Dismissed¶58

The Maratha Vidya Prasarak Mandal v. the State of Karnataka

Condonation of delay – writ appeal filed 1,001 days after the impugned order

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2026WA/100532/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 1001 days delay; writ appeal; Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act; WA No. 100532 of 2024; GM-KSR; Dharwad Bench; Karnataka High Court; Maratha Vidya Prasarak Mandal Nippani; Belagavi; District Registrar of Societies; section 25; enquiry officer report without enquiry; separate writ petition; each day's delay explained satisfactorily; I.A. No.1/2024 rejected; appeal dismissed; M.I. Arun J.; B. Muralidhara Pai J.; order dated 17.12.2021 in W.P. No.148810/2020.

What did the court decide?

The explanation given by the appellants is not sufficient to condone the delay of 1001 days in filing the writ appeal. ¶57

The Maratha Vidya Prasarak Mandal Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1589-DB WA No. 100532 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

¶10

WRIT APPEAL NO. 100532 OF 2024 (GM-KSR)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

THE MARATHA VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL, NIPPANI, GHATTE GALLI, NIPPANI, TALUK NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ROHAN S/O. ANIL SALVE.

¶13

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶14

SRI. ROHAN, S/O. ANIL SALVE, AGE: 55, OCC: BUSINESS, CHAIRMAN- MARATHA VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL NIPPANI, GHATTE GALLI, NIPPANI, AT. NIPPANI, TALUK. NIPPANI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶15

SRI. RAVINDRA, S/O. TUKARAM SHINDE, AGE- 53, OCC: BUSINESS, VICE-PRESIDENT- MARATHA VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL, NIPPANI,

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1589-DB WA No. 100532 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

GHATTE GALLI, NIPPANI, AT. NIPPANI, TALUK: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶19

SRI. VIJAY, S/O. RAJARAM GHATAGE, AGE- 70, OCC: BUSINESS, SECRETARY- MARATHA VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL, NIPPANI, GHATTE GALLI, NIPPANI, AT. NIPPANI, TALUK: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶20

SRI. VIJAY, S/O. VISWAS SURYAVANSHI, AGE-36, OCC: BUSINESS, TREASURER- MARATHA VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL, NIPPANI, GHATTE GALLI, NIPPANI, AT: NIPPANI, TALUK: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶21

SRI. VIJAY, S/O. AMBAJIRAO DESAI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, MEMBER- MARATHA VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL, NIPPANI, GHATTE GALLI, NIPPANI, AT-NIPPANI, TALUK-NIPPANI, DIST-BELAGAVI.

¶22

SRI. CHANDRAKANT, S/O. TUKARAM JASUD, AGE- 63 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, MEMBER- MARATHA VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL, NIPPANI, GHATTE GALLI,

¶23

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1589-DB WA No. 100532 of 2024

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

NIPPANI, AT: NIPPANI, TALUK: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶26

SRI. SUKUMAR, S/O. MANOHAR BHAT, AGE- 64 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, MEMBER-MARATHA VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL, NIPPANI, GHATTE GALLI, NIPPANI, AT: NIPPANI, TALUK: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶27

SRI. DR. VINAYAK JANARDHAN NIRMALE, AGE-45 , OCC: DOCTOR, MEMBER- MARATHA VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL, NIPPANI, GHATTE GALLI, NIPPANI, AT: NIPPANI, TALUK: NIPPANI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶28

RAJENDRA, S/O. CHANRAO AMBALE, AGE- 38, OCC: BUSINESS, MEMBER- MARATHA VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL, NIPPANI, GHATTE GALLI, NIPPANI, AT: NIPPANI, TALUK: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶29

SRI. SANYOJIT, S/O. ASHOK PATIL, AGE- 34, OCC: AGRICULTURE, MEMBER-MARATHA VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL, NIPPANI, GHATTE GALLI, NIPPANI,

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1589-DB WA No. 100532 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

AT: NIPPANI, TALUK: NIPPANI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶34

… APPELLANTS

¶35

(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.S. YALIGAR, ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶38

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, JAKKERI HOND, BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶39

… RESPONDENT

¶40

(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶41

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.148810/2020 DATED 17.12.2021 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION IN ENTIRETY WITH EXEMPLARY COSTS BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT WRIT APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶42

THIS WRIT APPEAL, ALONG WITH I.A. NO.1/2024 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1589-DB WA No. 100532 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

¶46

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶47

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN)

¶48

Aggrieved by the order, dated 17.12.2021, passed in W.P. No.148810/2020, the present writ appeal is filed.

¶49

There is an inordinate delay of 1001 days in filing

¶50

the appeal. The reasons assigned for the delay in filing the appeal are as follows:

¶51

“ 7. It is submitted that, after disposal of the writ petition the counsel for the appellants informed the appellants about the order passed by this Hon'ble Court. The Chairman is not keeping good health and he is intermittently being admitted to the hospital at Kolhapur. It is submitted that, the appellants where under the bonafide impression as section 25 is applicable. It is submitted that, the appellants 2 to 11 being the members could not meet at a place and came to unanimous decision to file an appeal. It is submitted that many of the members being aged persons also not keeping good health. The decision to face enquiry or to file the appeal was getting postponed. In the mean while the appellants came to know that the enquiry officer has given the reports, without holding any enquiry then as advised by the counsel, and also took opinion from several counsels from Dharwad and Bangalore who advised the appellants to file an appeal before this Hon'ble Court. The appellants have challenged the enquiry report in separate writ petition. It is submitted that, the appellants contacted the counsel in the month of July 2024 and counsel without any further delay prepared

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1589-DB WA No. 100532 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

the appeal, hence there is delay in preferring the application and is because of the bona-fide reasons stated above, which is neither deliberate nor intentional and because of the bona-fide reasons stated above and hence it is just and equitable to condone the delay caused in filling this appeal. ”

¶56

The respondents have objected to the same.

¶57

The explanation given by the appellants is not sufficient to condone the delay of 1001 days. The appellants are required to explain each and every day’s delay satisfactorily, which they have failed to do so under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶58

For the aforementioned reason, I.A. No.1/2024 is hereby rejected, and consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

¶59

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶60

Sd/(B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE

¶61

KMS / CT: ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

The Maratha Vidya Prasarak Mandal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Maratha Vidya Prasarak Mandal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Principal Secretary, Technical Vs Dr Pundarika G S/O Ganga Naik

Anjuman E Islam Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Hanumavva W/O. Yaankappa Harijan Vs Basavaraj S/O. Hanumanthappa Majjigi

Smt Pakkiramma W/O Talavara Mareppa Vs Major P Mannivanan

Sri Rohan S/O Anil Salve Vs Sri Jayavant S/O Parasharam Mirajkar

Timmayya S/O Gangadhar Hegde Vs State of Karnataka