Disposed¶77

R Venugopal v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2025WP/6455/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Certiorari and mandamus under Articles 226 and 227; quashing of Registrar's endorsement dated 09.01.2025; elections to co-operative society; 1947 byelaws versus 2003 amended byelaws; one-year versus three-year tenure of Executive Committee; Karnataka Rajya Savitha Samaja; Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies; Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (s.13 noted in earlier order); Societies Registration Act, 1904; prior litigation W.P.No.4234/2020; Administrator appointment and abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 09.01.2025 (Annexure-J) set aside; respondent No.2 directed to consider conducting elections to respondent No.3-society in terms of the 2003 byelaws; petition stands disposed ('Ordered accordingly'). ¶77

R Venugopal Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10149 WP No. 6455 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 6455 OF 2025 (GM-KSR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

R. VENUGOPAL S/O. T. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O 1434, 37^TH C CROSS, 11^TH MAIN ROAD, 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011.

¶8

S. VENUGOPAL S/O. SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NO. 80/ C, 28^TH MAIN ROAD, C.P. COLONY, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 001

¶9

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

(BY SRI. DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU -560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶13

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC:10149 WP No. 6455 of 2025

¶15

DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES 2^ND CIRCLE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, NO.146, SAHAKARA SOWDHA, 2^ND FLOOR, 8^TH CROSS ROAD,

¶16

3^RD MAIN ROAD, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU--560 003

¶17

KARNATAKA RAJYA SAVITHA SAMAJA NO. 21, 2^ND CROSS, JOURNALIST COLONY, J.C ROAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR. (THE RESPONDENT NO 3 IS REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT 1960).

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K., AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

¶21

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED ON 09.01.2025 IN NUMBER DRB-02/DHU.HA/SOR/241/2024-25 ISSUED BY R-2 TO THE P-2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:10149 WP No. 6455 of 2025

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioners are before this Court seeking the

¶28

following prayer:

¶29

"i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the endorsement issued on 09.01.2025 in number DRB02/DHU.HA/SOR/241/2024-25 issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner no.2 produced at Annexure-J.

¶30

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to hold and conduct the election to respondent No.3 society as per the 2003 amended byelaw."

¶31

The petitioners are said to be the members of third

¶32

respondent. Elections to the office bearers of third respondent was hitherto held in terms of a byelaw of the year 1947. When election was not held, certain members had approached this court in W.P.No.4234/2020 which came to be disposed by the following order:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

"The essential grievance of the petitioners who happen to be the members of 4th respondent registered Society is against non-consideration of their representation for appointment of an Administrator on the ground that the one year tenure of Executive Committee having expired long ago, the affairs of management of the Society has to be done not by the office bearers but by an Administrator to be appointed by the government.

¶35

After service of notice, the official respondents have entered appearance through the learned Additional Advocate General and the respondent–Sangha is represented by its Panel Counsel. Both AAG and the Panel Counsel vehemently oppose the writ petition inter alia contending that

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10149 WP No. 6455 of 2025

¶37

the tenure of the elected body is three years vide amendment of bye-laws in 2003 and in the absence of proof of mismanagement, no Administrator can be appointed and therefore, the present Executive Committee is legally entitled to function till after the expiry of the tenure of three years.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

¶39

a) The fourth respondent–Society is a registered Society, having been formed vide Registration Certificate No.562/46-47 dated 7.2.1947 under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1904. It had a Memorandum of Association and the Bye-laws of the year 1947 itself. Although, Bye-laws do not much indicate what the tenure of the Executive Committee is, there is some material to assume that it was one year. For this view, some support can be drawn from the text of section 13 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. This Committee under the Bye-laws comprised of 18 members including the President, Vice President, Treasurer & the Secretary. This is not much in dispute. It is nobody’s case that the elected tenure of the members of the Executive Committee is a life peerage. In fact, periodical elections have been held although with a lot of irregular intervals, is not disputed.

¶40

(b) The jugular vein of this case is whether elected tenure of the Executive Committee is one year or three years, the latest election having been held in the year 2019. It is the specific case of the petitioners that it has been one year since 1947 and accordingly, elections have been held although not periodically. The respondents contend that the one year period has been extended to three years vide amendment of Bye-laws dated 4.4.2003 and the said amendment has been approved vide endorsement dated 10.4.2003. A bare perusal of a copy of the endorsement produced by the learned HCGP appearing on record for the government, mentions about approval, is true. However, the same is not specific to the Bye-law relating to tenure of the elected body, when there were several proposals for amendment. The contention of learned AAG that had the approval been in species, there could be specification and that when the amendment is approved in a whose sale way, ordinarily it is done by one single endorsement of approval, is bit difficult to countenance. Had there been approval to the amendment, the election to the Executive Committee

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10149 WP No. 6455 of 2025

¶42

would be for 56 members and not 18 as it was admittedly before the amendment. The latest election commenced by issuance of calendar of events dated 6.9.2019 was held for 18 member committee and not 56. There is no plausible explanation for not holding election to 56 member committee. The relevant portion of said Calendar of Events has the following table:

¶43

“1) ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è ®¨sÀå«gÀÄªÀ £ÉÆÃzÁ¬ÄvÀ ¨ÉÊ¯Á ¸ÀASÉå 6 gÀAvÉ PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀ ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ZÀÄ£Á¬Ä¸À¨ÉÃQgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶44

1.	CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ	1 ¸ÁÜ£À
2.	G¥ÁzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ	1 ¸ÁÜ£À
3.	RZÁAa	1 ¸ÁÜ£À
4.	PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð	1 ¸ÁÜ£À
5.	PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ¸À«Äw ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ	14 ¸ÁÜ£À

¶45

(c) It is relevant to mention that an Administrator was appointed on 14.6.2021 inter alia on the ground that there were lapses in the election process. Even the official who had conducted the elections was also placed under suspension vide order dated 20.1.2020. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.6.2021, the appointment of Administrator was kept in abeyance. Strangely, this abeyance order was withdrawn on 23.9.2021 and thereby, reviving the tenure of the Administrator. All these things happened in such a quick succession, with no plausible explanation therefor. The action of the government gives a lot of scope for assuming so many things, arguably done at the instance of those who are at the helm of affairs of the Society.

¶46

(d) The present incumbent of the office of the President had drawn a cheque for a huge sum of Rs.7,60,000/- on 15.6.2021 as a single signatory when the letter dated 14.11.2019 issued by the Executive Committee to the Vijaya Bank, Bangalore, specifically required concurrent signatures of three office bearers namely the President, Secretary and the Treasurer. The said letter reads as under:

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:10149 WP No. 6455 of 2025

¶49

“ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ «dAiÀÄ ¨ÁåAPï, eÉ.¹ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ. ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, «µÀAiÀÄ: PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ¸À«vÁ ¸ÀªÀiÁd, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ F ¸ÀAWÀzÀ £ÀÆvÀ£À ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀ PÁAiÀÄðPÁ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ, ¨ÁåAPï ªÀåªÀºÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀgÀ §UÉÎ.

¶50

¶51

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ¸À«vÁ ¸ÀªÀiÁd ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ F PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ¸À«ÄwUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:01-102019 gÀAzÀÄ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ dgÀÄV PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ¸À«Äw ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ £ÀÆvÀ£ÀªÁV ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀgÁVzÀÄÝ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ vÀªÀÄä ±ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀ SÁvÉ ¸ÀASÉå:110001010022049 F SÁvÉAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ CzsÀåPÀëgÁzÀ J£ï.¸ÀA¥ÀvïPÀÄªÀiÁgï, PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðAiÀiÁV £ÀgÀ¹AºÀAiÀÄå.f. RZÁAaAiÀiÁV £ÁgÁAiÀÄuï. Dgï. dAnAiÀiÁV ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä ¢£ÁAPÀ:22-10-2019gÀAzÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è wÃªÀiÁð¤¸À¯ÁVzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ, PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð CxÀªÁ DzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ RZÁAaAiÀiÁzÀ dAnAiÀiÁV ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä wÃªÀiÁð¤¸À¯ÁVzÉ. EzÀgÀ £ÀqÀªÀ½UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶52

»A¢£À DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ZÉPïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÉ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ ªÀivÀÄÛ ºÀ¼ÉÃ ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï £ÀA.C£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄºÁPÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉÆ¸ÀzÁV PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï £ÀA.9110657729, F ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ¨ÁåAPï SÁvÉUÀ¼À°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ. ºÁUÀÆ vÁªÀÅ ºÉÆ¸ÀzÁV ZÉPï §ÄPï£À°è CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ, PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð, RZÁAa ¦æAmï ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ ZÉPï§ÄPï C£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV vÀªÀÄä°è ªÀÄ£À« ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÉÛÃªÉ.

¶53

vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹UÀ¼ÀÄ,”

¶54

This letter is not disputed by the respondentSociety and it bears the signature of the present incumbent of the office of President himself.

¶55

(e) The above letter has been issued to the Bank pursuant to Resolution of the Executive Committee made in the meeting held on 1.10.2019, presumably with the intent to prevent misappropriation of funds of the Society

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10149 WP No. 6455 of 2025

¶57

by enhancing accountability level. The President ought not to have issued the cheque without having the signature of two other companion office bearers in terms of the Resolution. It is a poor society and even poorly managed. There is a lot of scope for assuming that all is not above board with the management. This Society has a gigantic membership of above 75,000 and the members belong to Savitha Samaja i.e., barbers community which is socially & educationally, not that advanced.

¶58

(f) There is a lot of force in the submission of learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the members of the Executive Committee can no longer continue to manage the affairs of the Society after tenure has expired and that allowing them to take policy or financial decisions apart from being unauthorized, is not desirable. He also submits that the updation of records and book work preparatory for the elections have remained unattended and that there is a clandestine desire to perpetuate the committee whose popular mandate has expired. Thus, an eminent case is made out for holding of the election to the Executive Committee by an independent official to be nominated by the government. Petitioners representation in this regard thus needs to be favourably considered.

¶59

(g) Ordinarily, in matters like this, the courts would direct consideration of the representation of the kind for appointment of an Administrator since it is a matter pertaining to the domain of the Executive. However, in this case, an exception has to be made regard being had to the hugeness of the Society, the social stature of the community of its members, arguable misappropriation of funds and mismanagement of its affairs. To this needs to be added the suspension of Returning Officer who had held the latest election, the appointment of Administrator, order of such appointment being put in abeyance within three days and the abeyance order being withdrawn again within a few days. All such things can happen only in ‘Alice in wonderland’. The facts of the case warrant a positive direction being issued for appointment of some responsible official for accomplishing the elections in question. However, no case is made out for the appointment of an Administrator, as rightly submitted by learned AAG and the learned Panel Counsel.

¶60

In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the first respondent to consider the subject representation of the petitioners and appoint a

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10149 WP No. 6455 of 2025

¶62

responsible official for organizing election to the Executive Committee of the respondent-Society within a period of three months. The fourth respondent-Society shall fully cooperate with preparatory work for and accomplishment of election process.

¶63

The present Executive Committee shall continue only for a very limited purpose of maintaining the day to day administration till after the elections are held and a new popular body is constituted. The Committee shall not take any policy or financial decision; however, it shall have power to draw money as is required for election related work, on the instruction of the official to be appointed by the government.

¶64

It hardly needs to be stated that the election shall be held for 18 member Executive Committee including 4 office bearers namely the President, Vice President, Secretary & the Treasurer for a period of one year as per the 1947 Bye-laws.

¶65

Nothing in this judgment shall be construed as interdicting the amendment of Bye-laws at the hands of duly constituted Executive Committee after the contemplated election is accomplished.

¶66

Costs made easy."

¶67

The grievance of the petitioners therein was that the fourth respondent society which is the third

¶68

respondent in the subject petition had not considered the representation for holding of elections as one year tenure

¶69

had over long ago.

¶70

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the said judgment is rendered on the score that the 1947 byelaws were prevalent in the third respondent-society and the election was to be held for

¶71

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:10149 WP No. 6455 of 2025

¶73

eighteen member executive committee including four office bearers namely, the President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer, to be in office for a period of one year.

¶74

The learned Counsel for the petitioners would

¶75

further take this court through the documents appended to the petition to demonstrate that byelaws of the year 2003 were already in place and that was not brought to the notice of the co-ordinate bench while it passed the order quoted supra.

¶76

Learned AGA also would accept the fact that the 2003 byelaws were in place and the competent authority has accepted those byelaws and the 2003 byelaws have now the force of law.

¶77

In that light, I deem it appropriate to set aside the Endorsement dated 09.01.2025 (Annexure-J) and direct consideration of the conduct of elections by second

¶78