Allowed

Sri G S Murthy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2023WP/23674/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that apartment owners' associations cannot be registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The Court quashed the registration and cancelled the Administrator's appointment, though it permitted the Administrator to remain until the Association registers under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972.

What did the court decide?

Registration cancelled under 1960 Act; Administrator appointed under 1960 Act quashed but permitted to continue; Liberty granted to register under 1972 Act.

Sri G S Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 23674 of 2021 C/W WP No. 99 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 23674 OF 2021 (GM-KSR)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 99 OF 2021 (GM-KSR)

¶10

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 23674 OF 2021

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI G S MURTHY S/O N GOPAL ROA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.202 CHITRAMALA APARTMENT JAYANAGARA 1ST BLOCK BENGALURU 560 011.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. PRADEEP H.S., ADVOCATE)

¶15

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

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS REGISTRAR DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY NO.1 ALI ASKAR ROAD BENGALURU 560 051

¶18

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY 3RD ZONE 8TH CROSS MARGOSA ROAD

¶19

¶20

WP No. 23674 of 2021 C/W WP No. 99 of 2021

¶21

MALLESHWARAM

¶22

BENGALURU 560 003

¶23

CHITRAMALA LAND AND FLAT OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATIONS 4^TH CROSS BYRASANDRA JAYANAGARA 1^ST BLOCK BENGALURU 560 011 REP BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI B B RAMANAMURTHY

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. SRIDHAR HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. AJAY GOVINDARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 AND R-2 TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATION OF THE R-3 ASSOCIATION VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶27

IN WP NO. 99 OF 2021 (GM-KSR)

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

CHITRAMALA LAND AND FLAT OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (AN ASSOCIATION REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT) NOW REPRESENTED BY B V RAMANA MURTHY PRESIDENT R/A 4^TH CROSS, BYRASANDRA JAYANAGAR 1^ST BLOCK BANGALORE-560011

¶30

…PETITIONER

¶31

(BY SRI. AJAY GOVINDARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶32

¶33

WP No. 23674 of 2021 C/W WP No. 99 of 2021

¶34

AND:

¶35

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES 6TH FLOOR, MULTI STOREYED BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶36

DISTRICT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ZONE-3 BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT SAHAKARA SOUDHA 8TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE-560003

¶37

B S HARISH KUMAR ADMINISTRATOR AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR BANGALORE-560018

¶38

G S MURTHI

¶39

S/O LATE N GOPAL RAO AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/A FLAT NO.202 CHITRAMALA APARTMENTS JAYANAGAR, FIRST BLOCK BANGALORE-560011

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI. SRIDHAR HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. B.S.GURUDATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶42

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE ACTION CULMINATING IN THE ORDER DTD.4.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-4 ANNEXURE-H AND

¶43

¶44

WP No. 23674 of 2021 C/W WP No. 99 of 2021

¶45

RESTRAIN THE R-4 FROM TAKING OVER THE MANAGEMENT OF THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION AND ETC.,

¶46

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

¶47

ORDER

¶48

Writ Petition No.23674 of 2021:

¶49

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus for cancellation of the registration of the 3^rd respondent on the ground that its registration itself is without jurisdiction.

¶50

Heard Sri.H.S.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri.Sridhar Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri.Ajay Govindaraj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

¶51

The 3^rd respondent-Chitramala Land and Flat Owners Welfare Association (‘Association’ for short) is registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 in the year 2004. The petitioner, one of the residents of the apartment complex, submits a representation to the 2^nd respondent-

¶52

¶53

WP No. 23674 of 2021 C/W WP No. 99 of 2021

¶54

Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies seeking to cancel the registration of the 3^rd respondent. This is turned down by an endorsement dated 29.09.2021. This leads the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

¶55

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.974 of 2019 disposed on 06.11.2019. The position of law is not disputed by the respondents.

¶56

The Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.974 of 2019 has

¶57

held as follows:

¶58

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

¶59

3. Societies to which the Act applies.-

¶60

The following societies may be registered under this Act,—

¶61

Societies established for,—

¶62

(a) the promotion of charity;

¶63

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

¶64

(c) the promotion of sports;

¶65

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

¶66

(e) the diffusion of political education;

¶67

(f) the foundation or maintenance of

¶68

¶69

WP No. 23674 of 2021 C/W WP No. 99 of 2021

¶70

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;

¶71

[(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.]

¶72

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

¶73

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.”

¶74

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:

¶75

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, Yelahanka, Bangalore – 560064.

¶76

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;

¶77

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.

¶78

¶79

WP No. 23674 of 2021 C/W WP No. 99 of 2021

¶80

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.

¶81

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.

¶82

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.

¶83

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.

¶84

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.”

¶85

(Emphasis supplied)

¶86

¶87

WP No. 23674 of 2021 C/W WP No. 99 of 2021

¶88

A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.7193 of 2021 disposed on 09.11.2021 following the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench has held as follows:

¶89

“The subject matter of this writ petition is substantially covered by the Decision Bench decision dated 06.11.2019 in W.A.No.974/2019 (GM-KSR) & W.A.Nos. 1206-1211/2019 (GM-KSR) between VDB CELADON APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION Vs. MR. PRAVEEN PRAKASH & OTHERS, wherein paragraphs. 7, 9 & 10 read as under:

¶90

“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.

¶91

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 15th February, 2019, has clarified that steps can be taken to register the appellant Association under the provisions of the said Act of 1972.

¶92

¶93

WP No. 23674 of 2021 C/W WP No. 99 of 2021

¶94

¶95

2. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.932-933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY, disposed off on 11.12.1974, has held that the Court should treat the likecases alike and if relief is granted to a litigant it has to be extended to a similarly circumstanced litigant as well, there being no derogatory circumstances.

¶96

In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned Registration Certificate bearing No. JNR-S455-2015-16 dated 18.02.2016 a copy whereof is at Annexure-A. Costs made easy.

¶97

In the light of the judgment rendered by the Division

¶98

Bench and the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench (supra) ,

¶99

the petitioner is entitled to succeed for grant of the prayer that is sought in the petition.

¶100

10 -

¶101

WP No. 23674 of 2021 C/W WP No. 99 of 2021

¶102

Writ Petition No.99 of 2021:

¶103

The petitioner is an Association which is the 3^rd respondent in the companion petition. What drives the Association to this Court in the subject petition is the order dated 4.12.2020 by which the Government appoints an Administrator to the Association.

¶104

Heard Sri.Ajay Govindaraj, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri.Sridhar Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri.B.S.Gurudath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

¶105

The issue in the lis is an offshoot of what is held in the companion petition. In the light of companion petition being allowed and a direction to cancel the registration of the Association being issued, the appointment of Administrator in terms of the order impugned would also go.

¶106

11 -

¶107

WP No. 23674 of 2021 C/W WP No. 99 of 2021

¶108

In view of the Administrator already being appointed and the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.974 of 2019 granting two months time to the Association to get themselves registered under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 (‘1972 Act’ for short), for the smooth functioning of the Association, I deem it appropriate to permit the Administrator to continue in the position till the Association gets registered under the 1972 Act, so that there is no vacuum in Management.

¶109

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶110

ORDER

¶111

(WRIT PETITION NO.23674 OF 2021)

¶112

(i) Writ Petition is allowed.

¶113

(ii) The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to cancel the registration of the 3^rd respondent under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960.

¶114

(iii) The 3^rd respondent is reserved liberty to get themselves registered under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972.

¶115

12 -

¶116

WP No. 23674 of 2021 C/W WP No. 99 of 2021

¶117

ORDER

¶118

(WRIT PETITION NO.99 OF 2021)

¶119

(i) Writ Petition is allowed.

¶120

(ii) Impugned order dated 04.12.2020 appointing the Administrator stands quashed.

¶121

(iii) The Administrator so appointed shall continue till the Association get themselves registered under the 1972 Act.

¶122

Sd/JUDGE

¶123

bkp

¶124

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

¶125

13 -

¶126

WP No. 23674 of 2021 C/W WP No. 99 of 2021

¶127

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [SRI G S MURTHY VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS]

¶128

MNPJ

¶129

18.01.2023 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶130

ORDER ON 'BEING SPOKEN TO'

¶131

The subject petitions were heard and disposed on 04.01.2023.

¶132

The learned counsel Sri. Ajay Govindaraj, appearing for respondent No.3 has moved this memo for being spoken to, on the ground that there is some inadvertent error crept in, into the order, insofar as it relates to the operative portions of both the orders.

¶133

In W.P.No.23674/2021, this Court has directed respondents No.1 and 2 to cancel the registration of respondent No.3. The same shall be read as registration of respondent No.3 stands cancelled.

¶134

In the operative portion of W.P.No.99/2021, at clause 3, it is observed that the Administrator so appointed shall continue till the association would get themselves registered.

¶135

The learned counsel would submit that the order appointing the Administrator was stayed by this Court and has never taken such charge. Therefore, the said clause shall be read as the association shall get themselves registered within an outer limit of two months from today under the 1972 Act,

¶136

14 -

¶137

WP No. 23674 of 2021 C/W WP No. 99 of 2021

¶138

failing which, they would loose the power of collection of any maintenance from the hands of the residents of the apartment, until such time the present committee shall continue to function.

¶139

This order shall be treated as part and parcel of the final order dated 04.01.2023.

¶140

The aforesaid corrections be effected to the operative portions of the respective orders and a fresh certified copy be issued to the petitioners.

¶141

Sd/JUDGE

¶142

JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Sri G S Murthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G S Murthy v. the 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

Xavier Institute of Management & Entrepreneurship Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Sri Diwakara K Vs State of Karnataka

M R Paramashivaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Chitramala Land and Flat Owners Welfare Association Vs Government of Karnataka

Sri Syed Younus Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Shwetha M Vs Punith C