Karnataka High Court
Jagadish M vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 April, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
WA No. 213 of 2023
C/W WA No.208 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 213 OF 2023 (GM-KSR)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL No. 208 OF 2023 (GM-KSR)
IN W.A.NO.213/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. MALNAD DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATON (R)
TARAPURA COMPUND, JOG ROAD,
SAGAR, SHIMOGA DISTRICT 577 401.
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
JAGADISH M
S/O LATE MARIBASAPPA GOWDA
Digitally signed AGED 67 YEARS,
by PRABHAKAR
SWETHA (THE PETITIONER NO 1 IS
KRISHNAN REGISTERED UNDER
Location: High THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT 1960)
Court of
Karnataka 2. SRI. N H SRIPADRAO,
S/O DEVEPPA HEGDE,
PRESIDENT,
MALNAD DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION (R)
TARAPURA COMPUND, JOG ROAD, SAGAR,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT 577 401.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL., SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI.DEVI PRASAD SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
WA No. 213 of 2023
C/W WA No.208 of 2023
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
M S BUILDING,
BANGALORE 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
ALI ASKER ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 001.
3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR/DEPUTY REGISTRAR
OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
NO SAHAKARA BHAVANA, 1ST FLOOR,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 401.
4. K H SRINIVAS S/O HARIPPA,
EX-PRESIDENT,
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,
R/AT NO 236, 10TH CROSS, DHAVALLA,
C V RAMAN ROAD,
RAJA MAHAL VILAS,
1ST STAGE SADASHIV NAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 080.
5. SRI HARANATH RAO
S/O VENKATAGIRI RAO,
AGED 83 YEARS,
R/AT OF MATHIKOPPA, ULLURU POST,
SAGAR, SHIVMOGA DISTRICT - 577 401.
6. H M SHIVKUMAR
S/O HUNALUMADIKE,
AGED 63 YEARS,
R/AT HAVINAHALLI POST,
SAGAR TALUK AND POST
SHIVMOGA DISTRICT - 577 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. PRANAV S KATAGERI., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. MANMOHAN P N., ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6)
-3-
WA No. 213 of 2023
C/W WA No.208 of 2023
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE TOP NOTED APPEAL
BY SETTING ASIDE ORDER DATED 02.01.2023 PASSED IN WP No-
18018/2022 AND THE WP No-18018/2022 MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED
AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN W.A.NO.208/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. JAGADISH M
S/O LATE MARIBASAPPA GOWDA,
AGED 67 YEARS,
R/O ML HALLI POST,
SAGAR - 577 401.
2. SRI. N H SRIPADRAO,
S/O DEVEPPA HEGDE,
AGED 46 YEARS,
RO.NO.158, NISARANI,SORABA,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT 577 401.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL., SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI.DEVI PRASAD SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
M S BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES
SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 401.
3. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES
SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 401.
4. REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES,
No.1, ALI ASKER ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 051.
-4-
WA No. 213 of 2023
C/W WA No.208 of 2023
5. K H SRINIVAS S/O HARIPPA,
EX-PRESIDENT,
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,
R/AT NO 236, 10TH CROSS, DHAVALLA,
C V RAMAN ROAD, RAJA MAHAL VILAS,
1ST STAGE SADASHIV NAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 080.
6. MALNAD DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATON (R)
TARAPURA COMPUND, JOG ROAD,
SAGAR, SHIMOGA DISTRICT 577 401.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY
H M SHIVAKUMAR
THE SOCIETY IS REGISTERED UNDER
THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES
REGISTRATION ACT 1960
7. SRI. HARANATH RAO
S/O VENKATAGIRI RAO,
AGED 83 YEARS,
R/AT OF MATHIKOPPA, ULLURU POST,
SAGAR,
SHIVMOGA DISTRICT - 577 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. MANMOHAN P N., ADVOCATE FOR C/R6 & R7)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE TOP NOTED
APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE ORDER DATED 02.01.2023
PASSED IN WP No-17127/2022 AND THE WRIT PETITION No-
17127/2022 MAY KINDLY BE DISMISSED.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, KRISHNA S DIXIT.J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
WA No. 213 of 2023
C/W WA No.208 of 2023
JUDGMENT
These intra-court appeals seek to lay a challenge to a
learned Single Judge's common order dated 2.1.2023 whereby,
private respondents' W.P.No.18018/2022 and appellants'
W.P.No.17127/2022 have been disposed off with the following
directions:
"(i) Writ Petition No.17127 of 2022 is allowed and
the order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the 3rd
respondent recommending appointment of an
Administrator to the Society stands quashed.
(ii) A mandamus issues to the 2nd respondent to act
in terms of the direction issued by this Court in
W.P.No.12702 of 2022 within two weeks' from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii) Writ Petition No.18018 of 2022 is dismissed with
liberty to the petitioners to call in question the Annual
General Body Meeting held on 17-03-2022 which has
elected the office bearers to the Society before the
competent civil Court, if they so desire."
(II) After service of notice, the State & its officials are
represented by the learned Additional Government Advocate; the
private respondents are represented by their counsel. The appeals
are resisted by making submission in justification of the impugned
order and the reasons on which the same has been structured.
(III) SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:
Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the appellants seeks to falter
the impugned order on the following grounds:
(a) The learned Single Judge could not have decided the lis
between the parties on merits donning the mantle of authorities
constituted under the provisions of Karnataka Societies
Registration Act, 1960.
(b) The learned Single Judge ought to have seen
videographs/photographs of the proceedings to ascertain the
untoward incidents perpetrated by the other side on the eventful
day, and only thereafter, he should have decided the matter. This
having not been done, there is error apparent on the face of the
record.
(c) In respect of the incident in question, the police because of
political influence, had refused to register the criminal case
although yielding to the public agitation, they registered one later;
after investigation, charge sheet has been filed inter alia against
the members of opposite faction. Even this aspect has not been
adverted to by the learned Single Judge.
(d) The learned Single Judge failed to see that what he was
examining were the proceedings undertaken u/s 13 of the 1960 Act
and therefore, he could not have set-aside the recommendations
made by the District Registrar.
(e) Learned Single Judge erred in not differentiating the decision
from decision making process, only the latter being the focal point
of writ jurisdiction.
(f) Lastly, there is absolutely no justification for disqualifying as
many as 54 members of the Society by the side of respondents
and therefore, the said action is to be set at naught.
In support of his submission, he cited certain Rulings.
(IV) SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS:
Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents who were
the writ petitioners countered the submissions of learned counsel
appearing for the appellants contending that:
(a) These being intra-court appeals have their own constraints,
the scope of examination of impugned order being too restrictive.
(b) It is not that the learned Single Judge has decided the lis
between the parties on merits inasmuch as he has relegated the
aggrieved to the civil court, where all issues could be debated &
resolved.
(c) In the matter that was required to be treated u/s 13 of the
1960 Act, the jurisdictional authority could not have recommended
for the voiding of elections, the scope of his examination being very
restrictive.
(d) What has weighed with the learned Single Judge inter alia is
the protection of interest of the educational institutions, the
students, the staff & the like. The impugned order has brought
about a just result and therefore, does not warrant interference.
(e) The appellants are not justified in contending that the learned
Single Judge ought to have seen the video of the incident
inasmuch as it would not have cast light or shadow on the issue to
be debated in any way.
(V) Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties,
having perused the records and having adverted to relevant of the
Rulings cited at the Bar, we decline indulgence in the matter for the
following reasons:
(a) The Society in question came to be registered on 25.10.1963
as an entity under the provisions of the 1960 Act. It has established
and is running six educational institutions, wherein there are 89
teaching staffs and 43 non-teaching staffs. There are two factions
in the Society which claim to have been elected to manage its
affairs. Both the factions had filed the renewal applications along
with their own list of office bearers with all particulars seeking
approval thereto at the hands of District Registrar u/s 13 of the Act.
(b) The appellants had represented to the Bank to freeze the
accounts of the Society and that had disabled the contesting
respondents from operating the bank accounts even to pay the
salaries to the staff. Therefore, they made a representation dated
4.6.2022 to the District Registrar requesting for the de-freezing of
accounts. It was followed by a reminder dated 7.6.2022. Nothing
having happened pursuant to these representations, they had filed
W.P.No.12702/2022 seeking a direction for consideration of the
same and to take a decision on the returns filed u/s 13 of the Act.
The Writ Petition was disposed off on 28.6.2022 with a direction to
consider the same. The appellants side had also filed
W.P.No.14532/2022 for reviewing/recalling the said order dated
28.6.2022. That also came to be disposed off on 29.7.2022
directing the jurisdictional authority to consider the claims of both
the sides in accordance with law.
(c) In terms of the above orders entered in the subject Writ
Petitions, the District Registrar issued notice asking the private
respondents herein to submit list of members & other documents,
and accordingly, they had filed AGM Book, Annual Report, List of
Members, photographs of the Meeting, documents/files, etc.
Keeping in view the rival claims of the parties, the incident that
happened on 17.3.2022 and the interest of the educational
institutions & their students, the District Registrar vide order dated
16.8.2022 rescinded both the Managing Committees of rival
factions and recommended to the Registrar of Societies for the
appointment of an Administrator u/s 27-A(1)(c) of the Act for
holding the Annual General Body Meeting so that fresh elections
can be conducted. Both the factions having been aggrieved by the
said order, were before the Writ Court in their respective Writ
Petitions. Learned Single Judge having examined both the cases,
has made the impugned order that has been put in challenge at our
hands.
(d) Learned Single Judge on the basis of the evidentiary
material placed on record by the parties came to a conclusion that
the District Registrar could not have annulled 17.3.2022 AGM
proceedings since the material produced by the private
respondents herein prima facie demonstrated that they have been
managing the affairs of Society. He also recorded a finding at para
15 of the order "...To the contrary, there are no documents
- 10 -
produced by the petitioners in the second petition seeking to
demonstrate that they are managing the affairs of the society..."
This second petition was filed by none other than the appellants
herein. We have also perused the evidentiary material produced by
both the sides along with their pleadings which are part of the
Appeal Papers. We do not find any justification for upsetting this
finding of the learned Single Judge. We need not reiterate that an
intra-court appeal has its own limitations and its scope is too
restrictive vide TAMMANNA vs. RENUKA, (2009) SCC OnLine
Kar 123. A very strong case needs to be made out for indulgence
in this kind of appellate jurisdiction and that has not been made,
despite strenuous submissions advanced on behalf of the
appellants.
(e) What weighed with the learned Single Judge in recording the
tentative findings in favour of the private respondents herein is also
a relevant factor namely the protection of interest of the educational
institutions, students & the staff. Admittedly, there have been as
many as six educational institutions, founded by the Society and
managed by it. Factionalism & groupism in any organization
indisputably would affect its smooth functioning in general and
would mar the interest of students in particular. A Writ Court while
adjudging disputes of the kind, at times, acts as the guardian of
students under the doctrine of parens patria and devises things in
the best interest of the stakeholders. That reasoning cannot be
faltered, especially when right to education is guaranteed under the
umbrella of Article 21 of the Constitution of India vide ANOOP
BARANWAL vs. UNION OF INDIA, (2023) 6 SCC 161.
Constitutional Courts being the 'Custodians of Fundamental Rights'
- 11 -
cannot turn a Nelson's Eye to the matter when educational
interests of students community at large is likely to be jeopardized.
That is how the impugned order has been animated. If the Society
in question were to be some business entity/enterprise, the
approach of the learned Single Judge arguably could have been
faltered.
(f) The vehement submission of learned Sr. Advocate
Mr.Jayakumar S Patil that the learned Single Judge himself could
not have adjudged the substantive dispute between the two
factions, appears attractive at the first blush; however, its deeper
examination shows its hollowness. The learned Single Judge has
not decided rights of the warring factions in the Society that has
been running several educational institutions. The returns,
documents, list of members, accounts & the like filed by both the
sides having been turned down, the District Registrar has
recommended for the appointment of an Administrator for
conducting the AGM so that fresh elections could be held. This, the
learned Single Judge rightly found fault with inasmuch as, that was
not the scope of enquiry u/s 13 of the Act. In fact, this order was
put in challenge by both the factions, is apparent. Rejection of the
claims of both the sides would only generate lawlessness in the
administration of an educational society of the kind and this is not
desirable, to say the least. Therefore, in his well exercised
discretion, the Single Judge has made the impugned that has
brought about a just result, regardless of arguable infirmities. It is
not that the lis between the two factions is finally adjudged; the
appellants are relegated to the civil court where all issues can be
thrashed out.
- 12 -
(g) The vehement submission of Mr.Patil that the learned Single
Judge ought to have witnessed the videograph of the incident in
question which would have shown the culpable role played by the
then sitting MLA, and only thereafter the matter could have been
adjudged, is difficult to agree with. Firstly, by viewing the video, it is
difficult to decide the matters in controversy involved in the writ
petitions. By viewing the video in question, what advantage would
have accrued in favour of the appellant in adjudging the writ
petitions has not been demonstrated despite vociferous argument
advanced by Mr. Patil. Secondly, the appellants side has already
filed a criminal case wherein charge sheet is said to have been
submitted after completing investigation; the trial court is yet to take
cognizance of the same and frame charges u/s 228 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. We cannot undertake the examination
of allegations leveled against a particular MLA, in the absence of
he being a party eo nomine to the proceedings nor any explanation
being offered for not impleading him, either. More is not necessary
to elaborate.
(h) Mr.Patil heavily relied upon a Division Bench decision of this
court in Writ Appeal No.286/2020 (GM-KSR) between Sri
Muniswamy.K. & others vs. State & others, decided on 20.07.2020
in support of the proposition as to the limited scope of Sec.13
Enquiry. In the said decision paragraph 10 reads as under:
"We have perused Section 13 of the said Act. Section
13 of the said Act contemplates filing of balance sheet and
annual list of governing body with the Registrar within the
time frame provided therein. On the face of the Section, it is
apparent that it does not confer a power on the Deputy
- 13 -
Registrar to hold an inquiry on the issue of legality and
validity of the elections. There is no power conferred on the
Registrar under Section 13 of the said Act to decide on the
basis of the list of governing body, whether the governing
body was lawfully elected. Therefore, the learned Single
Judge could not have read with endorsement dated 2nd May
2017 issued by the Deputy Registrar as an order of
adjudication upon the legality and validity of the election
held on 5th March 2017...."
Incidentally, the learned Single Judge whose order we are
examining in these appeals happened to be a part of the Division
Bench which has made the above observation. We are at loss to
know how this decision would advance the case of appellants.
Arguably, it supports case of the respondents who were the writ
petitioners, to an extent. The order that was put in challenge
before the learned Single Judge apparently had the tenor of
invalidating the subject election. Therefore, learned Single Judge
has rightly voided it, relegating the appellants to the remedy of
Civil Suit. That does not run counter to the above observations of
the Division Bench, we say again. We are unable to agree with
Mr.Patil that the contesting respondents ought to have been
relegated to the civil remedy and not the appellants. Had the said
respondents been in appeal, they too would have taken up the
same contention, as the appellants have now done. Added,
learned Single Judge after considering all aspects of the matter has
- 14 -
formed a particular opinion which we cannot upset, merely because
another view was also possible.
(i) The contention of the appellants that what ought to be at the
focal point of writ proceedings is the decision making process as
distinguished from the decision itself, has been well established.
We find reiteration of the same in TATA CELLULAR vs. UNION
OF INDIA (1994) 6 SCC 651, cited by Mr. Patil. It is not
uncommon to seek cases wherein the courts whilst undertaking
judicial review of administrative action treat both the decision
making process and the decision as a singularity, though such an
approach is termed as unconventional. At times, the focal point of
forensic examination transcends the decision making process and
reaches out to the product of such process. Be that as it may.
What the learned Single Judge has done in our considered view
does not offend this well established norm of Judicial Review. After
hearing both the parties he rightly faltered the way in which the
District Registrar had recommended for the appointment of an
Administrator, that too after rejecting claims of both the factions
filed u/s 13 of the Act. Once decision making process is faltered,
decision becomes unsustainable, subject to all just exceptions into
which argued case of the appellants does not fit.
( j ) The last contention of the appellants that the contesting
respondents herein have caused expulsion of several members of
the society high handedly and therefore, they need to be
reinstated, cannot be a matter for examination at our hands. That
does not fall into the scope of this appeal. The appellants or the
aggrieved may take up appropriate proceedings in this regard.
- 15 -
In the above circumstances, these appeals being devoid of
merits are liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having
been made easy.
We make it clear that whatever observations hereinabove
made or those made by the learned Single Judge shall not
influence the suit proceedings that may be brought about by the
appellants or such other persons. All contentions of the parties, in
the contemplated suit proceedings are kept open for being treated
on their intrinsic merits.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb/cbc/Bsv
