Disposed

Sri N B Veerabhadraiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2023WP/53279/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition praying for quashing of an endorsement rejecting new office bearers and directing an inquiry, the Court observed that since a year had lapsed since the last elections without a fresh poll, the matter was disposed of by directing the District Registrar to prepare a list of members and conduct elections within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No. 3 to prepare a list of members and conduct elections in accordance with law within three months from the date of preparing the list of members.

Sri N B Veerabhadraiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:32738 WP No. 53279 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 53279 OF 2017 (GM-KSR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. N.B. VEERABHADRAIAH S/O. LATE BETTAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.93, "CHETAVANA", JAYAANGARA 2^ND STAGE, BHAGAT SINGH ROAD, HASSAN-573 201.

¶8

SRI. MALLAIAH NAYAKARAHALLI S/O. LATE MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.5, "RAJA GRUHA", 3^RD CROSS, TEACHERS COLONY, CHANNAPATNA, HASSAN-573 201.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH PRASAD H.N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ALI ASKER ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES HASSAN DISTRICT, 1^ST FLOOR, JANATHA BAZAAR COMPOUND, HASSAN-573201.

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:32738 WP No. 53279 of 2017

¶17

SRI. R. SRINIVAS (EX-PRESIDENT AND NOW UNDER ORDERS OF REMOVAL FROM THE PRIMARY MEMBERSHIP OF THE BOUDDHA MAHA SABHA (REGD.)) NO.36, MIG-2 2^ND STAGE, KUVEMPUNAGARA, HASSAN-573201.

¶18

THE PRESIDENT/SECRETARY BOUDDHA MAHA SABHA (REGD.) NO.36, MIG-2, 2^ND STAGE, KUVEMPUNAGARA, HASSAN-573 201.

¶19

THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU-573 101.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 AND 6;

¶22

SMT. JYOTHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M. VINAYA KEERTY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5;

¶23

NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.4)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 22/30.08.2017 BEARING NO.UNIHA/SOCIETY RENEWAL/BOUDDHA MAHA SABHA VIDE ANNEXURE-M PASSED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:32738 WP No. 53279 of 2017

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioners have sought for writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 22/30.08.2017 bearing No.UNIHA/SOCIETY RENEWAL/BOUDDHA MAHASABHA/2017-18 (Annexure-M) issued by respondent No.3 by which, a list of office bearers headed by the respondent No.4 was accepted. The petitioners have also sought for writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to hold an enquiry in terms of Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1960' for short) in respect of the matters touching upon working of Bouddha Maha Sabha.

¶29

The petitioners submit that they are the life members of "Bouddha Maha Sabha". They claimed that on 19.06.2016, an Annual General Body meeting (henceforth referred to as 'AGB' for short) was held where at, the respondent No.4 was elected as a president. However, the respondent No.4 had allegedly indulged in activities which were detrimental to the interest of the society. Accordingly, a special and emergency AGB was held on 13.12.2016 and the respondent No.4 allegedly walked out of the meeting.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:32738 WP No. 53279 of 2017

¶32

Consequently, all the members decided at the meeting to dissolve the committee headed by the respondent No.4 and constituted a new committee. The petitioners were nominated as President and Secretary of the society at the meeting held on 18.12.2016. A notice was thereafter issued to the respondent No.4 calling for an explanation as to why he had indulged in activities that were detrimental to the interest of the society. Since there was no response to the show-cause notice, the respondent No.4 was removed from the primary membership of the society and he was expelled. The petitioners thereafter approached the respondent No.3 for approval of the new committee for management of the society. They also requested the respondent No.3 in terms of their representation dated 02.03.2017 to hold an enquiry under Section 25 of the Act, 1960. This was further reiterated in terms of their letter dated 10.07.2017, to recognize and approve the new committee formed on 18.12.2016 and for an annual renewal of the Association. Respondent No.3 in terms of its letter dated 25.07.2017, called upon the petitioners to provide the relevant records and account books and other document for perusal. The petitioners appeared before the

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:32738 WP No. 53279 of 2017

¶35

respondent No.3 on 03.08.2017 and produced all the documents summoned. However, the respondent No.3 in terms of the impugned endorsement dated 30.08.2017 held that the petitioners and others were not elected at the General Body in accordance with Section 11(3) of the Act, 1960. Being aggrieved by the impugned endorsement, the present petition is filed.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the elections of the managing committee was held on 18.12.2016 and therefore, the respondent No.3 was bound to register the list of new office bearers and to approve it in accordance with law.

¶37

However, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the respondent No.4 was unauthorisedly and illegally removed from the primary membership of the society. She submits that the elections held on 18.12.2016 was not in accordance with the byelaws of the society and therefore the impugned endorsement cannot be questioned by the petitioners. She further contends that the petitioners were not

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:32738 WP No. 53279 of 2017

¶40

the members of the society and therefore, they are not entitled

¶41

to question the impugned endorsement.

¶42

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶43

The respondent No.4 did not dispute the fact that

¶44

he was elected as a president of the society on 19.06.2016. The byelaws of the society provided that the elections to the managing committee shall be held once in a year and therefore, it is more than clear that the elections to the managing committee were not held from the year 2016 and onwards. Therefore, without going into any further details about the legitimacy of the impugned order issued by respondent No.3, it is appropriate to direct the respondent No.3 to hold elections to the managing committee of the society in question after preparing the list of members as on 19.06.2016.

¶45

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed off directing the respondent No.3 to first prepare a list of members as on 19.06.2016 and thereafter conduct elections in accordance with law within a period of three months from the

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:32738 WP No. 53279 of 2017

¶48

date of preparation of list of members. It is open for respondent No.3 to appoint an Election Officer and a Returning Officer for the aforesaid purpose.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Sri N B Veerabhadraiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N B Veerabhadraiah 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anitha Pinto Vs Rev. Dr. G. Andrew Richard

Sri Devaraju Vs the State by Hassan Women Police Station

Britannia Industries Limited Vs State of Karnataka

The Manager LIC of India Vs Office of Insurance Ombudsman

Smt.S.L.Vijayashree Vs Sri.S.Puttaiah

M/S. Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-Operative Society Ltd., Vs the District Registrar and the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps