[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shree Vijay Mahantesh Vidyavardhaka ... vs The District Registrar Of Societies on 15 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5496
WP No. 107612 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 107612 OF 2025 (GM-KSR)
BETWEEN:
1. SHREE VIJAY MAHANTESH VIDYAVARDHAKA
SANGHA, ILKAL, TQ. HUNAGUND
DIST. BAGALKOT-587125
REP. BY ITS CHARIMAN
SHRI SHIVARUDRAPPA S/O MAHANTAPPA
GONGADASHETTI, AGE. 60 YEARS
OCC. ILKAL, TQ. HUNAGUND
DIST. BAGALKOT-587125
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADV)
AND:
1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES
AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE
BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587103
2. SRI VEERABHADRAPPA S/O NARAYANA
MANNAPURA, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS
Digitally signed by R/O. NEW KOTWAL PETH, WARD NO.5,
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR ILKAL, TQ. HUNAGUND
Location: HIGH DIST. BAGALKOT-587125.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T. HANAMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1,
SRI. S.B. HEBBALLI, ADV FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OR
ORDER, OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.05.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.1 IN FILE NO.DRBGK/NONDANI/17/1969-70/2024-25 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5496
WP No. 107612 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
The petitioner-society has filed this writ petition
challenging the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 passed
by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A.
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ
petition are as follows:
3. The petitioner is a society registered under the
provisions of the Karnataka Society Registration Act, 1960
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1960' for short). The
main object of the petitioner-society is to impart education
and for establishment of free boarding etc. Clause 11 of the
bye-laws of the society prescribes the category of the
members and Clause 11(6) empowers the society to deny
the membership to any person without any reason. The
bye-laws of the society do not provide hereditary
membership to the society. The father of respondent No.2
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5496
HC-KAR
submitted a letter to the petitioner-society requesting to
transfer his membership to his son, i.e., respondent No.2.
The earlier committee of the petitioner-society passed a
resolution No.263 transferring the membership in favour of
respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 raised a dispute in
Dispute No.1/2009-10 before respondent No.1 for a
direction, directing the petitioner-society to issue transfer of
membership certificate standing in the name of his father in
favour of respondent No.2. The petitioner-society filed
objections to Dispute No.1/2009-10. The new committee of
the petitioner-society passed a resolution dated
06.03.2010, and cancelled the earlier resolution No.263
dated 23.05.1997. Respondent No.1 dismissed the Dispute
No.1/2009-10 filed by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2
approached this court in W.P.No.84299/2013. This court,
vide order dated 12.06.2024 allowed the writ petition and
directed respondent No.1 to issue a fresh notice to all
interested parties by remanding the matter for
consideration afresh. The petitioner-society failed to appear
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5496
HC-KAR
before respondent No.1, and respondent No.1 passed the
impugned order. The petitioner-society aggrieved by the
impugned order filed this writ petition.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and
learned AGA for respondent No.1.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-society
submits that respondent No.1 has no power to pass the
impugned order under Section 25 of the Act of 1960. He
submits that respondent No.1 has no right to admit
respondent No.2 as a member of the petitioner-society. He
also submits that the earlier writ petition filed by
respondent No.2 was not maintainable as per Section 25 of
the Act of 1960. He submits that respondent No.1 has not
provided sufficient opportunity to put forth the petitioner-
society's case. Thus, there is a violation of the principles of
natural justice. He submits that there is no such bye-law
that after the death of a member, the membership to be
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5496
HC-KAR
transferred to the legal heirs. To buttress his arguments, he
has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the
case of AMIYA VILAS SWAMI AND OTHERS VS SHANKHA BRITA
DAS AND OTHERS reported in 2007 SCC ONLINE KAR 432.
Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ
petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
submits that the father of respondent No.2 submitted an
application to transfer his membership in favour of
respondent No.2. The management of the petitioner-society
passed a resolution on 06.03.2010 wherein it is resolved to
transfer the membership in favour of respondent No.2.
Subsequently, the petitioner-society passed another
resolution dated 06.03.2010 cancelling the earlier resolution
dated 23.05.1997. Respondent No.2 raised a dispute under
Section 70 before respondent No.1, and respondent No.1
dismissed the dispute. Respondent No.2 aggrieved by the
order passed by respondent No.1 filed a writ petition in
W.P.No.84299/2013. He submitted that after the remand,
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5496
HC-KAR
the petitioner-society had a knowledge regarding the
pendency of the proceedings before respondent No.1.
Despite the knowledge, the petitioner-society failed to
appear before respondent No.1. Thus, there is negligence
on the part of the petitioner-society. He also submits that
as far as maintainability of the earlier writ petition is
concerned, the petitioner-society has not raised any
objection when the said writ petition was pending before
the Co-ordinate Bench of this court. He also submitted that
the order passed in the earlier writ petition has been acted
upon by the parties. Now the petitioner-society is estopped
to contend that the earlier writ petition filed by respondent
No.2 is not maintainable. Hence, on these grounds, he
prays to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Learned AGA for respondent No.1 submits that
respondent No.1 has granted a sufficient time to the
petitioner-society to participate in the proceedings. Despite
granting a sufficient opportunity, the petitioner-society did
not avail the opportunity. He submits that there is no
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5496
HC-KAR
violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, on these
grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
8. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
9. It is an undisputed fact that the father of
respondent No.2 was the member of the petitioner-society.
During his lifetime, he submitted an application for transfer
of his membership in favour of respondent No.2. The
petitioner-society has passed a resolution dated
23.05.1997, and it is resolved to transfer the membership
of the father of respondent No.2, in favour of respondent
No. 2. Respondent No.2 raised a dispute No.1/2009-10
before respondent No.1 for a direction, directing the
petitioner-society to issue a transfer of membership
certificate standing in the name of his father. During the
pendency of the said proceedings, petitioner-society has
passed a resolution dated 06.03.2010 cancelling the earlier
resolution dated 23.05.1997. In view of passing of a
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5496
HC-KAR
subsequent resolution, superseding the earlier resolution,
respondent No.1 has dismissed the dispute No.1/2009-10
raised by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 approached
this court in W.P.No.84299/2013. This court allowed the
writ petition vide order dated 12.06.2024. This court while
disposing of the said writ petition, in paragraph 6 has made
the observation, which reads as follows:
"Even on this court, the order passed by 1st
respondent is liable to be set aside. The matter requires
fresh consideration, as fresh materials are placed on
record by petitioner. If respondent No.2-society has
considered and transferred the membership in other
instances, there cannot be discrimination insofar as
petitioner is concerned. Respondent No.1 was also
required to examine as to whether the membership
accorded to petitioner in the year 2000 can be recalled in
2010 under impugned resolution dated 06.03.2010.
Respondent No.1 has not adverted to these significant
details."
10. From the perusal of the operative portion of the
order passed by this court, the Co-ordinate Bench has
quashed and set aside the resolution dated 06.03.2010 vide
Annexure-L, and also the order passed by respondent No.1,
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5496
HC-KAR
and directed respondent No.1 to issue a fresh notice to all
the interested parties. The petitioner/respondent No.2
herein and respondent No.2/petitioner-society herein are at
liberty to further produce the additional documents, if any.
After hearing both the parties, respondent No.1 shall decide
the dispute, in accordance with law. Further, the Co-
ordinate Bench has made it clear that respondent No.1 shall
take cognizance of the observations made by this court.
Though the said writ petition was disposed of by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this court, the petitioner-society did not
raise any objection in regard to the maintainability of the
earlier writ petition. This court has remanded the matter to
respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 appeared before
respondent No.1, and the petitioner-society failed to appear
before respondent No.1 to put forth its case.
11. From the perusal of the records, it clearly
discloses that the petitioner-society acquiesced its right in
regard to the powers of the petitioner-society under Section
25 of the Act of 1960. The petitioner-society has not raised
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5496
HC-KAR
this point in the earlier writ petition. The petitioner-society
has raised this point for the first time in this writ petition.
The petitioner-society is estopped to contend that
respondent No.1 has no authority to hold an enquiry under
Section 25 of the Act of 1960 regarding the maintainability
of the earlier writ petition. Respondent No.1 has already
issued a notice to the petitioner-society to put forth its
case. Despite the service of notice, the petitioner-society
remained unrepresented before respondent No.1.
Respondent No.1 considering the material produced by
respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order.
12. Further, when a specific query was put to the
learned counsel for the petitioner-society that whether the
petitioner-society has transferred the membership in other
instances, the learned counsel for the petitioner-society was
unable to answer the said query. As observed by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this court in the earlier writ petition,
respondent No.1 has already examined as to whether the
membership accorded to respondent No.2 in 2000 can be
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5496
HC-KAR
recalled in 2010. Respondent No. 1 has rightly passed the
impugned order.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner-society has
placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of
AMIYA VILAS SWAMI AND OTHERS (supra). From the perusal
of paragraph 33, it discloses that Section 25 clearly shows
that the Register can hold an enquiry in the matter of
Constitution, working and finance. There is no dispute in
regard to the proposition of law laid down by the Co-
ordinate Bench in the case referred to supra.
14. Admittedly, in the instant case, respondent No.2
filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by
respondent No.1. This court has already quashed the order
passed by respondent No.1, and remitted the matter to
respondent No.1 for fresh consideration. If respondent No.1
had no authority to hold any enquiry, the petitioner-society
could have raised this aspect by way of objections in the
earlier writ petition. The petitioner-society has not raised
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5496
HC-KAR
this point in the earlier writ petition. The petitioner-society
is now esstopped to raise this contention in this writ
petition, as it is hit by the explanation to Section 11 of the
CPC, i.e., constructive res judicata. Admittedly, the
judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner-society is not applicable to the case on hand.
15. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed.
In view of dismissal, of the writ petition,
I.A.No.1/2026 does not survive for consideration, and
the same is disposed of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
MBS
CT: BSB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21
