Partly allowed

Sri Srinivasa Ganiga v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2023WP/6447/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged their removal from a private society and sought direction to state authorities to consider prior representations. The Court held the society is a private body outside writ jurisdiction but directed the authorities to consider the representations.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 2 and 3 directed to consider the petitioners' representations within six months; relief challenging removal from society membership rejected.

Sri Srinivasa Ganiga Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:33662 WP No. 6447 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.6447 OF 2018 (GM-KSR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. SRINIVASA GANIGA, S/O. LATE BATCHA GANIGA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT SRIKRISHNASANKIRTHANALAYA JARJADDU, CHERKADY VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT - 576 215.

¶8

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SRI. B. SRINIVAS, S/O. LATE SANNAYYA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S & B ASSOCIATE, NO.89, FLAT NO.202, HABITAT, MAPLE 43RD MAIN ROAD, 2ND PHASE, IDEAL TOWNSHIP, BENGALURU - 560 098.

¶10

SRI. G. GOPAL SHETTY, S/O. LATE KORAGA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT SOWRABHA, KANDIGA KOTE VILLAGE, KATAPADI POST, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 574 105.

¶11

SRI. SANTHOSH RAO, S/O. LATE K. VENKATRAO, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT HEGGADATHI ROAD, SALIGRAMA POST, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT - 576 225.

¶12

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:33662 WP No. 6447 of 2018

¶13

SRI. B. GOVINDA, S/O. LATEL SANNAYYA GANIGA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT SOWRABHA, MAKKIMANE BASRURU VILLAGE AND POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. ANIL SHEKAR K.S., ADVOCATE FOR P1 AND P2; VIDE ORDER DATED: 12/07/2022 SERVICE OF NOTICE ON P3, P4, P5)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER, THE RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE AND ENDOWMENT DEPARMENT, CHAMRAJPETE, BENGALURU - 560 018.

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HR & CE DEPARTMENT, DC COMPOUND "A" BLOCK, RAJATHADRI, MANIPAL - 576 104, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT.

¶19

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF STAMPS DC COMPOUND "A" BLOCK, RAJATHADRI, MANIPAL - 576 104, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT.

¶20

DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, DC COMPOUND "A" BLOCK, RAJATHADRI, MANIPAL - 576 104. UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT.

¶21

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:33662 WP No. 6447 of 2018

¶22

UDUPI ZILLA SOMAKSHATHRIYA GANIGA SAMAJA, REGN. NO.68/82, SRI. VENUGOPALA KRISHNA DEVASTHANA MOODUKERI, BARKURU POST, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT - 576 210. REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT/SECRETARY.

¶23

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HR & CE DEPARTMENT DC COMPOUND "A" BLOCK, RAJATHADRI, MANIPAL - 576 104, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1-R4 & R6; SRI. K.A. ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER / COMMUNICATION LETER DATED:6.11.2017 PASSED BY THER-5 AS PER ANNEXURE-T1 TO T4 AND LETTER DATED:28.9.17 AS PER ANNEXURE - T5 DIRECT THE R-2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED:25.3.2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-J AND THE REPRESENTATION DATED:15.3.2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioners have sought the following reliefs:

¶30

"a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ to quash the Order / Communication letter dated 06.11.2017 passed by the respondent No.5, as per Annexure-T1 to T4 and letter dated 28.09.2017 as per Annexure-T5.

¶31

b. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 and 3 to consider the

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:33662 WP No. 6447 of 2018

¶33

representation dated 25.03.2016 as per Annexure-J and the representation dated 15.03.2017 as per Annexure-F.

¶34

c. Issue any other direction to the Respondents to reconsider the matter and further relief's as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."

¶35

Petitioners claim that they were life members of

¶36

respondent No.5. However, they alleged that respondent No.5, without notice to them, unilaterally removed them from the membership of respondent No.5 in terms of a communication dated 06.11.2017 (Annexure T1 to T5). They also contend that they had submitted two representations before respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 25.03.2016 and 15.03.2017 respectively, bringing to their notice the illegalities committed by the Managing Committee of the respondent No.5 and that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not considered the said representations. The petitioners, therefore are seeking suitable reliefs.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioners, elaborating on the averments made in the writ petition, submitted that the petitioners have been unilaterally removed from the membership of respondent No.5. He also contends that the

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:33662 WP No. 6447 of 2018

¶39

representations of the petitioners are not considered by respondent Nos.2 and 3, who owe a duty to the petitioners to consider the same.

¶40

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that the petitioners have been removed from the membership only after hearing them.

¶41

The learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submits that representations, if any, shall be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders would be passed.

¶42

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶43

learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and the learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶44

Respondent No.5 is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. For all practical purposes, it is a private body of persons and does not qualify to be a State or an instrumentality of State or other authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the

¶45

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:33662 WP No. 6447 of 2018

¶46

challenge to the removal of the petitioners from the membership of respondent No.5 has to fail.

¶47

However, in so far as the relief sought for a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representations, respondent Nos.2 and 3 do owe a statutory duty to consider the representations and pass appropriate orders.

¶48

In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed in part. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 25.03.2016 and 15.03.2017 in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The relief sought for by the petitioners challenging the removal of their membership from respondent No.5 is rejected . However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach the competent authority in accordance with law challenging their removal.

¶49

ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

Sri Srinivasa Ganiga v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Srinivasa Ganiga 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

Arun a Advani Vs State of Karnataka

V. D. Chandrashekar Vs U. R. Meenakshi

Sri K v Adithya Bhat Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. H.K. Ehethashamul Haq, Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr.Oneil D Souza Vs Smt.Joeann Sequeria

Shivaramu B N Vs the Deputy Commissioner (Food)