IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI W.P.No.31349 OF 2016 [GM-KSR] BETWEEN 1. H.T.SUDARSHAN S/O LATE THEERTHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT HOSUR, CHUNCHUNAKATTE HOBLI K.R.NAGAR TALUK MYSORE – 571 617.
2. H.V.SUNDARA S/O LATE T.VENKATRAMANEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT HIG 1013, 1ST BLOCK RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR MYSORE 570022.
3. SMT.LALITHA W/O B.H.GOVINDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.336, 3RD CROSS 5TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR 1ST STAGE MYSORE 570017. ... PETITIONERS (BY:SRI SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (REGISTRATION OF STAMPS) REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY M.S.BUILDINGS BANGALORE 560 001.
2. REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES KARNATAKA SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE 570 001.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIEITES AND REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES KARNATAKA SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE 570001.
4. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES REGISTRATION MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE 570001.
5. SRI SRIRAMA VIDHYA SAMSTHE HOSUR, K.R.NAGAR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT 571602 REG.NO.119/80-81 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT H.D.RAJU. ... RESPONDENTS (BY:SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA, A.G.A. FOR R1 TO R4; SRI RAKSHIT K.N., ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R4 TO COMPLETE THE ENQUIRY BEING HELD IN CASE NO. SOCIETY/ETARE/01-2014-15 AGAINST THE R5 SOCIETY WITHIN A TIME BOUND PERIOD VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioners’ prayers are as follows:-
(a) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 4th Respondent to complete the enquiry being held in case No.Society/Etare/01-2014-15 against the 5th respondent society within a time bound period vide Annexure-A.
(b) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to appoint Administrator pending enquiry against the 5th respondent society.
(c) Grant such other relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the matter.
2. At the very outset, Sri Lakshminarayana, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the enquiry is complete and that the charges levelled against the respondent No.5 are held to be not proved. In the wake of completion of the enquiry proceedings, prayer(a) has become infructuous. Prayer(b) is only consequential. The question of seeking petitioners’ request for the appointment of Administrator would have been considered only if the Enquiry Officer were to indict respondent No.5 of the charges.
3. Thus both the prayers are not acceded to. This petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of the writ petition does not come in the way of the petitioners challenging the enquiry report in appropriate proceedings. Further, if the respondent No.5 has violated any law or bye-law, it shall also be open to the petitioners to file a duly constituted suit in the competent Civil Court.
4. Now that the main matter itself is dismissed, nothing survives for consideration of I.A.No.1/17. It is dismissed as having become unnecessary.
Sd/- JUDGE VGR