Disposed

Mr Hari Yogendra Tripathi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2022WP/1685/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of three writ petitions regarding Welfare Associations collecting maintenance. Relying on the Karnataka Apartments Ownership Act, 1972, the court held that these associations cannot be registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. It directed the associations to register under the 1972 Act within two months, declaring future collections unauthorized if

What did the court decide?

Directed the Welfare Associations to register under the Karnataka Apartments Ownership Act, 1972 within two months; declared future collections by non-registered associations unauthorized.

Mr Hari Yogendra Tripathi Vs State of Karnataka — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1685 of 2022

¶3

C/W

¶4

WP No. 16654 of 2021 WP No. 293 of 2022

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 1685 OF 2022 (GM-KSR)

¶9

C/W

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 16654 OF 2021 (GM-KSR) WRIT PETITION NO. 293 OF 2022 (GM-KSR)

¶11

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1685 OF 2022

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

MR.HARI YOGENDRA TRIPATHI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O RAM ASREY TRIPATHI WLL 044, DLF WOODLAND HEIGHTS RAJAPURA, JIGANI

¶14

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

BENGALURU – 560 105.

¶16

MR.SHRINIVAS BANGERA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O SANJEEVA BANGERA FALT NO 51, 5^TH FLOOR F TOWER, DLF WOODLAND HEIGHTS RAJAPURA, JIGANI BENGALURU – 560 105.

¶17

MR.L.T.KUMAR

¶18

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O LATE LINGACHARY NO 22, 1^ST MAIN, 5^TH CROSS

¶19

¶20

WP No. 1685 of 2022

¶21

C/W WP No. 16654 of 2021 WP No. 293 of 2022

¶22

GOPALAREDDY LAYOUT ARAKERE , BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 076.

¶23

ALSO AT WLL 041, DLF WOOD LAND HEIGHTS RAJAPURA, JIGANI BENGALURU – 560 105.

¶24

…PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SRI. VITTAL B.R., ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION ROOM NO.618, 6^TH FLOOR M.S.BUILDING

¶28

BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶29

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCITIES BANGALORE URBAN ZONE-3 NO.146, SAHAKARA SOUDHA 8^TH CROSS ROAD, 3^RD MAIN MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU – 560 003.

¶30

WOODLAND HEIGHTS APARTMENT OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (WHAOWA) GROUND FLOOR, G-BLOCK DLF WOODLAND HEIGHTS RAJAPURA, JIGANI BENGALURU – 560 105.

¶31

¶32

WP No. 1685 of 2022

¶33

C/W

¶34

WP No. 16654 of 2021 WP No. 293 of 2022

¶35

(REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT)

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI. D.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE REGISTRATION UNDER THE SAID ACT OF R-3 ASSOCIATION AND ITS BYE LAWS ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF R-2 ENCLOSED AS ANNX-D AND E AND ETC.,

¶39

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 16654 OF 2021

¶40

BETWEEN:

¶41

M/S LILIUM GARDENIA RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (R)

¶42

AN ASSOCIATION UNDER REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT DHAMMANGI LILIUM GARDENIA APARTMENT SY NO.98/1, 98/3, RACHENAHALLI VILLAGE, BDS LAYOUT HEGDE NAGARA BENGALURU – 560 077 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MR.DEEPAK P.M.

¶43

…PETITIONER

¶44

(BY SRI. RAVI R., ADVOCATE)

¶45

¶46

WP No. 1685 of 2022

¶47

C/W

¶48

WP No. 16654 of 2021 WP No. 293 of 2022

¶49

AND:

¶50

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD,

¶51

NEAR RAJ BHAVAN,

¶52

VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU KARNATAKA – 560 052.

¶53

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BANGALORE URBAN-1 SHANKARA SOUDHA, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESWARAM

¶54

BENGALURU – 560 003.

¶55

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES 3^RD FLOOR, TRIUMPH TOWERS

¶56

NO.48, CHURCH STREET BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶57

…RESPONDENTS

¶58

(BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP.)

¶59

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT/ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHIN SL.NO.DRB1/SS/COM/2020-21 DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BANGALORE URBAN-1-DATED 29-6-2021 I.E. ANNEXURE-E.

¶60

¶61

WP No. 1685 of 2022

¶62

C/W

¶63

WP No. 16654 of 2021 WP No. 293 of 2022

¶64

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 293 OF 2022

¶65

BETWEEN:

¶66

MR.PRAKASH CHANDRA RAO ALUGGELU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O GANGADHAR RAO ALUGGELU

¶67

FLAT NO.101, BLOCK C LILIUM GARDENIA, 2^ND CROSS ROAD BDS LAYOUT, DR.SRK NAGAR HEGDE NAGAR

¶68

BENGALURU – 560 077.

¶69

…PETITIONER

¶70

(BY SRI. VITTAL B. R., ADVOCATE)

¶71

AND:

¶72

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶73

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶74

DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION ROOM NO.618,

¶75

6^TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶76

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BANGALORE URBAN ZONE-1 NO.146, SAHAKARA SOUDHA 8^TH CROSS ROAD,

¶77

3^RD MAIN, MARGOSA ROAD MALLESHWARAM

¶78

BENGALURU – 560 003.

¶79

¶80

WP No. 1685 of 2022

¶81

C/W

¶82

WP No. 16654 of 2021 WP No. 293 of 2022

¶83

LILIUM GARDENIA RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION

¶84

DHAMMANGI LILIUM GARDENIA APARTMENTS SY NO.98/1, 98/3,

¶85

RACHENAHALLI VILLAGE

¶86

BDS LAYOUT, HEGDENAGARA BENGALURU – 560 077

¶87

(REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT)

¶88

…RESPONDENTS

¶89

(BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.R.RAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶90

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE REGISTRATION UNDER THE SAID ACT OF R-3 ASSOCIATION AND ITS BYELAWS ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF R-2 VIDE ANNX-B AND C ENCLOSED IN PAGE NUMBER AND ETC.

¶91

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

¶92

ORDER

¶93

These petitions call in question the act of the

¶94

respondents – Welfare Associations of the respective apartments seeking maintenance from the hands of the residents of the apartments, notwithstanding the fact that the Welfare Associations are registered under the

¶95

¶96

WP No. 1685 of 2022 C/W WP No. 16654 of 2021 WP No. 293 of 2022

¶97

Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (‘the Act, 1960 for short).

¶98

Heard Sri Vittal B.R., learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.1685/2022 and 293/2022, Sri Ravi R., learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.16654/2021, Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.Nos.1685/2022 and 293/2022 and respondent Nos.1 to 3 in W.P.No.16654/2021, Sri D. Manjunath, learned counsel for respondent No.3 in W.P.No.1685/2022 and Sri R. Ravi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 in W.P.No.293/2022.

¶99

The learned counsel appearing for the parties would accept the fact that the issue is covered by an order passed by the Division Bench, on an identical issue in W.A.No.974/2019, disposed on 06.11.2019, has held as follows:

¶100

¶101

WP No. 1685 of 2022

¶102

C/W

¶103

WP No. 16654 of 2021 WP No. 293 of 2022

¶104

“4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the objects of the appellant Association will fall in the categories covered by Section 3 of the said Act of 1960. He pointed out that the dominant purpose or object of forming the said Association is to administer, maintain and run the buildings and apartments constructed by the aforesaid developer. He submitted that in fact, the appellant has been collecting maintenance charges for maintaining the residential complex from a majority of the apartment owners, barring a few of the owners of the apartments who are opposing the appellant. He submitted that there is nothing wrong with the registration of the appellant Association under the said Act of 1960 and that if the impugned order is maintained, the members who have not paid the maintenance will go scot-free. Without prejudice to his contentions, he submitted that the first to seventh respondents must co-operate for formation of the Association as contemplated by the said Act of 1972.

¶105

5. We have given careful consideration to the submissions.

¶106

6. Section 3 of the said Act of 1960 reads thus:

¶107

“3. Societies to which the Act applies.-

¶108

The following societies may be registered under this Act:—

¶109

Societies established for:—

¶110

(a) the promotion of charity;

¶111

(b) the promotion of education, science, literature, or the fine arts;

¶112

(c) the promotion of sports;

¶113

¶114

WP No. 1685 of 2022

¶115

C/W

¶116

WP No. 16654 of 2021 WP No. 293 of 2022

¶117

(d) the instruction and the diffusion of knowledge relating to commerce or industry or of any other useful knowledge;

¶118

(e) the diffusion of political education;

¶119

(f) the foundation or maintenance of libraries or reading rooms for general use among the members or open to the public, or of public museums and galleries of painting and other works of art;

¶120

[(ff) the promotion of conservation and proper use of natural resources and scarce infrastructural facilities like land, power, water, forest and such other resources and infrastructural facilities, as may be notified by the State Government from time to time.]

¶121

(g) the collection of natural history, mechanical and philosophical inventions Or designs and

¶122

Which intend to apply their profits, if any, or other income in promoting their objects and prohibit the payment of any dividend or distribution of any income or profits among their members.”

¶123

Even according to the case of the appellant, the dominant object for the formation of the appellant Association is to administer, maintain and run the building and apartments. Clauses 5.1 and 5.2 are, even according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the dominant objects of the Association, and they read thus:

¶124

5.1 To administer, maintain and run the building and apartments known as VDB Celadon No.23/3, 23/4, 26/1, Shivanahalli Hobli, Jakkur Road,

¶125

10 -

¶126

WP No. 1685 of 2022 WP No. 16654 of 2021 WP No. 293 of 2022

¶127

Yelahanka, Bangalore – 560064.

¶128

5.2 To Carry on the Day-to-day work relating to all aspects of the building, apartments, common areas, common facilities and common services therein;

¶129

7. On a plain reading of Section 3 of the said Act of 1960, it is clear that the object of administering, maintaining and running the buildings and apartments and to carry on the day-to-day work relating to all the aspects of the buildings/apartments, common areas and common facilities will not be covered by any of the clauses (a) to (g) of Section 3 of the said Act of 1960. Even according to the case of the appellant, Clauses 5.1 and 5.2 are its dominant objects. In fact, on the earlier date, we had granted time to the appellant to take instructions whether it proposes to apply for deletion of certain objects which are a part of the bye-laws of the appellant Association.

¶130

8. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on instructions, states that if the said two objects are deleted, the registration of the appellant under the said Act of 1960 cannot be maintained.

¶131

9. Thus, the main object of the appellant was to do something which could have been done by an Association formed in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of 1972. In fact, the documents of sale executed by the developer in respect of the flat/apartment contain a stipulation that the purchasers of the flats shall form an Association / Society / Condominium in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of 1972. That is how the learned Single Judge by modifying the impugned order dated 15^th February, 2019, has clarified that steps can be taken to register the appellant Association under the provisions of the said Act of 1972.

¶132

11 -

¶133

WP No. 1685 of 2022

¶134

C/W

¶135

WP No. 16654 of 2021 WP No. 293 of 2022

¶136

10. Thus, after having perused the dominant objects of the appellant Association, we find that the said objects are not covered by Section 3 of the said Act of 1960, and therefore, the appellant could not have been registered under the said Act. We find no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge when he had proceeded to cancel registration of the appellant.

¶137

11. As observed by the learned Single Judge, the impugned order as well as this order will not prevent the persons who are members of the appellant Association from taking steps for formation and registration of an Association/Condominium under the provisions of the said Act of 1972 inasmuch as the sale deeds executed in favour of the apartment owners contemplate formation of such Association.

¶138

12. Subject to what is observed above, the writ appeals are dismissed. All pending applications do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.”

¶139

In the light of the order passed by the Division Bench

¶140

( supra) , the collection of the maintenance or in any other

¶141

mode of such collections by the Welfare Association would run counter to the judgment of the Division Bench. Therefore, reserving liberty to the respondents – Welfare Associations to seek registration under the Karnataka Apartments Ownership Act of 1972 (‘the Act, 1972’ for short) as held by the Division Bench, these petitions stand disposed.

¶142

12 -

¶143

WP No. 1685 of 2022

¶144

WP No. 16654 of 2021 WP No. 293 of 2022

¶145

In the light of the Welfare Associations registered under the Act, 1960, way back in the year 2016 and

¶146

payment being made by the residents of the apartment complex to the Welfare Associations, I deem it appropriate to direct the Welfare Associations to register under the Act, 1972, within two months from today.

¶147

In the event, the Welfare Associations fail to register under the Act, 1972, any amount that they would collect, would be unauthorised.

¶148

On the aforesaid observations, the petitions stand disposed.

¶149

Ordered accordingly.

¶150

Sd/JUDGE

¶151

NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Mr Hari Yogendra Tripathi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Hari Yogendra Tripathi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sheela Ramesh Vs Smt Manjula Murthy

The Registrar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Bharath Raj Vs M/S National Textile Corporation

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Consumer Federation Ltd. Vs the Deputy Director

Sri M S Harish Vs Smt. Shubhamangala

The SBI General Insurance Company Limited Vs Insurance Ombudsman