Karnataka High Court
Sri J B Surana vs The District Registrar Of ... on 30 May, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI
W.A. NO.1098 OF 2021 (GM-KSR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. J.B. SURANA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
DIRECTOR
M/S. PRECISION GRANITE AND
MARBLE PVT. LTD.
NO.140, AND 140(a), 2ND PHASE
BOMMASANDR INDUSTRIAL AREA
BANGALORE 560091.
2. SRI. ANEES UR-RAHMAN
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
PROPRIETOR KOHINOOR MARBLE
NEHRU ROAD, VAKOLA BRIDGE
SANTA CRUZ EAST, MUMBAI 400055
MAHARASTRA.
3. SRI. RAKESH SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
MANAGING DIRECTR
M/S. INTERNATIONAL STONES (i) PVT. LTD.
NO. E5, SIPCOT INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
PHASE2, EXPN-1, HOSUR 635109
TAMIL NADU.
... APPELLANTS
2
(BY MR. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. P. MAHESHA, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES
4TH ZONE, NO.146, 3RD FLOOR
SAHAKARA SOUDHA, 8TH CROSS
3RD MAIN, MARGOSA ROAD
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE 560003.
2. FEDERATION OF INDIAN GRANITE
AND STONE INDUSTRY
NO.429/7, 12TH CROSS ROAD
SADASHIVA NAGAR, BANGALORE 560080
MANAGING COMMITTEE
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT
BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADV., FOR R2
MRS. VANI H, AGA FOR R1)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERS OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT
PETITION NO.10292/2020 DATED 03.09.2020, CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION. PLEASED TO PASS ANY OTHER
ORDER OR DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT FEELS DEEM
FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal has been filed against the order
dated 03.09.2020 by which the writ petition preferred by the
appellants challenging the registration of the amended bye
law - 6.20 of the Bye Laws of Federation of Indian Granite
and Stone Industry (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Federation' for short) has been dismissed.
2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated
are that the Federation is a Society registered under the
Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act' for short). The appellant is a member
of the Society and claims to be Former President of the
Society. The affairs of the Federation are governed by the
Bye Laws, which have been framed in accordance with
Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. Subsequently, there was a
proposal to amend the Memorandum of Association and
Rules and Regulations of the Society, which was placed
before the Executive Committee and was circulated to the
members of the Federation as mandated by Sections 9 and
10 of the Act. The amendments were proposed to Rule 6 by
inserting Rule 6.17 and Rule 6.19. There was no proposal for
incorporating Rule 6.20.
3. On 09.11.2019, a special general meeting was
held. In the aforesaid special general meeting, Rule 6.20 was
approved by the members. Thereafter, a resolution was sent
by the Federation to seek approval of amendment to the
memorandum of association and Rules and Regulations of
the Federation, to the Registrar. Thereafter, the Federation
sent the amendment to the Memorandum of Association and
rules and regulations of the Society to the District Registrar
of the Societies for registration. The district registrar by an
order dated 27.12.2009 approved the amendment.
4. The appellant challenged the amendment to the
Rules and Regulations of the Society to the extent it
incorporates Rule 6.20 and sought quashment of order dated
by which amended bye law was approved by the district
registrar. The learned Single Judge by an order dated
03.09.2021 inter alia held that Federation consists of 1237
members and out of which only 3 members have approached
the court. It was further held that clause 6.20 does not find
its place in the proposal. It was further held that majority of
the members of the society have no grievance. Accordingly,
it was held that no interference is called for in exercise of
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. In the
aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
5. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant
submitted that proposed amendment to the Bye laws has to
be circulated to the members 21 days prior to the special
general body meeting and in case, such a procedure is not
adopted the amendment is illegal. In support of aforesaid
submissions, reliance has been placed on division bench
decision of this court dated 29.01.2009 in
W.A.No.2072/2007 c/w W.A.No.1996/2007 and single
bench decision of this court in BHIRENDRA KUMAR AND
ANOTHER VS. REGISTAR OF SOCIETIES,
W.P.No.7657/1978.
6. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for
respondent No.3 submitted that Clause 6.20 of the Rules was
approved in the special general meeting. It was further
submitted that majority of the members of the society are
not aggrieved by the amendment of Clause 6 of the Rules,
therefore, no interference is called for. It is also urged that
order passed by the Deputy Registrar is an administrative
order and is neither a judicial or a quasi judicial order. In
support of aforesaid submission, learned Senior counsel has
referred to single bench decisions of this court in
SRI.R.SHIVAKUMAR SWAMY KURKI S/O
K.M.REVANASIDDAIAH VS.KANNADA SAHITYA
PARISHAT PAMPA MAHA KAVI ROAD CHAMRAJPETE,
BANGALORE, LAW (KAR)-2018-3-79 and SRI.RAMESH
C. SHETTY & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP., BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-
OPERATION & OTHERS.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate has
submitted that amendment in the Bye law has been
approved in accordance with the provisions of the Act and
there is no violation of either the Act or the Rules while
approving the amendment to the bye laws of the Society.
8. We have considered the submissions made on
both sides and have perused the record. The Act is a
legislation which provides for registration of literary,
scientific, charitable and other societies. Section 10 of the Act
deals with change of name, Rules and Regulations. Section
10(2) of the Act reads as under:
Thus, the Registrar on being satisfied that
amendment made under sub Section (1) is in
accordance with the provisions of the Act and the
Rules made thereunder shall register the same.
9. A division bench of this court in
W.A.No.2072/2007 supra has held that provisions of Sections
9 and 10 mandate that Special General Body meeting notice
shall contain a written or printed report of proposed
amendment apart from the date, time and place of the
meeting. In the instant case, admittedly, the notice of the
special general meeting for incorporating the impugned
amendment has not been given. The proposed Rule 6.20 by
way of amendment was incorporated in the Rules. The
aforesaid amendment contained in Rule 6 which deals with
aims and objectives of the Federation reads as under:
To contribute to economic /social
development while improving the quality of life of
the workforce and their families as well as that of
the local community bearing quarrying activities
and related stone industry is situated and further
it can contribute to the activities referred to in
the schedule VII read with Section 135 of the
companies Act, 2013 or any other statutory
modification thereof from time to time, which is
beneficial to the stakeholders of the stone
industry in India.
Apart from the aforesaid Rule, Rule 27.14 permits the
Federation to give funds for natural calamities if it is in the
interest of the nation. The said Rule reads as under:
FIGSI does not encourage to give funds
for natural calamities except when it is in the
interest of the Nation or any other donation / aid
in the interest of Granite, Marble, Natural Stones
and allied industry.
10. Bearing in mind the scope and ambit of Rule
27.14 of the Rules, we are not inclined to examine the
validity of Rule 6.20 of the Rules. The learned Single Judge
has declined to exercise the extraordinary discretionary
jurisdiction vested in him in the facts of the case. For the
aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to
interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In
the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
