Dismissed

Sri Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe (R) v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2024WP/13621/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A society challenged the Registrar's acceptance of returns filed by respondents claiming office after disputed elections. Following an earlier coordinate bench order directing election grievances to the Civil Court, the High Court held the writ petition not maintainable for a subsequent period and dismissed it with liberty to approach the Civil Court.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe (R) Vs the State of… — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.13621/2023(GM-KSR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI VIVEKANANDA VIDYA SAMSTHE ® GUDIGONDANAHALLI, TIPATURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 577201, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, M.R.RUDRAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI S. N. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

2 . DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES 2^ND FLOOR, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, TUMAKURU 577201.

¶13

3 . G. R. KANTHARAJU, S/O RANGEGOWDA, AGE MAJOR, R/AT GUDIGONDANAHALLI, TIPATURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 577201.

¶14

WP No.13621/2023

¶15

¶16

4 . SRI GURUPARADESHI KENDRA SWAMIJI SUKSHETRA, RANGAPURA MUTT RANGAPURA, TIPATURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 577201.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI BASAVARAJ GODACHI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI GOUTHAM A.R., ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RETURNS FILED BY THE R-3 AND 4, ISSUED BY R-2 DATED 09.02.2023 BEARING REGISTRATION No.DRTUU:SOC:87/1982-83. Vaa.Le.Pa.Sam: 660 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.12.2023, THIS DAY THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This petition seeking to quash acknowledgment issued by respondent No.2 accepting the Returns filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 dated 09.02.2023 bearing No.DRTUU:SOC:87/1982-83.Vaa.Le.Pa.Sam:660 vide Annexure - E.

¶23

2. Brief facts:

¶24

Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have filed Returns in compliance of Section 13 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'

¶25

WP No.13621/2023

¶26

¶27

for short). The petitioner contends that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not the authorized persons; the membership of respondent Nos.3 and 4 is under dispute. Whereas, respondent Nos.3 and 4 contend that they are elected Secretary and President, mandatorily duty-bound to file Returns under Section 13 of the Act. The Returns filed are with the authority as Secretary and President and incompliance of Section 13 of the Act and the same is justified.

¶28

Respondent Nos.3 and 4 contend that the petitioner has no locus to question the authority of respondent Nos.3 and 4 as he is not a member of the Institution. The entire dispute of the petitioner is with reference to the elections under which, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have been elected as Secretary and President respectively. The petitioner has a remedy to approach the Civil Court to question the elections.

¶29

Sri. S. N. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition,

¶30

WP No.13621/2023

¶31

¶32

submits that enquiry under Section 25 of the Act regarding membership of the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 has been ordered and the same has not reached finality. During pendency of the dispute regarding the membership, respondent No.2 committed an error in accepting the Returns filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 acting in the capacity of Secretary and President of the Institution. The Returns filed are without authority of law and prays to quash the acknowledgement issued accepting the Returns.

¶33

Sri. Goutham A. R., learned counsel appearing

¶34

for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that since the dispute regarding membership and election conducted to the Institution is being questioned by the petitioner, writ petition is not maintainable.

¶35

Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.20704/2021, dated 13.10.2022, to contend that the writ petition was filed on the similar grounds questioning the acknowledgement dated 12.10.2021

¶36

WP No.13621/2023

¶37

¶38

issued for the earlier period. The Co-ordinate Bench has held that remedy lies before Civil Court. The present writ petition is an abuse of process. On the above submissions, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶40

Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed writ petition in W.P.No.20704/2021 challenging the acknowledgment of the Returns filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4, dated 12.10.2021 and 07.10.2021. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considering the earlier order passed in W.P.No.34917/2018, dated 06.07.2021 and the judgment in W.A. No.799/2021, dated 29.09.2021, recorded that elections have been held. As a consequence of elections, Returns have been accepted by the competent Authority. Petitioner was not a participant in the elections. With the above observations, liberty was granted to the petitioner

¶41

WP No.13621/2023

¶42

¶43

to approach the competent Civil Court on the subject grievance. The Co-ordinate Bench held as under:

¶44

" 11. The aforesaid narrated facts are not in dispute. The order of the Co-ordinate Bench was clear and unequivocal that any of the parties aggrieved by the conduct or result of election are to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of their grievance. The said finding has become final, as the writ appeal filed by the petitioner did not disturb the finding of the Co-ordinate Bench, which directed the parties to approach the Civil Court. Before the Division Bench, it is the petitioner himself who submits that he would file a petition under Section 25 of the Act and agitate his grievance. It is not the Court’s direction that an application under Section 25 of the Act was to be filed. The petitioner on his own volition submitted that liberty be reserved to move a petition under Section 25 of the Act. Therefore, it was directed that an application be filed and opportunity be granted to all the concerned.

¶45

12. The finding of the Co-ordinate Bench has thus become final. The elections had to be held and elections are held. The consequence of elections is the acceptance of returns by the competent authority on 12.10.2021. It is also germane to notice that the petitioner was not a participant in

¶46

WP No.13621/2023

¶47

¶48

the elections. He is now seeking to agitate that the respondent No.3 is not even a member of the Society. The order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench inter parties becoming final, the parties will have to approach the Civil Court, if they are aggrieved by the result of the elections and not knock the doors of this Court.

¶49

13. The aggrieved party in the case at hand is the petitioner. It is in the case of the petitioner, the Co- ordinate Bench had passed the said order. Therefore, it becomes binding on the petitioner. The enquiry under Section 25 of the Act being pending or otherwise, is of no avail for the petitioner to maintain the subject petition.

¶50

14. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition stands disposed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court on the subject grievance in terms of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench supra."

¶51

In the present writ petition, the challenge made is to the acknowledgement issued accepting the Returns filed under Section 13 of the Act by respondent Nos.3 and 4, dated 09.02.2023, for a different period. The controversy in the present petition is considered by the

¶52

WP No.13621/2023

¶53

¶54

Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No.20704/2021 and the petitioner has been granted liberty to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance.

¶55

The entire controversy has been answered by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No.20704/2021. On the same ground, merely because the Returns is for subsequent period, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Hence, the following:

¶56

O R D E R

¶57

i) Writ petition is dismissed . ii) As observed by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.20704/2021, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court, if so advised.

¶58

iii) No order as to costs.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

VBS

Sri Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe (R) v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe (R) v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Luviza Vs the Assistant Commissioner

The Secretary Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Santhosh Kumar B S Vs Uco Bank

Ummatturu Urkatheshwari Ammanavara Devasthana Mandali Vs State of Karnataka

S Umapathi S/O Late Subramanyam Vs the Central Information Commissioner