Sri Krishnamurthy S P Vs the State of Karntaka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri Krishnamurthy S P Vs the State of Karntaka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted; liberty reserved to the Petitioner to avail such remedies as may be available in law before the competent Civil Court or other appropriate forum, with all contentions kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the relief of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider the Petitioner's complaint (Annexure-A) survives, in view of respondent No.2's endorsement dated 14.05.2026 recording that the complaint has been considered. +1 more

Court's answer

The mandamus relief no longer survives: once the competent authority has considered the complaint and communicated its decision, no further mandamus can be issued directing consideration of the very same complaint; if aggrieved by the endorsement dated 14.05.2026, the Petitioner may challenge it before the competent forum in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

The relationship between the Petitioner and respondent No.3-Club is founded upon voluntary admission as a member and governed by the Memorandum of Association, Rules, Bye-laws, Regulations and other governing instruments; the rights, privileges and obligations flowing from membership are not statutory in character but arise out of the contractual and associational framework.

Key takeaways

The allegations that the suspension is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Rules and Bye-laws and actuated by mala fides would require examination of the Club's governing documents, the factual circumstances, the disciplinary procedure adopted, the opportunity afforded and proof by leading cogent evidence; such questions are essentially disputed questions of fact and are not amenable to summary adjudication in proceedings under Article 226.ratio¶¶47
Article 226 jurisdiction is ordinarily exercised to enforce public law rights and public law obligations; disputes which are essentially private, contractual or associational are ordinarily not adjudicated in writ proceedings unless a demonstrable public law element is shown to exist, and the mere allegation of procedural irregularity, breach of Bye-laws or mala fides does not convert a private law dispute into a public law dispute.ratio¶¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-KSR) under Article 226 by a member of Sadashivanagar Club (K-064) challenging his suspension from membership (order No.SNC/K-064/2026/099 dated 24/04/2026, Annexure-D) as violative of the Club's Rules, Bye-laws and principles of natural justice and as retaliatory mala fide action following civil proceedings instituted against certain members, and seeking mandamus to the District Registrar (respondent No.2) to consider his complaint (Annexure-A). Held: (i) the mandamus relief no longer survives, respondent No.2 having considered the complaint and issued an endorsement dated 14.05.2026 communicating its decision, and no further mandamus can issue for consideration of the same complaint; (ii) club membership is a voluntary, contractual and associational relationship governed by the Memorandum of Association, Rules and Bye-laws, not a statutory one; (iii) allegations of illegality, breach of Bye-laws and mala fides raise disputed questions of fact requiring cogent evidence and are not amenable to summary adjudication under Article 226, which is ordinarily confined to public law rights and obligations — a mere allegation of procedural irregularity or mala fides does not convert a private law dispute into a public law dispute; (iv) the impugned action does not emanate from any statutory power and the Petitioner has an efficacious remedy before the jurisdictional Civil Court. Writ petition disposed of, reserving liberty to pursue civil remedies with all contentions open and any future proceedings to be decided on their own merits.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:27737 WP No. 15105 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 15105 OF 2026 (GM-KSR)

BETWEEN:

SRI KRISHNAMURTHY S P SON OF SRI. PARAMESHWARA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. (MEMBER SADASHIVANAGAR CLUB VIDE K-064), NO. 36/162, 4^TH MAIN, 14^TH CROSS, VYALIKAVAL, BENGALURU-560 003.

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRAKASH B N., ADVOCATE OF M/S. LAWYERS INC.)

AND:

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE STATE OF KARNTAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION, VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560 001.

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE OF DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, 4^TH ZONE, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO. 146, SAHAKARA SOUDHA. 3^RD FLOOR, 3^RD MAIN ROAD. 8^TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD. MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003.

SADASHIVANAGAR CLUB, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NO.21 15^TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR. BANGALORE-560 080.

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27737 WP No. 15105 of 2026

HC-KAR

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, SADASHIVANAGAR CLUB, NO.21, 15^TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 080.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI BRIJESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 AND R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I) DIRECT THE 2^ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i) Issue Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 2^nd Respondent to consider the Complaint filed by the Petitioner vide Annexure-A.

ii) A Writ, Direction or Order including Writ of Certiorari to quash the suspension order bearing No.SNC/K-064/2026/099 dated 24/04/2026 passed against Petitioners by the Respondent No.3, vide Annexure-D and

iii) Grant such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:27737 WP No. 15105 of 2026

HC-KAR

The grievance of the Petitioner is that respondent No.3-Club has suspended the Petitioner from its membership without following the procedure contemplated under the Rules, Bye-laws and governing regulations of the Club and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Sri B.N. Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits that the impugned suspension is not a bona fide disciplinary measure but is actuated by mala fides. According to him, the suspension has been brought about only because the Petitioner has instituted civil proceedings against certain members of the Club. It is his contention that the action of respondent No.3 is retaliatory and vindictive in nature and has been taken with a view to victimise the Petitioner for having exercised legal remedies available in law.

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Petitioner had submitted a complaint to respondent No.2, a copy whereof is produced at Annexure-A, requesting intervention in the matter and raising grievances regarding the manner in which the suspension was effected. Since no action had been taken on the said complaint, the Petitioner has

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:27737 WP No. 15105 of 2026

HC-KAR

sought, inter alia, a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the same, apart from seeking interference with the order of suspension.

Per contra, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, has filed a statement of objections enclosing therewith an endorsement dated 14.05.2026 issued by respondent No.2. The said endorsement discloses that the complaint submitted by the Petitioner at Annexure-A has already been considered and an appropriate response has been issued. In view thereof, the relief sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing consideration of the complaint no longer survives for consideration. Once the competent authority has considered the complaint and communicated its decision, no further mandamus can be issued directing consideration of the very same complaint. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the endorsement dated 14.05.2026, it is always open to the Petitioner to challenge the same before the competent forum in accordance with law.

Insofar as the challenge to the suspension from membership of respondent No.3-Club is concerned, the relationship between the petitioner and

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:27737 WP No. 15105 of 2026

HC-KAR

respondent No.3 is founded upon the Petitioner's voluntary admission as a member of the Club and is governed by the Memorandum of Association, Rules, Bye-laws, Regulations and other governing instruments of the Club. The rights, privileges and obligations flowing from such membership are not statutory in character but arise out of the contractual and associational framework governing the relationship between the Club and its members.

The grievance projected by the Petitioner, namely that the suspension is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Rules and Bye-laws and actuated by mala fides, would necessarily require an examination of the governing documents of the Club, the factual circumstances leading to the suspension, the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authorities, the opportunity afforded to the Petitioner and the material on the basis of which the impugned action came to be taken. The allegation that the suspension is retaliatory on account of the Petitioner having instituted civil proceedings against certain members of the Club would also require proof by leading cogent evidence. Such questions are essentially disputed questions of fact and are not amenable to

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:27737 WP No. 15105 of 2026

HC-KAR

summary adjudication in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

It is trite that though the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is wide, the same is ordinarily exercised to enforce public law rights and public law obligations. Disputes which are essentially private, contractual or associational in nature are ordinarily not adjudicated in writ proceedings unless a demonstrable public law element is shown to exist. The mere allegation of procedural irregularity, breach of the Bye-laws or mala fides does not, by itself, convert a private law dispute into a public law dispute.

In the present case, the action impugned does not arise out of the exercise of any statutory power. The rights asserted by the Petitioner and the obligations sought to be enforced arise entirely out of the Rules and Bye-laws governing respondent No.3-Club. The dispute therefore pertains to the internal affairs and governance of a private association and is rooted in the contractual relationship between the parties. Adjudication of such a dispute may require interpretation of the governing documents of the Club, appreciation of evidence and determination of

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:27737 WP No. 15105 of 2026

HC-KAR

disputed questions of fact, all of which are matters more appropriately considered by a competent Civil Court.

Furthermore, if the Petitioner's contention is that the suspension has been effected in violation of the Rules and Bye-laws of the Club or in breach of the principles of natural justice embodied therein, the Petitioner has an efficacious remedy before the jurisdictional Civil Court. The Civil Court would be in a position to examine the validity of the suspension, interpret the governing documents, record evidence, adjudicate the allegations of mala fides and grant appropriate declaratory, injunctive or consequential reliefs.

This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the challenge to the suspension from membership of respondent No.3-Club does not warrant examination in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Petitioner is at liberty to avail such remedies as may be available in law before the competent Civil Court or other appropriate forum. Needless to observe that if any such proceedings are initiated, the same shall be considered on their own merits and in accordance

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:27737 WP No. 15105 of 2026

HC-KAR

with law, without being influenced by any observation made in the present order.

Reserving liberty to the Petitioner to avail such remedies as may be available in law and keeping all contentions open, the writ petition stands disposed of .

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69