IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION Nos.16849-16851/2016 (GM-KSR) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MAMATHA P. SHETTY W/O.PRABHAKARA D. SHETTY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT ‘MAMATHA HOUSE’ LIC COLONY, SRINAGARA THENKANEDIYOOR POST UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.
2. SMT. LATHA N. ANCHAN W/O. NARAYAN ANCHAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT ‘RADHA NIVAS’ LAKSHMI NAGARA 2ND CROSS THENKANEDIYOOR POST UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.
3. SMT. SUJATHA W/O.SRI BHASKAR POOJARI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT ‘LAKSHMI NIVAS’ 3RD CROSS, LAKSHMI NAGAR THENKANEDIYOOR POST UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI S.K. ACHARYA, ADV. FOR SRI K. CHANDRASHEKAR ACHAR, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY UNDER SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION & STAMPS M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR & DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT-576 001.
3. LAKSHMI MAHILA MANDALI (R) NO.4/366 A, 2ND CROSS BELKALE, LAKSHMI NAGARA THENKANADIYOOR POST UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 001 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI AMRUTHESH C., ADV. FOR R3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2015 PASSED BY R-2 AT ANNEXURE-K REGARDING CANCELLATION OF SOCIETY I.E., LAKSHMI MAHILA MANDALI AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 01.12.2015 and the endorsement dated 01.12.2015 at Annexure-K and L to the petitions. The petitioners in that light are seeking that the respondent No.2 be directed to hold enquiry under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (‘Act’ for short) against the office bearers of respondent No.3.
2. The petitioners claim that they are the members of Lakshmi Mahila Mandali situate at Lakshmi Nagar, Belkale Village of Padavooru Post, Udupi Taluk. The society was originally registered with the No.95/1986-87. The registration certificate dated 18.09.1986 is referred to in that regard.
3. The petitioners contend that the committee of management with its President Smt. Seetha and Secretary Shyamala mismanaged the affairs of the society and in that regard, the members being aggrieved by the same had submitted a representation dated 13.01.2015 seeking action in that regard.
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent No.2 without holding appropriate enquiry in that regard and initiating appropriate action against the committee members, who had mismanaged the affairs of the society had on the other hand proceeded to pass the order dated 01.12.2015 canceling the registration of the society and has immediately thereafter registered another society in the same name as that of the society which had been registered earlier. It is in that light, the petitioners are aggrieved by the order and the registration certificate as at Annexures-K and L. The grievance of the petitioners is also that, despite the petitioners having brought these aspects to the notice of respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 has not taken any action in that regard but, has issued an endorsement dated 05.01.2016 which is not justified. The petitioners therefore are before this Court assailing the action of respondent No.2 5. The respondent No.3 has filed the objection statement seeking to justify the action of the respondent No.2 and also to contend that appropriate notice has been issued and thereafter, the proceedings has been held to cancel the registration. The respondent No.3 seeks to sustain the registration which was thereafter made in their favour and would seek dismissal of the petitions.
6. In the light of the above, having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the petition papers. At the outset, what is required to be taken note is that the petitioners claim to be the members of the society Lakshmi Mahila Mandali which was registered with the No.95/1986-87. It is the registration of the said society which has been cancelled by the order dated 01.12.2015. The learned counsel for the petitioners while contending that an appropriate proceedings as contemplated under Section 25 of the Act has not been held by respondent No.2 has sought to rely on a decision of this Court in the case of Karnataka State Kumbara Samaja, Bangalore and Another -vs- State of Karnataka and Others reported in 2016 (1) KCCR 334 wherein, this Court with reference to the provisions contained in Section 25 of the Act and Clause 9 and 10 of the amendment of the bye-laws therein has referred to the manner in which an enquiry is required to be held by the Registrar keeping in view the provision as contained in Section 25 of the Act.
7. Having taken note of the said decision, it is at the outset seen that the consideration therein was in the circumstance where the issue that required consideration was about the change made to the regulations and in that circumstance, it was contended that certain members of the petitioner therein had fraudulently fabricated the resolution. Therefore, the circumstance in the said case was wherein two sets of members of the same society were litigating with regard to the resolution that was passed for the change in the regulations and the same was contested by another group. This Court was of the opinion that a detailed enquiry as contemplated under Section 25 of the Act was required to be held.
8. As against the same, in the instant case, the issue relates to grievance that is being put forth by the petitioners with regard to the cancellation of the registration of the society which was registered with the No.95/1986-87 of which, the petitioners claim to have been the members. The registration of respondent No.3 on the same date on 01.12.2015 as at Annexure-L is a subsequent registration as contemplated under the Act.
9. Therefore, the first aspect that requires consideration herein is as to whether the order dated 01.12.2015 is justified. No doubt, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also as noticed from the records as maintained by the respondent No.2, there is no detailed enquiry held but, pursuant to the notice that had been issued, the order canceling the registration has been passed.
10. Though in a normal circumstance, it would have been appropriate to order a detailed enquiry after quashing such order, keeping in view the existence of respondent No.3 at this point in time, such course would not be appropriate. That apart, the order dated 01.12.2015 (Annexure-K) would disclose the reasons for which the cancellation has been ordered by the respondent No.2. The observations in that regard is that despite notice, the details with regard to the activities of the society and the compliance of the requirement of law has not been established by producing the documents for the periods 1987-88 to 2014-15. If the said observation is taken into consideration, it is a factual aspect which would have required the consideration by the respondent No.2. To that extent, even in the instant petitions, the petitioners have not produced any documents in that regard to indicate that if appropriate opportunity was granted, the documents would be produced before the respondent No.2 in an enquiry to be held.
11. If that be the position, I am of the opinion that when the respondent No.3 through the subsequent registration is in existence, quashing the order dated 01.12.2015 at this stage in the absence of any document to substantiate the conclusion of the respondent No.2 to be wrong would not be justified. That apart, as observed in the endorsement dated 05.01.2016 by the respondent No.2, the appropriate action to be taken in terms of Section 27 if appropriate documents are produced by the petitioners is already indicated. If that be the position, the interest of the petitioners would stand protected to that extent and if at all the petitioners are able to establish their right, such course is always open to them by filing the necessary documents before respondent No.2 12. In that view, when such remedy is available to the petitioners, the prayer as sought in these petitions at this point would not arise for consideration. Accordingly, reserving liberty to the petitioners to file the necessary documents before respondent No.2 and with a direction to the respondent No.2 to accept such documents, if they are filed and hold such proceedings as has been indicated in the endorsement dated 05.01.2016 by notifying the respondent No.3, the instant petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST