Disposed

Karnataka Chitrakala Parishath v. the District Registrar

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2021WP/4941/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash an order by the District Registrar regarding removal of membership and stay proceedings. Court admitted that proceedings abated due to the respondent's death but disposed of the petition keeping the maintainability question open for an appropriate case.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of keeping the question of maintainability to be considered in an appropriate case.

Karnataka Chitrakala Parishath Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.4941/2020 (GM -KSR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KARNATAKA CHITRAKALA PARISHATH, (A SOCIETY REGD. UNDER KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960), KUMARA KRUPA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI. B L SHANKAR, S/O LATE B.K.LOKKAPPAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. ... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.DAYANAND S PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 4^TH BLOCK, SAHAKARA SOUDA, 3^RD MAIN, 8^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE CITY DISTRICT, BANGALORE – 03.

¶12

SRI. V. KRISHNAREDDY, S/O LATE RAJA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.31, HARRIS ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BANGALORE – 46. …RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1)

¶14

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.11.2019 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE – A; QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE R-1 AUTHORITY; GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS INITIATED PENDING BEFORE THE R-1 AUTHORITY.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned HCGP accepts notice for the

¶19

respondents.

¶20

The second respondent has challenged removal of his membership from petitioner’s Parishath. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection stating that petition filed by respondent No.2 was not maintainable before respondent No.1 and he ought to have filed a suit. Further, respondent No.1 has passed an interim order as per Annexure-A. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

¶21

Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that

¶22

proceedings before respondent No.1 has abated because respondent No.2 has passed away. However, question of law with regard to maintainability of complaint filed by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1 requires to be considered.

¶23

¶24

4. Admittedly, the proceedings before respondent

¶25

No.1 have abated.

¶26

In the circumstances, writ petition is disposed of keeping the question of maintainability to be considered in an appropriate case.

¶27

Learned HCGP is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.

¶28

No costs.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

Karnataka Chitrakala Parishath v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Chitrakala Parishath v. the District Registrar

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

Ramesh Vs the State of Karnataka

K S Harish Vs the State of Karnataka

Prasanna B G Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Muninagaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

N.Vasantha Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Roopesh Rai Vs the State of Karnataka