Sri S Panchalingu vs Peoples Education Trust R
2025 Latest Caselaw 6632 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri S Panchalingu vs Peoples Education Trust R on 25 June, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                              1



Reserved on   : 19.06.2025
Pronounced on : 25.06.2025
                                                     R
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                          BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

         WRIT PETITION No.16971 OF 2025 (GM - CPC)

                              C/W

         WRIT PETITION No.17445 OF 2025 (GM - CPC)
         WRIT PETITION No.16223 OF 2025 (GM - CPC)


IN WRIT PETITION No.16971 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

1 . SRI S.PANCHALINGU
    S/O LATE SINGRIGOWDA
    AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
    RESIDING AT
    2ND CROSS, ASHOKNAGAR
    MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

2 . SRI K.N.NAGARAJU
    S/O LATE NINGAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
    RESIDENT OF
    KYATHUMGERE VILLAGE
    KOTHATHI HOBLI
    MANDYA TALUK - 571 403.
                            2



3 . SRI D.S. SAMPATH KUMAR NAIDU
    S/O LATE D.T. SUBBARAYAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
    RESIDING AT:
    NO.3455, 5TH CROSS
    10TH MAIN, INDIRANAGAR
    2ND STAGE, FUSION INK
    BENGALURU - 560 038.
                                               ... PETITIONERS

(BY SMT.SRUTI CHAGANTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   PEOPLE'S EDUCATION TRUST (R)
     MANDYA
     B.ED. COLLEGE BUILDING PET CAMPUS
     K.V.SHANKAREGOWDA ROAD
     MANDYA - 571 401
     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
     S.L. SHIVAPRASAD.

2.   SRI K.S.VIJAY ANAND
     S/O LATE S.SACHIDANANDA
     AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
     RESIDING AT: 1405/1, 'SHIVAYOGA NILAYA'
     1ST CROSS, BANDIGOWDA LAYOUT
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

3.   SRI BASAVAIAH
     S/O LATE REVAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
     RESIDING AT 3RD MAIN ROAD
     OPP. MAHILA SAMAJA
     ASHOKNAGAR
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.
                               3



4.   SRI M.B.SHRIDHAR
     S/O LATE BOREGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
     RESIDENT OF
     MARAGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE
     KERAGODU HOBLI
     MANDYA TALUK - 571 401.

5.   SRI S.L.SHIVAPRASAD
     S/O LATE S.C.LINGAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
     RESIDING AT
     "MATHOSHREE"
     NO.1362, 2ND CROSS
     BANDIGOWDA LAYOUT
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

6.   SRI K.R.DAYANANDA
     S/O LATE K.S.RAMEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
     RESIDING AT: "HASIRASIRI"
     KARADAHALLI VILLAGE
     DEVALAPURA HOBLI
     NAGAMANGALA TALUK - 571 432.

7.   SRI H.P.RAVISHANKAR
     S/O LATE PAPANNAGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
     RESIDING AT: "RUCHIRA"
     NO.2265, 12TH A CROSS
     APMC ROAD, V.V.NAGAR
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

8.   SRI H.C. MOHANKUMAR
     S/O LATE H.D.CHOWDALAH
     AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
     RESIDING AT:
     NO.2038, 2ND CROSS
                               4



     SUBHASHNAGAR
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

9.   SRI M.B. BOREGOWDA
     S/O BOREGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
     RESIDENT OF
     MALLANAYAKANAKATTE VILLAGE
     DUDDA HOBLI
     MANDYA TALUK - 571 405.

10 . SRI A.M. CHANDRAMOHAN
     S/O LATE P.MALLAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
     RESIDING AT:
     NO.2020, 2ND CROSS
     SUBHASHNAGAR
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

11 . SRI SINGRIGOWDA
     S/O LATE SINGRIGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
     RESIDING AT
     NO.1427, 2ND CROSS
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

12 . SRI R.M. SUBBEGOWDA
     S/O LATE MOOGUREGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
     RESIDING AT: 4TH CROSS,
     K. MARIGOWDA EXTENSION
     NEAR KALEGOWDA HIGH SCHOOL
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

13 . SRI K.P. KANTHA
     AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS
     RESIDING AT
     ANNAPOORNESHWARINAGAR
                               5



    KYATHUMGERE NEW EXTENSION
    CHANNEL DOWN
    MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

14 . SMT. CHANDRAKALA SHIVANANDA
     W/O LATE SHIVANAND
     AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
     RESIDING AT:
     "PRITHVI NILAYA"
     KALEGWODA HIGH SCHOOL ROAD
     KL-218, MARIGOWDA EXTENSION
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

15 . SRI H.V.JAYARAM
     S/O H.V. VEEREGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
     RESIDING AT
     1ST CROSS
     BANDIGOWDA LAYOUT
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

16 . SRI K.V. MUDDEGOWDA
     S/O LATE VEERAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
     RESIDENT OF
     KEELARA VILLAGE
     KERAGODU HOBLI
     MANDYA TALUK - 571 450.

17 . SRI C.MADAPPA
     S/O LATE PAPEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
     RESIDENT OF:
     H.MALLIGERE VILLAGE
     DUDDA HOBLI
     MANDYA TALUK - 571 402.
                               6



18 . DR.B.N.PRABHAVATHI
     W/O DR. T.CHANDRASHEKAR
     AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
     RESIDING AT:
     NO.1513, 'PRAGATHI NILAYA'
     GENERAL HOSPITAL ROAD
     ASHOKNAGAR
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

19 . SRI H.L.SHIVANNA
     S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
     RESIDENT OF:
     HOLALU VILLAGE
     DUDDA HOBLI
     MANDYA TALUK - 571 402.

20 . SRI K.C.SUDHARSHAN
     S/O LATE CHANNAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
     RESIDING AT:
     NO.680, 14TH CROSS
     4TH BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT
     VIDYARANYAPURAM
     BENGALURU - 560 097.

21 . SRI N.L.SATHISH
     S/O LATE N.LINGAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
     RESIDING AT:
     NO.497, "LATHAKUNJA"
     VINOBA ROAD
     SUBHASHNAGAR
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

22 . SRI RAJENDRA M.T.
     S/O THIMMEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
                            7



    ADVOCATE
    RESIDENT OF:
    MUTTANAHALLI VILLAGE
    C.A. KERE HOBLI
    MADDUR TALUK.

23 . SRI NAVEENA
     S/O NARASIMHAGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
     ADVOCATE
     RESIDENT OF:
     THUBINAKERE VILLAGE
     KOTHATHI HOBLI
     MANDYA TALUK - 571 402
     NOW RESIDING AT: NO. 28,
     E AND F BLOCK
     7TH CROSS, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR
     MYSURU - 570 022.

24 . SRI. MAHENDRA N.P.
     S/O PUTTEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
     ADVOCATE
     RESIDENT OF:
     NERALAKERE VILLAGE
     SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK - 571 415
     NOW RESIDING AT:
     NO.5, 1ST FLOOR
     VENKATAIAH BUILDING
     HOSAHALLI ROAD
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
    SRI ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 AND R-5)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
                            8



ORDER DATED 11.06.2025 PASSED IN MISC.NO.26/2025 BY THE
LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA
PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-M TO THE EXTENT IT
MODIFIES THE ORDER DATED 02/05/2025 PASSED IN THE SAME
PROCEEDINGS PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-F; ALLOW IA
NO. 10 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN MISC.NO.26/2025 BEFORE
THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MANDYA PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-J.


IN WRIT PETITION No.17445 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

1.   PEOPLES EDUCATION TRUST (REGD)
     MANDYA
     B.ED COLLEGE BUILDING PET CAMPUS
     K.V. SHANKAREGOWDA ROAD,
     MANDYA - 571 401
     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
     S.L.SHIVAPRASAD.

2.   SRI VIJAY ANAND,
     S/O LATE S. SACHIDANANDA,
     AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT: NO.1405/1, 'SHIVAYOGA NILAYA',
     1ST CROSS, BANDIGOWDA LAYOUT,
     MANDYA CITY - 471 401.

3.   SRI S.L. SHIVAPRASAD,
     S/O LATE S.C. LINGAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT 'MATHOSHREE,
     NO.1362, 2ND CROSS,
     BANDIGOWDA LAYOUT,
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401
                                             ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
                            9



     SRI ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE


AND:


1.   SRI S.PANCHALINGU,
     S/O LATE SINGRIGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT:
     2ND CROSS, ASHOKNAGAR,
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

2.   SRI K.N.NAGARAJU
     S/O LATE NINGAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
     RESIDENT OF
     KYATHUMGERE VILLAGE
     KOTHATHI HOBLI
     MANDYA TALUK - 571 403.

3.   SRI D.S.SAMPATHKUMARANAIDU,
     S/O LATE D.T. SUBBRAYAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT: NO.3455,
     5TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN,
     INDIRANAGAR, 2ND STAGE,
     FUSION INK,
     BENGALURU - 560 038.

4.   SRI BASAVAIAH,
     S/O LATE REVAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT 3RD MAIN ROAD,
     OPP. MAHILA SAMAJA,
     ASHOK NAGAR,
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.
                            10



5.   SRI M.B.SHRIDHAR,
     S/O LATE BOREGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT:
     MARAGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
     KARAGODU HOBLI,
     MANDYA TALUK - 571 401.

6.   SRI K.R.DAYANANDA,
     S/O LATE K.S.RAMEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT: 'HASIRASIRI',
     KARADAHALLI VILLAGE,
     DEVALAPURA HOBLI,
     NAGAMANGALA TALUK - 571 432.

7.   SRI H.P. RAVISHANKAR,
     S/O LATE PAPANNAGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT 'RUCHIRA',
     NO.2265, 12TH A CROSS,
     APMC ROAD, V.V.NAGAR,
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

8.   SRI H.C.MOHANKUAMR,
     S/O LATE H.D.CHOWDAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT:NO.2038, 2ND CROSS,
     SUBHASHNAGAR,
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

9.   SRI. M.B.BOREGOWDA,
     S/O BOREGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT:
     MALLANAYAKANAKATTE VILLAGE,
     DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK - 571 405.
                           11



10 . SRI A.M. CHANDRAMOHAN,
     S/O LATE P.MALLAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT:
     NO.2020, 2ND CROSS,
     SUBHASHNAGAR,
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

11 . SRI SINGRIGOWDA,
     S/O LATE SINGRIGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT:NO.1427,
     2ND CROSS, BANDHIGOWDA LAYOUT,
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

12 . SRI R.M.SUBBEGOWDA,
     S/O LATE MOOGUREGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT:
     4TH CROSS, K.MARIGOWDA EXTENSION,
     NEAR KALEGOWDA HIGH SCHOOL,
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

13 . SRI K.P.KANTHA,
     AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT:
     ANNAPOORNESHWARINAGAR,
     KYATHUMGERE NEW EXTENSION,
     CHANNEL DOWN,
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

14 . SMT. CHANDRAKALA SHIVANANDA,
     W/O LATE SHIVANAND,
     AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT"
     'PRITHVI NILAYA'.
     KALEGOWDA HIGH SCHOOL ROAD,
     KL-218, MARIGOWDA EXTENSION,
                              12



    MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

15 . SRI H.V.JAYARAM,
     S/O H.V. VEEREGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT
     1ST CROSS, BANDIGOWDA LAYOUT,
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

16 . SRI K.V.MUDDEGOWDA,
     S/O LATE VEERAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT: KEELARA VILLAGE,
     KERAGODU HOBLI,
     MANDYA TALUK - 571 450.

17 . SRI C.MADAPPA,
     S/O LATE PAPEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT: H.MALLIGERE VILLAGE,
     DUDDA HOBLI,
     MANDYA TALUK - 571 402.

18 . DR. B.N.PRABHAVATHI,
     W/O DR.T.CHANDRASHEKAR,
     AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT: NO.1513,
     'PRAGATHI NILAYA'.
     GENERAL HOSPITAL ROAD,
     ASHOKNAGAR,
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

19 . SRI H.L.SHIVANNA,
     S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
     RESIDING AT:
     HOLALU VILLAGE,
     DUDDA HOBLI,
                            13



    MANDYA TALUK - 571 402.

20 . SRI K.C.SUDHARSHAN,
     S/O LATE CHANNAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT: NO.680, 14TH CROSS,
     4TH BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT,
     VIDYARANYAPURAM,
     BENGALURU - 560 097.

21 . SRI N.L.SATHISH.
     S/O LATE N. LINGAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
     RESIDING AT
     NO.497, 'LATHAKUNJA'
     VINOBA ROAD, SUBHASHNAGAR,
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

22 . SRI RAJENDRA M.T.
     S/O THIMMEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
     ADVOCATE,
     RESIDENT OF:
     MUTTANAHALLI VILLAGE,
     C.A.KERE HOBLI,
     MADDUR TALUK - 571 422.

23 . SRI NAVEENA,
     S/O NARASIMHAGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
     ADVOCATE,
     RESIDENT OF:
     THUBINAKERE VILLAGE,
     MANDYA TALUK - 571 402.
     NOW RESIDING AT
     NO.28, E ANDF BLOCK,
     7TH CROSS RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR,
     MYSURU - 570 022.
                              14



24 . SRI MAHENDRA N.P.,
     S/O PUTTEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
     ADVOCATE, NERALAKERE VILLAGE,
     SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK - 571 415.

    NOW RESIDING AT:
    NO.5, 1ST FLOOR,
    VENKATAIAH BUILDING,
    HOSAHALLI ROAD,
    MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

                                          ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.SRUTI CHAGANTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3))

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.
02.05.2025 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE MANDYA IN MISC NO. 26/2025 AT ANNX-A.


IN WRIT PETITION No.16223 OF 2025


BETWEEN:

1 . SRI S.PANCHALINGU
    S/O LATE SINGRIGOWDA,
    AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
    R/AT 2ND CROSS,
    ASHOKNAGAR,
    MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

2 . SRI K.N. NAGARAJU,
    S/O LATE NINGAIAH,
    AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
    R/AT KYATHUMGERE VILLAGE,
    KOTHATHI HOBLI,
                             15



     MANDYA TALUK - 571 401.

3 . SRI D.S. SAMPATHKUMARNAIDU,
    S/O LATE D.T.SUBBARAYAPPA,
    AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
    R/AT NO.3455, 5TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN,
    INDIRANAGAR,
    BENGALURU - 560 038.


                                            ... PETITIONERS

(BY SMT.MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     PEOPLE'S EDUCATION TRUST (R)
       MANDYA
       B. ED COLLEGE BUILDING PET CAMPUS,
       K.V.SHANKAREGOWDA ROAD,
       MANDYA - 571 401
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
       S.L. SHIVAPRASAD.
       INCORPORATED UNDER EDUCATION ACT.

2.     SRI K.S. VIJAY ANAND,
       S/O LATE S.SACHIDANANDA,
       AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.1405/1, 'SHIVAYOGA NILAYA'
       1ST CROSS, BANDIGOWDA LAYOUT,
       MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

3.     SRI BASAVAIAH,
       S/O LATE REVAIAH,
       AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
       R/AT 3RD MAIN ROAD,
       OPP. MAHILA SAMAJA,
       ASHOKNAGAR,
                          16



     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

4.   SRI M.B.SHRIDHAR,
     S/O LATE BOREGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
     R/AT MARAGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
     KERAGODU HOBLI,
     MANDYA TALUK - 571 401.

5.   SRI S.L.SHIVAPRASAD.,
     S/O LATE S.C.LINGAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
     R/AT "MATHOSHREE", NO.1362,
     2ND CROSS, BANDIGOWDA LAYOUT,
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

6.   SRI.K.R.DAYANANDA,
     S/O LATE K.S.RAMEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
     R/AT "HASIRASIRI",
     KARADAHALLI VILLAGE,
     DEVALAPURA HOBLI,
     NAGAMANGALA TALUK - 571 401.

7.   SRI H.P.RAVISHANKAR,
     S/O LATE PAPANNAGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
     R/AT "RUCHIRA"
     NO.2265, 12TH A CROSS,
     APMC ROAD, V.V.NAGAR,
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

8.   SRI H.C. MOHANKUMAR,
     S/O LATE H.D.CHOWDAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.2038, 2ND CROSS,
     SUBHASHNAGAR,
     MANDYA CITY - 571 401.
                             17



9.     SRI M.B. BOREGOWDA,
       S/O BOREGOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
       R/AT MALLANAYAKANAKATTE VILLAGE,
       DUDDA HOBLI,
       MANDYA TALUK - 571 401.

10 .   SRI A.M.CHANDRAMOHAN,
       S/O LATE P.MALLAIAH,
       AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.2020, 2 CROSS,
       SUBHASHNAGAR,
       MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

11 .   SRI SINGRIGOWDA,
       S/O LATE SINGRIGOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.1427, 2ND CROSS,
       BANDHIGOWDA LAYOUT,
       MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

12 .   SRI R.M.SUBBEGOWDA,
       S/O LATE MOOGUREGOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
       R/AT 4TH CROSS,
       K.MARIGOWDA EXTENSION,
       NEAR KALEGOWDA HIGH SCHOOL,
       MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

13 .   SRI.K.P.KANTHA,
       AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS,
       R/AT ANNAPOORNESHWARINAGAR,
       KYATHUMGERE NEW EXTENSION,
       CHANNEL DOWN,
       MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

14 .   SMT. CHANDRAKALA SHIVANANDA,
       W/O LATE SHIVANAND,
                             18



       AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
       R/AT "PRITHVI NILAYA",
       KALEGOWDA HIGH SCHOOL ROAD,
       KL-218, MARIGOWDA EXTENSION,
       MANDYA CITY 571 401.

15 .   SRI H.V.JAYARAM,
       S/O H.V. VEEREGOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
       R/AT 1st CROSS,
       BANDIGOWDA LAYOUT,
       MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

16 .   SRI K.V.MUDDEGOWDA,
       S/O LATE VEERAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
       R/AT KEELARA VILLAGE,
       KERAGODU HOBLI,
       MANDYA TALUK - 571 401.

17 .   SRI.C.MADAPPA,
       S/O LATE PAPEGOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
       R/AT H.MALLIGERE VILLAGE,
       DUDDA HOBLI,
       MANDYA TALUK - 571 401.

18 .   DR.B.N.PRABHAVATHI,
       W/O DR. T.CHANDRASHEKAR,
       AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.1513, 'PRAGATHI NILAYA',
       GENERAL HOSPITAL ROAD,
       ASHOKNAGAR,
       MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

19 .   SRI H.L.SHIVANNA,
       S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
                             19



       R/AT HOLALU VILLAGE,
       DUDDA HOBLI,
       MANDYA TALUK - 571 401.

20 .   SRI.K.C.SUDHARSHAN,
       S/O LATE CHANNAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.680, 14TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK,
       HMT LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURAM,
       BENGALURU - 97.

21 .   SRI N.L.SATHISH,
       S/O LATE N.LINGAIAH,
       AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.497, "LATHAKUNJA"
       VINOBA ROAD, SUBHASHNAGAR,
       MANDYA CITY - 571 401.
                                             ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
    SRI ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOATE FOR C/R-1)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER,
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER TO MODIFY THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
MANDYA (ANNEXURE A), BY PROVIDING NECESSARY GUIDELINES
FOR   THE   FUNCTIONING    OF   THE  AD-HOC    COMMITTEE
CONSTITUTED BY THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT, INCLUDING A
DIRECTION THAT ALL DECISIONS SHALL BE TAKEN BY THE
MAJORITY OF THE COMMITTEE, AND RESTRAINING RESPONDENT
NOS. 2 AND 5 FROM TAKING ANY DECISIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 TRUST.

     THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 19.06.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
                                 20




CORAM:    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                            CAV ORDER



      The parties to the lis in the batch of these petitions, are

common. The grievance relates to certain orders passed by

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in Miscellaneous

No.26 of 2025.     Petitioners/defendants in few of the cases and

petitioners/plaintiffs, in other cases are before this Court calling in

question orders dated 02-05-2025 and 11-06-2025 passed in the

aforesaid miscellaneous petition by the District Court.



      2. Heard Smt Sruti Chaganti, learned counsel appearing for

petitioners in W.P.No.16971 of 2025 and respondents 1 to 3 in

W.P.No.17445 of 2025; Smt Maitreyi Krishnan, learned counsel

appearing for petitioners in W.P.No.16223 of 2025; and Sri Ashok

Haranahalli, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 1 to

5 in W.P.No.16971 of 2025, for petitioners in W.P.No.17445 of 2025

and for respondent No.1 in W.P.No.16223 of 2025.
                                  21



      3. For the sake of convenience, facts as narrated in Writ

Petition No.16971 of 2025 would be narrated.


Sans details brief facts are as follows:-

      The 1st respondent is People's Education Trust (R), Mandya

('PES' for short) which runs several educational institutions. On

11-07-1988 a trust deed is executed by the 1st respondent/Trust

and thereon Rules and Bye-laws are framed.       Venting out certain

grievances, the petitioners three in number approached the District

Court by filing a suit under Section 92 of the CPC, a scheme suit for

the purpose of framing a Scheme for proper governance and

administration of the trust. Along with the plaint, an application is

filed seeking leave to institute the suit. Another application in

I.A.No.II is preferred under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC

seeking order of restraint restraining the Trust and its Members or

the nominated President of the Trust from functioning or continuing

as such for any further period without being elected by way of

secret ballot. The said application is preferred on 21-03-2025. On

28-03-2025, it appears that a resolution is passed by the trustees

continuing the 2nd respondent as the President and making the
                                22



same outcome of the subject proceedings instituted invoking

Section 92 of the CPC.



     4. An application again is preferred in I.A.No.IV of 2025 under

Section 151 of the CPC seeking a direction to conduct elections by a

secret ballot. All these applications are pending.   The concerned

Court by its order dated 02-05-2025 passes an interim order

constituting an ad hoc committee consisting of all the trustees for

governing the trust and a direction issued to respondents 2 and 5 to

submit daily reports to the Court and restraining them from using

their designation as President and Secretary. A writ petition comes

to be filed in Writ Petition No.16223 of 2025 seeking modification of

the interim order dated 02-05-2025 to delineate the working

procedure for the ad hoc committee and restraining respondents 2

and 5 from taking decisions as President and Secretary of the Trust.

After service of copy of the writ petition, the matter was listed

before the Court on 06-06-2025. The concerned Court then directs

the matter to be listed on 11-06-2025. On 11-06-2025 on the score

that a writ petition, as aforesaid is pending and no order is passed

in the writ petition or notice being issued, the Court modifies the
                                 23



order. The modification of the order is challenged in the subject writ

petition. The very order passed on 02-05-2025 as modified on

11-06-2025 is challenged in the companion petition.



SUBMISSION:

Petitioners:


      5.   The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   petitioners

Smt. Sruti Chaganti would vehemently contend that the Court does

have the power to pass interim orders on a suit being preferred

under Section 92 of the CPC, if those orders are warranted and

urgent to protect the interest of the Trust. She would further

contend that in furtherance of such power, a receiver also can be

appointed under Order 40 Rule 1 of the CPC and the Court has

exactly done what is contemplated in law. She would further

contend on merits of the matter as to how the trustees are

misusing the funds of the trust and therefore, seeks the order dated

02-05-2025 to be restored and a direction be issued to two of the

respondents that they should not take decisions as President and

Secretary of the Trust. In effect, the learned counsel seeks the
                                  24



petition be allowed whole hog. She would seek to place reliance on

certain judgments of this Court and other High Courts to buttress

her submission with regard to the power of the Court to pass

interlocutory   orders,   notwithstanding   statutory   compliance   of

Section 92 of the CPC. The same would merit consideration in the

course of the order qua their relevance.



Respondents:

      6. Per contra, learned senior counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli

representing the respondents would refute the submissions to

contend that when a suit is instituted under Section 92 CPC which is

a Scheme suit, unless the Court grants leave and registers the suit,

no interlocutory orders can be passed by the concerned Court. The

application for leave is still pending adjudication before the

concerned Court which is presented along with the plaint. Pending

such consideration, the Court has no power to go on passing

interlocutory orders appointing ad hoc committee, as the Court

would get jurisdiction only after leave being granted and the suit

being registered. The learned senior counsel would submit that writ

petitions challenging the order dated 02-05-2025 and 11-06-2025
                                 25



must be allowed and orders set aside as they are non est in the eye

of law. The learned senior counsel would place reliance upon a

judgment of the coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.9267 of 2022

to contend that the entire issue stands answered by the coordinate

Bench and the petitions filed by them will have to be allowed.




Rejoinder submissions of the Petitioners:


        7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would now place

reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

BHUPINDER SINGH v. JOGINDER SINGH1 to contend that the

Court can pass an order if it is emergent. The learned counsel

would further contend that judgment of the coordinate Bench

referred to by the learned senior counsel is per incuriam, as it does

not consider the purport of Section 92 itself. If a suit is filed under

Section 26 CPC and an application filed thereon under Order 39

Rules 1 and 2 CPC it can be considered even without the

appearance of the respondents, as an ex-parte measure to preserve

status quo. A suit filed under Section 92 CPC would stand on the

1
    (2020) 18 SCC 243
                                  26



same footing. Interlocutory orders are permissible to be passed

under Order 40 Rule 1 of the CPC.



      8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.



      9. The issues that fall for consideration in the lis are -


      (i)    Whether filing of a suit under Section 92 CPC
             would amount to registration of the suit or
             institution of the suit?

      (ii)   Whether the concerned Court does have power to
             pass interlocutory orders without compliance with
             the mandate of Section 92 CPC i.e., grant of
             leave?



Since the issues are intertwined, they are collectively answered.


Issue Nos.(i) & (ii):


      10. The afore-narrated facts and link in the chain of events

are all a matter of record.    The issue is with regard to a Scheme
                                   27



suit filed under Section 92 of the CPC. Section 92 of the CPC reads

as follows:

              "92. Public charities.--(1) In the case of any alleged
      breach of any express or constructive trust created for public
      purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the
      direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the
      administration of any such trust, the Advocate-General, or two
      or more persons having an interest in the trust and
      having obtained the leave of the Court, may institute a
      suit, whether contentious or not, in the principal Civil Court of
      original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that
      behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose
      jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the
      trust is situate to obtain a decree--

      (a)     removing any trustee;
      (b)     appointing a new trustee;
      (c)     vesting any property in a trustee;
      (cc)    directing a trustee who has been removed or a
              person who has ceased to be a trustee, to deliver
              possession of any trust property in his possession
              to the person entitled to the possession of such
              property;
      (d)     directing accounts and inquiries;
      (e)     declaring what proportion of the trust property or
              of the interest therein shall be allocated to any
              particular object of the trust;
      (f)     authorising the whole or any part of the trust
              property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged;
      (g)     settling a scheme; or
      (h)     granting such further or other relief as the nature
              of the case may require.

             (2) Save as provided by the Religious Endowments Act,
      1863 (20 of 1863), or by any corresponding law in force in the
      territories which, immediately before the 1st November, 1956,
      were comprised in Part B States, no suit claiming any of the
      reliefs specified in sub-section (1) shall be instituted in respect
      of any such trust as is therein referred to except in conformity
      with the provisions of that sub-section.
                              28




       (3) The Court may alter the original purposes of an
express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a
charitable or religious nature and allow the property or income
of such trust or any portion thereof to be applied cy pres in one
or more of the following circumstances, namely:--

(a)   where the original purposes of the trust, in whole or in
      part,--

      (i)     have been, as far as may be, fulfilled; or

      (ii)   cannot be carried out at all, or cannot be carried
             out according to the directions given in the
             instrument creating the trust or, where there is no
             such instrument, according to the spirit of the
             trust; or
(b)   where the original purposes of the trust provide a use for
      a part only of the property available by virtue of the
      trust; or

(c)   where the property available by virtue of the trust and
      other property applicable for similar purposes can be
      more effectively used in conjunction with, and to that end
      can suitably be made applicable to any other purpose,
      regard being had to the spirit of the trust and its
      applicability to common purposes; or

(d)   where the original purposes, in whole or in part, were laid
      down by reference to an area which then was, but has
      since ceased to be, a unit for such purposes; or

(e)   where the original purposes, in whole or in part, have,
      since they were laid down,--

      (i)     been adequately provided for by other means, or

      (ii)    ceased, as being      useless   or     harmful   to   the
              community, or

      (iii)   ceased to be, in law, charitable, or
                                    29



            (iv)    ceased in any other way to provide a suitable and
                    effective method of using the property available by
                    virtue of the trust, regard being had to the spirit of
                    the trust."

                                                 (Emphasis supplied)


The Mandate of Section 92, inter alia is when two or more persons

come together and institute a suit, in the nature of a Scheme, to

protect the interest or functioning of the trust, which according to

them is being run contrary to public interest, it becomes a suit

not merely by filing; it becomes a suit when the concerned

Court grants leave to institute the suit.                 The mandate of

Section 92 is thus, a suit gets life, only when the Court grants

leave. Without the Court granting leave, after hearing the

parties, the said suit is stillborn, no right gets crystalized in

favour of plaintiffs, who prefer to institute a scheme suit to

insist on the Court to pass interlocutory orders, pending

application, seeking grant of leave. The mandate of Section 92

is thus a jurisdictional issue.    The District Court before whom the

plaint is presented would get jurisdiction only on grant of leave. In

the case at hand, the application seeking leave is still pending

consideration.     Therefore,   the     plaint    has   not   turned   itself
                                  30



into a suit, as it still remains as a plaint. On a plaint which is yet to

get leave to become a suit, the Court goes on passing certain

orders. The emergent situation noticed by the Court, shocks the

conscience of this Court. The concerned Court, on 02-05-2025,

passes the following order:

      "Case is called.

             The petitioner No.1 to 3 are present. Respondent No.1, 2, 3,
      4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and
      24 are present. It must be noted that on 28-04-2025 the Learned
      counsel for the Petitioners filed I.A.No.7 U/o 40 Rule 1 CPC
      requesting this court to appoint ad hoc committee for maintenance
      and management to day-to-day affairs of the institution till the
      orders on I.A.No.1 and I.A.No.2 is passed.

            The record also shows that on 29-04-2025 the respondents
      No.6, 7, 9 and other respondents have also filed objections to this
      I.A.No.7.

             Today, the Learned counsel for the respondent NO.22 to 24
      files objection to this I.A.No.7.

             The record also shows that till date only the Arguments of
      Petitioners and the Respondent No. 2, 3, 8, 12, 20, 21 and
      Respondent No.6, 7, 9, 17 and 19 have been heard.

             The Learned counsel for R22 to R24 is still arguing the
      matter. It is convention that after the Respondents complete their
      submission, an opportunity is to be given to the Learned counsel
      for the Petitioners to submit his reply.

           It is a fact that the summer vacation of 2025 is fast
      approaching, and virtually tomorrow would be the last civil
      working day before the summer vacation.
                                31



          Therefore, in the larger interest of the well-known and
     reputed institution of Mandya City, some order is to be
     passed. Therefore, I pass the following:

                              ORDER

A committee is formed.

All the trustees are the members of the said committee, and the office bearers of this institution/People's Education Trust shall furnish the details of the day to day proceedings that take place in the institution, after notifying all the trustees and after obtaining signatures of all the trustees to this Court.

This interim arrangement is made till 06-06-2025.

The R2/Sri K.S. Vijayananda or R5/Sri S.L. Shivaprasad shall furnish those details to the Court on every working day before 5.00 p.m.

Learned counsel Sri M.J.J. for petitioners submits that while submitting those reports to this court by Vijayananda or by Shivaprasad by mentioning their alleged official capacity them the same will be prejudice by the petitioners.

In my humble opinion having regard to the submission made by the Sri MJJ is well founded and is accepted.

Call on 06-06-2025."

(Emphasis added)

What has swayed the Court is that summer vacation is ensuing and

it was the last working day for the civil Court. Therefore, in larger

interest and to protect the reputation of well-known institution in

Mandya City, the order is passed. It is ununderstandable as to how

an ensuing summer vacation can become an emergent

circumstance to pass an order giving plethora of directions for

formation of a committee; the committee's day-to-day's

proceedings be placed before the Court and so on and so forth. The

matter is directed to be listed on 06-06-2025 and again on

11-06-2025. On 11-06-2025 the Court passes the following order:

"Panchalingu Petitioner No.1, Sampathkumar Naidu, Petitioner No.3. Smt. Shruthi Chaganti Advocate for petitioners, Sri Dhanukumar Advocate for R1 etc. (R3) Sri H.B.Advocate in person, Sri M.B.R.Advocate for R22 to R24, Sri K.S.Raghu Advocate for R8, R12, R20 and R21 present. Smt. Shruthi Chaganti Advocate filed following applications for following relief. I.A.8 U/Sec.151 of CPC Direction to respondent No.1 to furnish detail accounts for the reports to this authority as per order dated 02-05-2025 I.A.No.9 U/o 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking to implead Prl.PES College of Engineering K.V. Shankaregowda Road, Mandya. I.A.No.10 U/Sec.151 of CPC seeking to extend interim order dated 02-05-2025 until next date of hearing. I.A.No.11 U/Sec.151 of CPC Directing the R1 through Prl. To cause our decisions pertaining to admission to the college for academic year 2025-26 to be made only by the Ad hoc committee constituted as per order dated 02-05-2025 by majority vote passed by this authority. I.A.No.12 U/Sec. 151 R/w Sec.94 of CPC r/w Sec.15(2) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 along with 13 documents to enquire into and initiate proceedings against D2 for the contempt of the order of this Court dated 02-05-2025 I.A.No.13 U/Sec.151 R/w 94 of CPC R/w 15(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1971 along with 24 documents to enquire into and initiate proceedings against D3 for the contempt of the order of this Court dated 02-05-2025 Respondent No.3/Sri H.Basavaiah filed computer print of the status report of W.P.16223 of 2025 (16415) filed by Panchalingu against People's Education Trust. In the Court hall this authority read terms of the prayer made in above noted W.P. by

Panchalingu before Honorable High Court of Karnataka. R3 Basavaiah and other Advocates appearing for various respondent sought time to file objection to the applications filed today. I heard the submission made by Smt. Shruthi Advocate. Now in the Court hall many witness and Advocates are present to lead evidence and submit arguments. Now time 4.20 p.m. the case is with respect to Education Institution as noted above. Petitioner No.1 Panchalingu filed a W.P. challenging the order dated 02- 05-2025 passed by this authority. Hence, as a interim measure following ORDER. Order dated 02-05-2025 except part of the order challenged in above noted W.P. and part of the order dated 02-05-2025 directing the respondent No.2 to 5 to submit report on every working day before 5.00 p.m. to this authority the remaining order are extended till 05-07-2025 Saturday. Issue notice of I.A.No.9 to Prl. PES College of Engineer Mandya if sufficient process PF and copy of the I.a.No.9 is furnished R/by 05-07-2025. Call 05-07-2025 to file objection to the applications filed to-day except I.A.No.9 and I.A.No.10 and hearing of the applications (I.A.No.l1, 2 and 4 etc.). "

(Emphasis added)

The concerned Court notices pendency of the subject petitions and

modifies the order observing that the time is 4.20 p.m. Again, no

order is passed on grant of leave. As observed hereinabove, if

leave is not granted in a Scheme suit, it remains a Scheme

plaint. If it remains Scheme plaint without institution of the suit,

all orders passed on interlocutory applications, are all non est in the

eye of law, as the Court would get jurisdiction to pass interlocutory

orders, only when the suit is instituted or registered. The said

circumstance is yet to come about. If it is yet to come about, the

Court has no jurisdiction to pass interlocutory orders.

11. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the

petitioners on order 40 Rule 1 of the CPC which deals with

appointment of receiver. It reads as follows:

"1. Appointment of receivers.--(1) Where it appears to the Court to be just and convenient, the Court may by order--

(a) appoint a receiver of any property, whether before or after decree;

(b) remove any person from the possession or custody of the property;

(c) commit the same to the possession, custody or management of the receiver; and

(d) confer upon the receiver all such powers, as to bringing and defending suit and for the realisation, management, protection, preservation and improvement of the property, the collection of the rents and profits thereof, the application and disposal of such rents and profits, and the execution of documents as the owner himself has, or such of those powers as the Court thinks fit.

(2) Nothing in this rule shall authorise the Court to remove from the possession or custody of property, any person whom any party to the suit has not a present right so to remove."

For an application under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC what is sine qua

non, is institution of a suit. It is only in a validly instituted suit,

Order 40 Rule 1 application can be considered and not on a plaint.

Suit under Section 26 or any other provision in the code would

stand on a different circumstance, while the Scheme suit, under

Section 92, stands on a different footing.

12. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the

coordinate Bench, of this Court, in W.P.No.9267 of 2022 which

considers the entire spectrum of law and has held as follows:

" .. ..The Apex Court in the judgment cited supra has clearly held that Section 92 of CPC mandates that leave of the Court is a pre-condition or a condition precedent for institution of suit against a public trust. It would be also useful for this Court to examine Section 26 of CPC, which reads as under:

"26. Institution of suits-1). Every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint or in such other manner as may be prescribed.

2). In every plaint, facts shall be proved by affidavit."

Sub-Section (1) of Section 26 mandates that every suit shall be instituted by a presentation of plaint or in such other manner as may be prescribed. Therefore, what emerges from the above said Section is that suit must commence with the presentation of plaint. A scheme suit under Section 92 of CPC. cannot be entertained unless leave is granted. Mere presentation of plaint filed under Section 92 of CPC does not amount to initiation of proceedings. Under Section 92 mere presentation of plaint is not the test for due institution of suit unless conditions precedent in instituting a scheme suit are complied with before presentation of the plaint.

Therefore, in terms of Section 26 of CPC, it is only when a leave is granted, it can be treated as a duly instituted suit and it is only then, it is to be deemed that machinery is set in motion and proceedings are deemed to have been either instituted or initiated.

Therefore, a leave to sue under Section 92 of CPC can be granted by the Court on the prima facie satisfaction regarding the allegations made against the respondents either without giving notice to the respondents or after giving notice to the respondents and hearing them, there will be no properly instituted suit under law before formal leave is granted by the Court under Section 92 of the Code and no interlocutory orders in the proceedings can be passed by the Court before granting permission to institute the suit under Section 92(1) of the Code. The provisions of Section 92(1) read with Section 26 clearly mandates that there is no properly instituted suit unless leave is granted in a scheme suit filed under Section 92. Unlike a suit in a forma pauperis stands instituted on filing of an application under Order 33 Rule 3. The said analogy cannot be extended to the suits filed under Section 92 of CPC. Section 92 mandates that the person or persons filing a suit alleging breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purpose has to seek leave and it will be only after the leave is granted the Court gets jurisdiction to entertain interlocutory applications.

15(a) Therefore, in the present case on hand, the Court below had no jurisdiction to entertain an application seeking appointment of a receiver. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the general power under Section 94 of CPC cannot be invoked in derogation of or contrary to specific mandate contained in the Code itself. Hence, when there are specific provisions contained in the Code regarding the matter under consideration, the general power as contained in either Section 151 or other provisions like Section 94 cannot be exercised. The expression, if it is so prescribed in Section 94 in itself would create a bar and therefore, the supplementary proceedings as provided under Section 94 of CPC cannot be entertained in a scheme suit unless leave is granted.