Writ petition barred as only a minority of members were aggrieved. Writ petition challenging the registration of amended bye-laws dismissed.
null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P No.10292/2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.10292 OF 2020 (GM-KSR)
BETWEEN :
W.P No.10292/2020
2
INDUSTRIAL TOWN RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 044
BENGALURU-560 054 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)
[THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE]
AND :
3
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SHRI. YESHU MISHRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED REGISTRATION OF AMENDED BY-LAW BY THE R-1 DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES 4TH DIVISION BENGALURU VIDE AMR NO.59/19-2020 DTD.27.12.2020 VIDE ANENXURE-M
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.08.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Initially seven members of second respondent Federation have presented this writ petition. Out of them, petitioners No.4 to 7 have withdrawn their cases by filing a memo on 30.03.2021. Resultantly, petitioners No. 1 to 3 are prosecuting this case.
W.P No.10292/2020
4
amended Bye-laws vide Annexure-M dated 27.12.2019 issued by the District Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
1 2018(4) Kar.L.J 329 (paras 10 and 12)
W.P No.10292/2020
5
the Societies. Aggrieved Members can approach the Registrar for redressal of their grievance.
5. In reply, Shri. Jayakumar Patil submitted that
Registrar cannot review his decision. It is an admitted fact that Clause 6.20 is not found in the proposal submitted for amendment. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing this petition.
W.P No.10292/2020
6
petition on their behalf. Thus, majority of members have
no grievance.
case does not merit exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is
accordingly dismissed .
No costs.
Sd/JUDGE
SPS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging the amendment of bye-laws is maintainable when only a minority of members of the union are aggrieved.
Whether the High Court can exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the said facts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.Shivakumar Swamy Kurki Vs. Kannada Sahithya ParishatReferred¶8
R.Shivakumar Swamy Kurki Vs. Kannada Sahithya Parishat, Chamarajpete, Bengaluru 1 2018(4) Kar.L.J 329 (paras 10 and 12)
SRI. J.B. SURANA
SRI. ANEES UR-RAHMAN
SRI. RAKESH SHARMA
THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES 4TH ZONE
FEDERATION OF INDIAN GRANITE AND STONE INDUSTRY
P.S. DINESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
