Dismissed¶39

Sri M S Sadashiva Rao v. the State of Karntaka

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2026WP/4638/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (M.G.S. Kamal J, 21.01.2026) dismisses WP 4638/2020 (GM-KSR) by M S Sadashiva Rao seeking quashing of Registrar's order dated 20.09.2019 (case No.DRT.SOC:13/1973-74) allowing Sri Shankar Seva Samiti (Reg), Tumkuru, to file belated returns under Section 13(1), Karnataka Registrations Act, 1960. Key points: petitioner not a member of the society, no locus standi; Section 13 condonation of delay is discretionary and not open to writ interference. Keywords: locus standi; condonation of delay; filing of returns; Karnataka Registrations Act 1960; Articles 226/227; Tumkur.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner, not even being a member of respondent No.3-Society, cannot claim to have been affected in any manner by the impugned order and therefore lacks locus standi to maintain the writ petition. ¶38

Sri M S Sadashiva Rao Vs the State of Karntaka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:3382 WP No. 4638 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4638 OF 2020 (GM-KSR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI M S SADASHIVA RAO S/O LATE SRIKANTAIAH AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1805 DR RADAKRISHNAN ROAD S S PURAM TUMKUR - 572 102

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. THILAK RAJ S.V.,ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

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

¶15

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES REGISTRATIONS AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES TUMKUR DISTRICT 2^ND FLOOR, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:3382 WP No. 4638 of 2020

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SRI SHANKAR SEVA SAMITI (REG) K R CIRCLE B H ROAD TUMKURU - 572 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT

¶20

SRI N SHANKAR S/O K NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT 10TH CROSS S S PURAM TUMAKURU - 572 102.

¶21

THE SECRETARY SRI CHIDAMBAR JOSHI S/O LATE SEETARAM SASTRY JOSHI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NEAR SRINIVASA TEMPLE MAIN ROAD, CHIKKAPET TUMAKURU - 572 102

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. YASHWANTH NETHAJI N.T., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.09.2019 PASSED BY THE R-2 HEREIN VIDE ANNXN.CONSEQUENTLY PASS AN ORDER TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATION OF THE R-3 SOCIETY.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:3382 WP No. 4638 of 2020

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Petitioner is before this Court purportedly aggrieved by the Order dated 20.09.2019 passed by respondent No.2Registrar in case No.DRT.SOC:13/1973-74 and by which in exercise of power conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Karnataka Registrations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1960'), the Registrar has permitted to file returns and other documents as required under Section 13 of the Act, 1960, by respondent No.3-Society.

¶32

The contention of the petitioner is that, respondent No.2/Registrar has passed an order permitting the Society to file belated returns, which is contrary to law and not permissible. Aggrieved by the same he is before this court.

¶33

On a repeated query by this Court, as to the locusstandi of the petitioner to file the present petition, learned counsel for the petitioner though read entire averments made in the petition in extenso is unable to point out the locus-standi of the petitioner to maintain this writ petition. However he submits that, the petitioner was once a member of the Society

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:3382 WP No. 4638 of 2020

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

and he is no more a member but is intending to become a member.

¶38

The petitioner not even being a member of the respondent No.3-Society, cannot claim to have been affected in any manner whatsoever by the impugned order in this petition. In any event, order passed by the respondent No.2 is under Section 13 of the Act, 1960, which vests discretion to condone the delay in filing the returns. The same cannot be the ground for interference.

¶39

Petition lacks merits and accordingly the same is dismissed .

¶40

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶41

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Sri M S Sadashiva Rao v. the State of Karntaka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M S Sadashiva Rao v. the State of Karntaka

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

Smt. Sofia Bi Vs the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

Mr Tabrez Pasha Vs the Karnataka State Board of Waqf

Smt Lakshmi K Lakshman Vs Canara Bank

Sri C Kiritappa Vs Smt S Pilomina

Sri. S Manjunatha Swamy Vs the Karnataka Information COMMISSIONER(CH-2)

Smt B.Ratnamma Vs the Government of Karnataka