Dismissed

Sri a K Halappa v. the District Registrar of Societies

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2022WP/58337/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a preliminary hearing of a writ petition challenging an order by the District Registrar and election-related documents, the High Court held that membership disputes involving evidence must be resolved by way of a comprehensive suit in the Civil Court and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed. Liberty is reserved to approach the Civil Court for determination of genuineness of membership.

Sri a K Halappa Vs the District Registrar… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP NO.58337 OF 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.58337 OF 2015 (GM-KSR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. A.K. HALAPPA, S/O LATE HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS

¶9

SECRETARY, ADI KARNATAKA VIDYABHIVRUDDHI SANGHA (R), P.J. EXTENSION, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD, DAVANAGERE -577 002.

¶10

RESIDING AT: NO.1926 A/11, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, 3^RD CROSS, TARALABALU BADAVANE, DAVANAGERE - 577 005.

¶11

DR. SHIVAMURTHAPPA S/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS MEMBER,

¶12

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

ADI KARNATAKA VIDYABHIVRUDDHI SANGHA (R) P.J. EXTENSION, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD, DAVANAGERE -577 002.

¶14

RESIDING AT: NO.D-6, VIDYANAGAR, DAVANAGERE-577 005.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. D.L. JAGADEESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. LOHITASWA BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

WP NO.58337 OF 2015

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, ZILLA AADALITHA BHAVAN, ROOM NO.33, KARUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, DAVANAGERE - 577 004.

¶21

ADI KARNATAKA VIDYABHIRUDDHI SANGHA (REGD.) P.J. EXTENSION, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577 002.

¶22

SRI. D.N. REVANNA SIDDAPPA (RETIRED REVENUE OFFICER) RETURNING OFFICER, ADI KARNATAKA VIDYABHIRUDDHI SANGHA (REGD.) P.J. EXTENSION, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. V SHIVAREDDY, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. NANJA REDDY P.N., ADVOCATE FOR R2; R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE MEETING IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02^ND DECEMBER, 2015 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-J; QUASH THE CALENDAR OF EVENTS DATED 05^TH DECEMBER, 2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND ALSO QUASH THE LIST OF ALLEGED MEMBERS PREPARED ON 07^TH DECEMBER, 2015 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q AS THE RESPONDENT NO.3 HAS NO AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION TO THE SOCIETY AND ALSO TO PREPARE THE LIST OF MEMBERS; AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

WP NO.58337 OF 2015

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

Heard Sri. D.L. Jagadeesh, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Lohitaswa Banakar, appearing for petitioners; Sri. V. Shivareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1; and Sri. Nanja Reddy P.N., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

¶31

The petitioners herein have challenged the impugned order dated 02^nd December, 2015 passed by the respondent No.1; and sought for quashing of the calendar of events dated 05^th December, 2015 issued by the respondent No.3. Insofar as the prayer No.2 is concerned, the same has become infructuous on account of the conclusion of elections to the respondent No.2-Society. However, insofar as the prayer made in respect of the order passed by the respondent No.1 herein is concerned, Sri. D.L. Jagadeesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners contended that this Court in Writ Petition No.16504 of 2009 and connected matter decided on 07^th August, 2015, remanded the matter to respondent No.1 to relook into the matter afresh pertaining to the membership and to arrive at a conclusion. However, the said

¶32

¶33

WP NO.58337 OF 2015

¶34

aspect has not been considered by the respondent No.1 herein while passing the impugned order dated 02^nd December, 2015 produced at Annexure-J to the writ petition. Accordingly, learned Senior Counsel submits that the matter requires to be re-agitated by the respondent No.1 herein.

¶35

Per contra Sri. Nanja Reddy P.N. learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-Soceity, invited the attention of the Court to paragraph 8 of the order passed by this Court in the aforementioned writ petition and argued that in order to resolve the dispute with regard to the membership, ultimately the petitioners have to approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶36

Sri. V. Shivareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1 sought to justify the action of the respondent No.1 and contended that unless the comprehensive suit is filed by the petitioners to prove their membership with regard to respondent No.2-Society, no

¶37

¶38

WP NO.58337 OF 2015

¶39

fault could be found with the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1.

¶40

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the order dated 07^th August, 2015 passed in Writ Petition No.16504 of 2009 and connected writ petition. Paragraph 8 of the order reads as under:

¶41

“ Hence, to the said extent, the Registrar is directed to consider the issue by taking into consideration the documents in relation to the membership and arrive at a conclusion. Even subsequent thereto, if the disputes subsist with regard to the membership, needless to mention that it would be resolved thereafter only through appropriate and properly constituted suit. To enable such re-consideration by the Registrar with regard to the membership, the order dated 23.05.2009 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Registrar for reconsideration after providing opportunity to the petitioners in all these petitions. Pending consideration of the issue relating to the membership by the Registrar, the arrangements that had been made by the order dated 17.08.2009 for management of the society concerned, shall continue. The Registrar shall conclude the proceeding in an expeditious manner but not later than three months from the date on which the copy is furnished.”

¶42

¶43

WP NO.58337 OF 2015

¶44

Having taken note of the fact that this Court has interfered with the impugned order in the above said writ petitions and arrived at a conclusion that the respondent No.1 was directed to reconsider the issue relating to the membership alone and further held that, in the event, if no conclusion is arrived at with regard to the membership, the grievance has to be agitated before the Civil Court. In that view of the matter, though I find force in the submission made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners with regard to the impugned order dated 02^nd December, 2015 that no conclusive proof has been arrived at by the respondent No.1 with regard to the genuineness of the membership in question, however, in terms of the observation made by this Court at paragraph 8 in Writ Petition No.16504 of 2009 and connected matter decided on 07^th August, 2015 referred to above, I am of the view that same has to be concluded in a comprehensive suit, since the dispute involves the evidence on record. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 02^nd December, 2015 passed by the respondent No.1 herein. However liberty is reserved to petitioners to approach

¶45

¶46

WP NO.58337 OF 2015

¶47

the Civil Court for genuineness of the membership with regard to respondent No.2-Society. With these observations writ petition stands disposed of.

¶48

SD/JUDGE

¶49

ARK

Sri a K Halappa v. the District Registrar of Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri a K Halappa 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arya Vysya Srirama Sahakara Sangha Ltd. Vs Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Arya Vysya Srirama Sahakara Sangha Ltd. Vs Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Sri Vasanth Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Savitha K. R. Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka State Digital Cable T v Vs Union of India

Kum Divyashree S v Vs the State of Karnataka