IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NOS.1263-1264 OF 2018 (GM-KSR) BETWEEN:
1. K. RAVINDRA SON OF LATE S. KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, MEMBER, ROTARY EDUCATION SOCIETY, HINDUSTHAN AGENCIES, KEMPAIAH BUILDING, R.P. ROAD, MANDYA - 571 401.
2. ROTARY CLUB MANDYA M. C. ROAD, MANDYA - 571 401.
REPRESENTED BY:
A) SECRETARY M.R. ARAVIND, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, SON OF LATE M.S. RAMACHANDRA, NIDHI GLOBAL I T SERVICES, NO.457, OPPOSITE TO RAMA MANDIRA, BAZAR STREET, MANDYA-571 401.
B) PRESIDENT A.C. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, SON OF LATE K. CHANNEGOWDA, POOJA SHAMIYANA, NEAR GURU BHAVAN, R.P. ROAD, MANDYA-571 401.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI SUMANTH KUMAR S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, 1ST CROSS, SUBASH NAGAR, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 401.
2. ROTARY EDUCATION SOCIETY M.C. ROAD, MANDYA - 571 401.
REPRESENTED BY:
A) SECRETARY CHANDRASHEKHAR NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, SON OF GANESH NAYAK, SECRETARY, ROTARY EDUCATION SOCIETY, M.C. ROAD, MANDYA-571 401.
B) PRESIDENT NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, SON OF B.N. PUTTANAIH, PRESIDENT, ROTARY EDUCATION SOCIETY, M.C. ROAD, MANDYA - 571 401.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-2(A); SRI H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-2(B)) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NOS.62064 OF 2016 AND 62426 OF 2016 DATED 13/03/2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
***** THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 13-3-2018 passed in Writ Petition Nos.62064 and 62426 of 2016, by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petitions are premature, the writ petitioners have filed these appeals.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Single Judge misread Annexures-F and F1 to be a mere acknowledgement of the Resolution and thereafter to hold the writ petitions to be premature. Having considered the contentions, we are of the view that the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge would be inappropriate. Annexure-F and Annexure- F1 cannot be considered as a mere acknowledgement of the Resolution. Under these circumstances, the finding recorded thereon being inappropriate, the consequential finding of the learned Single Judge that the writ petitions are premature is erroneous. Hence on this ground alone the writ appeals are allowed.
1) The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13-3-2018 in Writ Petition Nos.62064 of 2016 and 62426 of 2016 is set aside. The writ petitions are restored to file.
2) The learned Single Judge to reconsider the matter afresh on merits in accordance with law.
3) All contentions are kept open, including the question of locus-standi.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE rsk/-