Disposed

Shree Chitralingeshwara Swamy Vidya Samsthe v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2023WP/48185/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order regarding the approval of a managing committee for a society. The court held the petition did not survive for consideration due to abatement and expired committee terms, reserving liberty to urge contentions in the pending civil suit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of as not surviving for consideration, reserving liberty to the petitioner to urge contentions in the pending civil suit.

Shree Chitralingeshwara Swamy Vidya Samsthe Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

WP No. 48185 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 48185 OF 2018 (GM-KSR)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SHREE CHITRALINGESHWARA SWAMY VIDYA SAMSTHE TALALURU ARASIEKRE TLAUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 REP BY ITS SECRETARY SRI NAGARAJU, S/O VARADHAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O CHAULAKATTE VILLAGE, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK-572214 TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

[BY SRI. R.P. SOMASHEKHARAIAH, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)]

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING,BANGALORE-560 001.

¶11

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER DEPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS HASSAN DISTRICT,HASSAN-573201

¶14

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER ARASEKERE-573103 HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN.

¶15

THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES HASSAN DISTRICT,HASSAN-573201.

¶16

¶17

WP No. 48185 of 2018

¶18

SRI BASAVARAJU, S/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A CHOWLA KATTEA, CHIKKANAYAKANA HALLI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572119.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. V. SHIVAREDDY, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5; WP ABATES AGAINST R6 V/O DATED 27.08.2021)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 29.06.2018 PASSED BY R-5 AND THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 30.06.2018 IN NO.81/2018-19 WHEREIN APPROVING THE COMMITTEE LIST SUBMITTED BY THE R-6 INCLUDING THE AUDIT REPORT UNDER ANNEXURE-Q AND R AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Matter was passed over and called again twice. There is

¶25

no representation on behalf of petitioner.

¶26

On perusal of order sheet, it is seen that even on earlier occasions, there was no representation. Since matter is of year 2018, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶27

Perusal of prayer column, it is seen that subject matter of writ petition is dispute about Managing Committee.

¶28

Challenging impugned order dated 29.06.2018 in no.DRH/SA SUM/2018-19 passed by 5^th respondent and endorsement dated 30.06.2018 in no.81/2018-19, wherein

¶29

3 - WP No. 48185 of 2018

¶30

approving Committee List submitted by 6^th respondent including audit report vide Annexure-Q and R; writ of mandamus directing respondents no.5 to conduct enquiry under Section 25 of Societies Registration Act on list of committee members submitted by both petitioner and respondent no.6 pursuance to directions issued in Writ petition no.10415/2017 dated 31.10.2008 and thereafter to pass appropriate orders for approval of committee members list submitted by petitioner as well as by respondent no.6 as per orders passed by respondent no.5 dated 23.09.2011 in case no. enquiry no.3/2009-10 under Annexure-B and G respectively and also to issue direction to respondent no.2 to continue Head Master of petitioner institution as a Drawing Officer to petitioner institution till decision taken by respondent no.5 in matter of approval of committee members to petitioner institution etc., this writ petition is field.

¶31

Learned HCGP appearing for respondents no.1 to 5 submits that on same subject matter civil suit is also pending as indicated in Annexure-P, wherein main dispute regarding legitimacy of rival managing committees is being agitated. It is

¶32

¶33

WP No. 48185 of 2018

¶34

also submitted that term of Managing Committee is, in any

¶35

case, has lapsed.

¶36

It is firstly seen that writ petition is dismissed as abated against respondent no.6, who would be main contesting party. That apart, five years have lapsed during pendency of this writ petition. As submitted by learned HCGP, in meanwhile, terms of Managing Committee has expired and question of legitimacy of Managing Committee would be subject matter in pending suit, therefore, writ petition would not survive for consideration.

¶37

In view of above facts and circumstances, writ petition is disposed of as not surviving for consideration, reserving liberty to petitioner to urge all contentions in pending suit.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Psg*

Shree Chitralingeshwara Swamy Vidya Samsthe v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Chitralingeshwara Swamy Vidya Samsthe 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Meharunnisa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M/S Metal Closures Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Punjab National Bank

The SBI General Insurance Vs Insurance Ombudsman

Sri K G Lakshminarayana Vs the State of Karnataka

Chetan Travels Vs Deputy Director

Sri. Sreenivasaiah v Vs Smt. Susheela