IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 27th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NOS. 522 OF 2016 AND 869-870 OF 2016 (GM-KSR) BETWEEN:
C. F. JADAR SON OF FAKIRAPPA 56 YEARS NO.5, MANJUNATHA NILAYA SUJAN CONVENT ROAD G.K. LAYOUT, 13TH CROSS CHENNAKESHAVNAGAR NEW ROAD, BENGALURU-560 065.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANJAY GOWDA N. S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. R. MALIKARJUNAIAH SON OF LATE H. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 799/A, ARAKERE MAIN ROAD 2ND CROSS, SAMRAT LAYOUT BEHIND AISWARYA BAKERY BENGALURU - 560 076.
2. M.H. RAJU SON OF LATE C. MUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 78, CAUVERY CROSS, GRUHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079.
3. K.R. RAJAGOPAL SON OF LATE K.S. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 297, 11TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU - 560 027.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS KANDAYA BHAVAN, 8TH FLOOR K.G. ROAD,BENGALURU – 560 001.
6. DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES AND FIRMS GANDHINAGARA,17, MARUTI PLAZA II MAIN/VYALIKAVAL EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 003.
7. KARNATAKA STATE KHO KHO ASSOCIATION A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT 1960, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT KHO KHO COMPLEX CORPORATION PLAY GROUNDS, 10TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, HOMBE GOWDA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. M. ARUN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1, 3 AND 7;
RESPONDENT NO.2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SRI. LAXMINARAYANA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 6) THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS.21736-738 OF 2015 DATED 3/11/2015.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 03.11.2015 passed in Writ Petition Nos.21736- 738 of 2015 by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petitions and quashing the impugned order, respondent No.5 therein has filed these appeals.
2. The primary contention of the appellant is that, once the learned Single Judge was of the view that the impugned order for appointment of administrator is bad in law on the ground that respondent No.1 has not issued notice to the petitioners or respondent No.4 - association, then necessary consequence is that they should be heard entailing passing of a fresh order thereafter. However, the same has not been done. Hence, he pleads that respondent No.1 before the learned Single Judge shall be directed to hear the writ petitioners and the contesting respondents and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
3. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate relief is called for. The learned Single Judge on considering the merits of the petitions was of the view that before passing the impugned order, respondent No.1 has not issued notice to the writ petitioners or respondent No.4 –association. Therefore, there is violation of the principle of natural justice. If this were to be the reasons of the learned Single Judge, necessarily the impugned order not only ought to be set aside, but the petitioners or respondent No.4 should be given an opportunity to make out their case entailing a fresh order to be passed by respondent No.1. The same has not been done, which calls for interference.
5. Hence, the writ appeals are partly allowed. We sustain the order dated 3.11.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.21736 – 738 of 2015 in setting aside the order dated 29.04.2015 passed by respondent No.1. However, we further direct that respondent No.1 shall reconsider the matter afresh after hearing the appellant as well as the respondents and pass appropriate order thereon within a period of four weeks thereafter. To this effect, the parties shall appear before respondent No.1 by 28.06.2019. All contentions kept open.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE SA