Partly allowed

M/S Domlur Club v. the District Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Karnataka HC22 Mar 2024WP/3470/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges orders by the District Registrar of co-operative societies intervening in the internal functioning of a registered association. The Court granted interim stay and ultimately quashed the orders, holding that the Registrar lacks statutory power to direct elected bodies to refrain from taking decisions or deliberating on specific matters contrary to the statute. The part

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 18.01.2024 and 25.01.2024 passed by the District Registrar are quashed.

M/S Domlur Club Vs the District Registrar of… — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:11937 WP No. 3470 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 3470 OF 2024 (GM-KSR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S DOMLUR CLUB A CLUB REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960, C/O. M/S. DOMLUR CLUB, NO.3, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, DOMLUR 2^ND STAGE BANGALORE - 560071 REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MR.R. GOPI S/O MR.RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI. HARISH V S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RANGE- 2, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.146, "SAHAKARA SOUDHA", 2^ND FLOOR, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, 8^TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560003

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:11937 WP No. 3470 of 2024

¶17

MR. T. GIRIRAJ

¶18

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O J.C. THIMMARAYAPPA R/AT NO.6, 3^RD MAIN ROAD BESIDE H P GAS, DOMLUR, BANGALORE KARNATAKA - 560 071

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S., AGA FOR R1; SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADV. FOR SRI. ABHISHEK K., ADV. FOR R2)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT, BEARING NO.DRB2/SM.SM/DOORU/38/2023-24, DATED 18/01/2024, AND DRB2/SM.SM/DOORU/38/2023-24, DATED 25/01/2024, I.E. ANNEXURE-F AND J RESPECTIVELY.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

¶25

"(a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other Writ of appropriate nature quashing the impugned orders passed by the Respondent, bearing No.DRB2/Sm.Sm/Dooru/38/2023-24, dated 18.01.2024, and DRB2/Sm.Sm/Dooru/38/2023-24, dated 25.01.2024, i.e, ANNEXURES - 'F' AND 'J', respectively; and

¶26

(b) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of equity and justice."

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11937 WP No. 3470 of 2024

¶28

Heard the learned Senior counsel

¶29

Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel Sri.Bipin Hedge, appearing for respondent No.2.

¶30

The petitioner – M/s Domlur Club challenges an order dated 18.01.2024 and 25.01.2024, both issued by the first respondent on the score that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the first respondent to do so. To consider the aforesaid prayers, it would suffice if the narration would commence from a letter addressed by the President of the club dated 06.01.2024. The President, by the said letter communicates to all the members of the club alleging non-corporation of the

¶31

Secretary and the Treasurer. The allegation is that the Secretary was not calling for the Managing Committee meeting/s at appropriate intervals, as necessary in law. It appears, on the said allegation, the Secretary then informs the Office bearers through his communication dated 08.01.2024 that a meeting would be held on 18.01.2024. In the gap of 10 days from the communication to the date of the meeting,

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:11937 WP No. 3470 of 2024

¶34

the President of the club issues certain directions to the Secretary to hold the meeting in a particular manner or place certain agenda for deliberations on the date of meeting. The communication of the President is on 11.01.2024. The Secretary does not place those matters in agenda on the date of the meeting. The meeting concludes on 18.01.2024.

¶35

On the next day of the meeting, it transpires that the Managing Committee resolved to suspend the President of the club and therefore there was a lurking dispute between the Managing Committee, the Secretary and the President. All these matters reached the doors of the District Registrar. The District Registrar, by the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 holds that the Managing Committee meeting held on 18.01.2024 was contrary to law, as it was contrary to the bye-laws and therefore, directs that no decision should be taken pursuant to the proceedings dated 18.01.2024. It is therefore, the petitioner is before this Court, in the subject petition calling in question the said order of the Registrar.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:11937 WP No. 3470 of 2024

¶38

5. This Court, grants an interim order of stay, which

¶39

reads as follows:

¶40

"The petitioner calls in question an order of the District Registrar dated 18.01.2024 which comments upon the election so held to the petitioner-club and directs that no decision should be taken by the committee, that is elected, pursuant to such election.

¶41

Prima facie, such power is not vested with the Registrar to direct the elected body not to hold any meeting or take any decision.

¶42

Therefore, there shall be an interim order of stay, as prayed form till the next date of hearing.

¶43

List the matter on 14.03.2024."

¶44

Learned counsel Sri.Bipin Hedge representing

¶45

respondent No.2 would submit that the interim order was granted on an erroneous submission made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. This is what is discernable from a reading of an interim order. The interim order is granted on the premise that the respondent has interfered with the functioning of the elected body and has given certain directions to the elected body which would touch upon the conduct of elections. The learned counsel has demonstrated that it was not the situation as was found in the interim order.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:11937 WP No. 3470 of 2024

¶48

Even otherwise, the District Registrar could not have on the complaint so made by one of the aggrieved direct the Management or the Managing Committee to deliberate upon certain aspects and not to certain other aspects, according to his whim unless warranted in terms of law i.e., the functioning of the Society. He could not have exercised his power to direct no decision should be taken upon the deliberations happened on 18.01.2024 or 25.01.2024. The power of the Registrar to entertain a complaint against the discussions in a Managing Committee Meeting and direct that those discussions / resolutions should not be given effect to, is not the power that is granted under the statute. Therefore, the impugned actions contrary to law would necessarily be unsustainable. The petitioner is to be left with liberty to workout his remedies in a manner known to law.

¶49

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i) The writ petition is allowed in part;

¶52

ii) The impugned order bearing No.DRB-2/Sm.Sm/Dooru/38/2023-24 dated

¶53

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:11937 WP No. 3470 of 2024

¶54

18.01.2024 and DRB-2/Sm.Sm/Dooru/ 38/2023-24 dated 25.01.2024 stands quashed; and

¶55

iii) The parties to the lis are at liberty to avail of such remedy, as is available in law, qua their grievances so projected before this Court.

¶56

All contentions that are projected before the Court shall

¶57

remain open.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

M/S Domlur Club v. the District Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Domlur Club v. the District Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

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

V. Gangadhar Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Sri Tirumala Recreation Association Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Gangamma S Vs M/S State Bank of India

Smt Roshini B H Vs the Union of India

Mr Ashwin S N Vs M/S G Corp Homes Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Muniraju Vs the State of Karnataka