Dismissed

Venkappa S/O. Ramappa Maraddi v. the District Registrar of Societies

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2013WP/75642/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka heard writ petitions seeking quashing of a Registrar's endorsement refusing to recognize petitioners as society office bearers. The Court held that management controversies between rival groups must be resolved by competent civil courts and dismissed the petitions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions requesting quashing of endorsement and direction to recognize petitioners as office bearers were dismissed.

Venkappa S/O. Ramappa Maraddi Vs the District Registrar of Societies — Karnataka HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 75642/2013 & 76528/2013 C/w.

¶7

WRIT PETITION Nos. 82683/2013 & 82826/2013 (GM-KSR)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

Sri. VENKAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA MARADDI AGE 77 YEARS PRESIDENT OF Sri. YOGI VEMANA SHIKSHANA PRASARA SAMITHI BELATTI, TQ. SHIRAHATTI DIST. GADAG.

¶10

Sri. BASANGOUDA GAVIGOUDA PATIL, AGE 65 YEARS SECRETARY OF Sri. YOGI VEMANA SHIKSHANA PRASARA SAMITHI BELATTI, TQ. SHIRAHATTI DIST. GADAG. … PETITIONERS [COMMON]

¶11

(BY Sri. SHARAD MAGADUM, ADV., FOR Sri. HEMANT R CHANDANGOUDAR, ADV.)

¶12

: 2 :

¶13

AND :

¶14

THE DIST. REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, GADAG DIST., GADAG.

¶15

Sri. YOGI VEMANA SHIKSHANA PRASARA SAMITHI BELATTI, TQ. SHIRAHATTI DIST. GADAG BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

Sri. MOHAN VENKAPPA MARADDI AGE 38 YEARS ALLEGED PRESIDENT OF Sri. YOGI VEMANA SHIKSHANA PRASARA SAMITHI BELATTI, TQ. SHIRAHATTI DIST. GADAG.

¶17

Sri. VENKAREDDY S/O. SHEKAREDDY MAIGUR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS ALLEGED SECRETARY OF Sri. YOGI VEMANA SHIKSHANA PRASARA SAMITHI BELATTI, TQ. SHIRAHATTI DIST. GADAG. … RESPONDENTS [COMMON] (BY Smt. VIDYAVATHI, AGA, FOR R-1)

¶18

WRIT PETITION Nos. 75642/2013 & 76528/2013 ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 26.12.2012 AND ETC.

¶19

: 3 :

¶20

WRIT PETITION Nos. 82683/2013 & 82826/2013 ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 29.05.2013 AND ETC.

¶21

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

In W.P. Nos. 75642/2013 and 76528/2013 the petitioners

¶24

have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 26.12.2012 – Annexure L and M and for a writ of mandamus to respondent No. 1 to recognize the petitioners as the President and Secretary of respondent No. 2 society.

¶25

In W.P. Nos. 82683/2013 and 82826/2013 the petitioners

¶26

have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 29.05.2013 – Annexure B and for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to recognize them as the President and Secretary of respondent No. 2 society.

¶27

Respondent No. 2 is a society registered under the

¶28

provisions of the Societies Registration Act. Petitioners contend that

¶29

: 4 :

¶30

they are the duly elected office bearers of respondent No.2 society. So also respondent Nos. 3 and 4 contend that they are the duly elected office bearers of respondent No. 2 society. On an earlier occasion the petitioner No. 1 approached this Court in W.P. No. 63863/2011 for identical reliefs. This Court vide order dated 29.08.2012 refused to interfere with the identical endorsement issued on 30.05.2011 however made an observation that respondent No. 2 therein – District Registrar to pass a reasoned order while accepting or refusing the balance sheet and annual list filed under Section 13 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. Accordingly respondent No. 2 has now issued the impugned endorsement as per Annexure L dated 26.12.2012, M dated 26.12.2012 and B dated 29.05.2013. A perusal of these endorsements specifies that respondent No. 2 accepted the balance sheet and the annual list filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by assigning reasons and refused the list filed by the petitioners.

¶31

If there is controversy with regard to the management

¶32

between two groups in respect of respondent No. 2 society the same

¶33

: 5 :

¶34

is required to be resolved by the concerned parties by approaching the competent civil Court. This Court cannot go into the controversy between the parties with regard to the management over respondent No. 2 society.

¶35

Learned counsel petitioners submit that respondent Nos. 3

¶36

and 4 have abused their power, manipulated the records and worked disgruntle to the interest of the society. If that is so it is open for the petitioners to make appropriate representation to the Registrar of Societies under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. With the above observations the writ petitions are hereby dismissed.

¶37

��

¶38

Lrs.

Venkappa S/O. Ramappa Maraddi v. the District Registrar of Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkappa S/O. Ramappa Maraddi v. the District Registrar of Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Habibulla Basha Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Gourishankar S/O. Ramappa Rayaji Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

D Swamy Rao S/O. Yenkoba Rao Vs the State of Karnataka

Srinivas S/O. Prakash Kyarakatti Vs the Commissioner of

Anilkumar Shirahatti S/O Parameshwar Vs the State of Karnataka

Suresh Sangappa Savalagi Vs the State of Karnataka