Dismissed

Ramananda Nayak v. the District Registrar and Registrar

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2023WP/486/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an election dispute involving a private society, the High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, holding that the society is not a State body and the matter lacks public law elements, directing the petitioners to approach the Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to approach civil court; appointment of administrator request declined.

Ramananda Nayak Vs the District Registrar and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 486 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 486 OF 2023 (GM-KSR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAMANANDA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE LAXMANA NAYAK, R/AT BANNANJE,

¶9

NEAR MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE, MOODANINDAMBURU VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT, UDUPI 576 101.

¶10

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

RAMADAS NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE VENKATESHA NAYAK, R/AT NO. 5-71, NAGARABETU HOUSE, HERGA VILLAGE, PARKALA 576 107. UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. SUDESH KUMAR ACHARYA U.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIEITIES DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING –A, RAJATHADRI, MANIPAL 576 104. UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶16

THE RAJAPURA SARASWATHA SANGHA (R) R.S.B. SABHABHAVAN, MANIPAL 576 104. UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA SOCIETIES

¶17

¶18

WP No. 486 of 2023

¶19

REGISTRATION ACT S-14/1967-68, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶20

RAMESH SALVANKAR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE UPENDRA SALVANKAR, RETURNING OFFICER, R/AT KAIVALYA, KODI ROAD, ALEVOOR, MANIPAL 576 104. UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶21

SHREESHA NAYAK P, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE P. SHANKAR NAYAK, R/AT UDBHAV, PANIYADI, POST KUNJIBETTU, UDUPI 576 104. UDUPI DISTRICT. (ELECTED AS PRESIDENT).

¶22

NITYANANDA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O ALTE RAMACHANDRA NAYAK, R/AT 7-65, SRI NARASIMHA KRUPA, NEAR NARASINGE TEMPLE, POST PARKALA 576 107. UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. (ELECTED AS SECRETARY)

¶23

CHETHAN NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN. R/AT KALAMBADY PADAVU, POST ATHOOR 576 117. NITTE, KARKALA, UDUPI DISTRICT. (ELECTED AS VICE PRESIDENT)

¶24

RANJITH K.S. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE KRISHNA PRABHU, R/AT DOOR NO. 6-79/1, PUNARU DARKASTH HOUSE, POST BELMAN 576 111.

¶25

¶26

WP No. 486 of 2023

¶27

KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT. (ELECTED AS JOINT SECRETARY).

¶28

JAYARAMA PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O ALTE VITAL PRABHU, R/AT F-101, MANDAVI RESIDENCY, KINNIMULKI, UDUPI DISTRICT 576 101. (ELECTED AS TREASURER)

¶29

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ASHOK HARANAHALLI.,SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. ANIRUDH KULKARNI.,ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R8; SRI. B V KRISHNA., AGA FOR R1)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 07.12.2022 IN NO. DRP/ U/ SANGA/ DAVA/ 01/2022-23 ON THE FILE OF THE R1 DRCS, UDAPI DISTRICT UDUPI , VIDE ANNEXURE- A AND TO DECLARE THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND DIRECT TO DECLARE THE APPOINTMENT OF R4 TIO R8 AS OFFICE BEARERS TO THE R2 SOCIETY AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL AS THEY ARE APPOINTED WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY CALENDAR OF EVENTS DECLARED TO THE R2 SOCIETY AND ETC.,

¶31

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

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Petitioners claiming to be the members of 2^nd

¶34

Respondent – Society are knocking at the doors of Writ Court essentially for laying a challenge to the ongoing election process, alleging certain illegalities therein. They also seek the appointment of an Administrator to the said

¶35

Society on the allegations of illegalities and malpractices.

¶36

¶37

WP No. 486 of 2023

¶38

Learned AGA appears for the 1^st Respondent –

¶39

DRCS. Respondent Nos. 4 – 8 are represented by their private counsel. Both they oppose the Writ Petition contending that the Writ Jurisdiction cannot be invoked where the action of the 2^nd Respondent Society is not animated by sufficient public law elements and more particularly when, the said society itself not answering the description of State or its instrumentalities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶41

parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter being broadly in agreement with the submission made by learned AGA appearing for the State & learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the private Respondents inasmuch as, there is not even a whisper in the entire petition as to the 2^nd respondent society filling the character of State or its instrumentalities. There is no demonstration as to the impugned action being pregnant with sufficient public law

¶42

¶43

WP No. 486 of 2023

¶44

elements that would warrant indulgence of the writ court, the 2^nd respondent-Society even if is not a State entity. It hardly needs to be stated that although our system has moved from status to function, unless the action challenge fits into the realm of public law, there cannot be its judicial review vide LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA vs. ESCORTS LIMITED , AIR 1986 SC 1370.

¶45

Several Benches of this Court more or less a similar fact matrix have taken the above view since decades and one such recent case is W.P.No.19281/2022 between K.NARAYANA vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR disposed off on 26.09.2022, wherein at para 2 of the judgment the following observation is made:

¶46

“2. In more or less similar matters this Court has taken the view, as rightly contended by learned HCGP appearing for the Registrar, that in matters of this nature involving disputes to the validity of Election to a Society which does not answer the description of other authorities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, have to be worked out elsewhere, arguably before the Civil Court. This Court is in complete agreement with the submission of learned HCGP and therefore, declines indulgence”.

¶47

¶48

WP No. 486 of 2023

¶49

The vehement submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is already an order dated 11.01.2023 made by the Coordinate Bench and therefore service of Notice on the unserved respondents need not deter the court from deciding this ‘open & shut’ case and that no adverse order is being passed against any of the respondents. His further submission that the entire process of election is mired in illegality and is apparently repugnant to democratic process, even if accepted does not bring the case within the precincts of judicial review in constitutional jurisdiction.

¶50

The other contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that if the elections are conducted in gross violation of law & democratic principles, his clients cannot be turned away from the writ court, is again bit difficult to agree with. Petitioners have got an alternate remedy of going before the Civil Court for ventilating their grievances of the kind as has been indicated in NARAYANA’s

¶51

¶52

WP No. 486 of 2023

¶53

Case supra, Sec.9 of CPC, 1908 being the expansive umbrella under which litigants can seek refuge.

¶54

Lastly, the request of the petitioners for appointment of Administrator cannot be entertained by this Court when that power exclusively falls within the domain of the Executive. The non-consideration of their representation is too feeble a ground for halting the ongoing election process to the managerial body of the 2^nd respondent in which State does not hold considerable stake, if not any stake. However, it is true that such representations merit consideration at the hands of the jurisdictional authorities namely the State Government which is not arrayed as a party to this petition.

¶55

In the above circumstances, this Writ petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternate remedy elsewhere in accordance with law. If the petitioners make a representation to the State Government, the same shall be considered on a war

¶56

¶57

WP No. 486 of 2023

¶58

footing, of course within the frame work of law. All

¶59

contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶60

Costs made easy.

¶61

Sd/- JUDGE

¶62

Snb/

Ramananda Nayak v. the District Registrar and Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramananda Nayak v. the District Registrar and Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal S Vs Bangalore Development Authority

S Nagaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Manjulamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivappa Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Sri Sidlingappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. K. Balasubramaniam Vs the Commissioner