner on any

ground whatsoever. The judgments relied upon by the

petitioner though indicate the circumstances under which a

Trust could be registered as a society, the same are to be

pressed into service in a civil suit and certainly not in this

writ petition, that too at the behest of the petitioner herein

who held a supervening post in the society. The case law

relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the

peculiar facts of this case as the petitioner himself partook

in the administration of the Society. The case law relied

deals with the procedure of registration of a society for

charitable purposes and whether such a society must first

be registered under the BPT Act, 1950 as a charitable

Trust.

18. Hence, the writ petition No.202274/2014 fails

and is dismissed with costs.

19. It is seen that the petitioner had though

participated in the affairs of the society and had

corresponded with the authorities under the Act of 1960,

yet had failed to produce the documents. On the contrary,

indulged in a frivolous writ petition, resulting in wastage of

precious judicial time which could have been dedicated to

a more deserving case. In order to deter such

frivolous/reckless/mischievous proceeding, it is inevitable

but to impose exemplary costs, quantified at a sum of

Rs.50,000/- payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services

Authority within four weeks from today. Failing this, the

Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur is directed to take steps to

recover the cost as an arrears of land revenue and the cost

of such recovery shall be quantified and collected from the

petitioner and his properties.

20. This Court has not expressed any opinion

whether the Trust is dissolved and whether its properties

have vested with the society. Any person interested in the

Trust other than the petitioner is entitled to initiate

proceedings before the concerned Civil Court. It is for the

Civil Court to decide whether the Trust was dissolved in

accordance with law and whether the constitution of the

Society was by the members of the Trust and whether the

properties of the Trust vested in the society or not.

IN W.P NO.226437/2020

21. The petitioner in W.P.No.226437/2020 being the

Society has challenged an order dated 02.03.2020 passed

by the respondent No.2 and the order dated 15.06.2020

passed by the respondent No.3. The petitioner has also

sought for a direction to the respondents to accept the list

of governing body approved by the 4th respondent.

22. The petitioner claims that subsequent to the

filing of W.P.No.202274/2014, in view of the order of

status-quo granted in the said petition, the respondent

No.4 renewed the registration of a society and its

managing committee which was subject to the outcome of

W.P.No.202274/2014. It is claimed that on the

recommendation of the respondent No.3, the respondent

No.2 unilaterally passed an order dated 10.12.2018

appointing an administrator to the schools managed by the

petitioner. This was challenged by not only the petitioner

but the respondent No.6 in W.P.Nos.200004/2019 and

200023-24/2019. This Court disposed off the said writ

petitions by order dated 14.06.2019 and remitted the case

back to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 heard

the parties and in terms of the order dated 02.03.2020

held that there was an on going dispute between the

members of the Trust from the year 1995 till the year

2010. But yet the petitioner was registered in the year

2004 and therefore held that prima-facie the registration

of a Society was ill-motivated and even after disposal of

W.P.No.11187/2008, the Society that was registered in the

year 2004 continued to exists. He held that two rival

fractions in the society came together only for the purpose

of filing up the posts of three teachers in the Pre-University

College by giving false information to the Court. Since the

education institutions run by the society was admitted to

grant in aid, he therefore directed the respondent No.3 to

bring to the notice of the Court the actual state of affairs.

23. The respondent No.3, without adverting to the

directions of the respondent No.2, went on a tangent and

held that the petitioner had not registered the educational

institutions run by it under the Karnataka Education Act,

1983 and therefore, the petitioner did not fall within the

administrative control of Department of Education. He

stated that under Section 30 and 31 of the Karnataka

Education Act, 1993, only those institutions which had

obtained registration and recognition would fall within its

jurisdiction. Hence, he stated that since the petitioner had

not registered the education institutions run by it under

the Karnataka Education Act, 1993, the proposals,

complaints and grievances etc., of the petitioner would not

be entertained.

24. The petitioner claims that the Trust and the

Society were one and same entity and necessity of

registration of the Trust as Society arose due to the repeal

of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The learned counsel

submitted that respondent No.3 acted beyond its

jurisdiction in holding that the petitioner had to get an

approval of the order passed in W.P.No.11187/2008 from

the competent authority, in view of the fact that

respondent No.6 who was the only contesting member,

had conceded to the fact that the Trust and the Society

were one and the same entity.

25. The respondent No.6 has contested this writ

petition and contended that new high school and other

institutions established at Masabinal and Basavanbagevadi

were run by the Trust and not the Society and therefore,

the respondent No.2 and 3 were right in holding that the

petitioner would not be entertained henceforth on any

complaint, proposal or grievance. He submitted that the

petitioner had not registered the institutions as being

established by it but was claiming the benefit of its

registration / recognition under the Trust. He, therefore,

submitted that the impugned passed by the respondent

Nos.2 and 3 need not be disturbed.

26. The question whether the Trust was converted

into society or not and the question whether the

registration - recognition of the educational institutions by

the Trust would enure to the benefit of the society and

whether the property of the Trust merged with the Society

are all questions of fact and law that had to be adjudicated

by the Civil Court and not by the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

27. A Division Bench of this Court while considering

the case of conversion of a Trust into a Society in

K.P.Devaiah and another vs. State of Karnataka and

others [2004(4) KLJ 209(DB)] held that issues

concerning the Constitution of a society are to be

adjudicated before the Civil Court and not by the statutory

authorities. In view of the fact that the petitioner and

respondent No.6 have already reported compromise in

W.P.No.11187/2008 between them, they cannot raise any

dispute regarding the conversion of the Trust into a

Society.

28. In that view of the matter, W.P.No.226437/2020

is allowed and the order dated 02.03.2020 passed by

respondent No.2 and consequential order dated

15.06.2020 passed by respondent No.3 are quashed.

29. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall not disturb

the registration/recognition of the educational institutions

established under the auspices of the Trust and shall not

interfere with the administration of these institutions by

the petitioners until the issue is decided by a Civil Court of

competent jurisdiction.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KJJ/NBM