IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION Nos.19021-19036/2013 C/W WRIT PETITION Nos.18762-18777/2013 & 18825/2013(GM-KSR) IN WP Nos.19021-19036/2013 BETWEEN:
1. ONKARAPPA A. E., S/o ESHWARAPPA, AGED 47 YEARS, WORKING AS HEADMASTER SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE, HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
2. S. GURUBASAPPA S/O SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED 48 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
3. DEVARAJAPPA M., S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED 38 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
4. YATHIRAJA NAIL S S/O SAKRA NAIK AGED 38 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
5. SMT.USHA S.K. W/O SURESH R.S. AGED 34 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
6. T.S.PRAKASH, S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, MAJOR, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
7. MAHESHWARAPPA C.R. S/O PATEL RUDRAPPA, AGED 53 YEARS, WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
8. S.MURALI S/O SRIRAMAPPA, AGED 45 YEARS, WORKING AS CRAFT TEACHER SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
9. SRIDHARA S/O RANGAPPA, AGED 47 YEARS, WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
10. M.SHIVANANDAPPA S/O DYAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, WORKING AS HEAD MASTER, SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE, MALEBENNURU, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
11. SHANKARAMURTHY H.K.
S/O KADEMANE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE, MALEBENNURU, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
12. NAGARAJA H.
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA A.K.
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE, MALEBENNURU, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
13. SHIVAJI RAO H.P. S/O PEEROJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE, MALEBENNURU, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
14. MOHAMMED SHARIEF KHAN S/O AHMAD SAB, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA PROUDA SHALE, MALEBENNURU, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
15. MAHENDRAPPA V.B. S/O BASAPPA U AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA PROUDA SHALE, MALEBENNURU, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
16. HALASWAMY K.H. S/O PARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA PROUDA SHALE, MALEBENNURU, HARIHARA TALUK, ] DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI D. S. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER AND REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA-577526.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MULTISTOREYED BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001.
4. SRI RANGANATHASWAMY PARISISHTA JATHI VIDYA SAMSTHE (REGISTERED) HOLALKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577526. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
5. SMT.PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O SATHIGAIAH B.D., CLAIMING TO BE THE PRESIDENT OF SRI RANGANATHASWAMY PARISISHTA JATHI VIDYA SAMSTHE (REGISTERED) HOLALKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577526.
6. D. MARAPPA, S/O BOMMALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O KANAMADUGU POST, KUDLIGI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583101.
7. H. NINGAPPA S/O N.DURGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O KANAMADUGU POST, KUDLIGI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583101.
8. H.HULIGAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O MAGIMAVINAHALLI POST HABOHALLI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT-583101.
9. G.OBALESH, S/O KARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. 7TH WARD, KUDLIGI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583101.
10. K.M.THIPPESWAMY S/O K.M.SHARANAYYA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. KUDLIGI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT-583135.
11. SMT.P.INDUMATHI, D/O HAGADEESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O RAMANAGAR, HABOHALLI, BELLARY DISTRICT-583101.
12. H.M.KOTRAIAH S/O SOMASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O HABOHALLI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583101.
13. N.S.M. SIDDALINGAIAH NIMBALAGERI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O KUDLIGI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583135.
14. B.KENCHAPPA S/O LATE DURUGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O KANAMADUGU POST, KUDLIGI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583135.
15. M.SHANKARAPPA S/O LATE VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. KODIHALLI POST, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
16. L.PARASHUSURAMA S/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O 8TH WARD, HOSPET, BELLARY DISTRICT-583101.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D.R. ANANDEESWAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; BY SRI R.S. RAVI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.M. IRISLAND AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI V.R. SARATHY, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI G F HUNASIKATTIMATH, ADV., FOR C/R6, R9-R16; R7 & R8 DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 28.1.2016) …… THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER/REPORT DATED 27.2.13 VIDE IN CASE NO. RCS/ADMN/131/SOR/09-10 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE R1.
IN WP Nos.18762-18777/2013 BETWEEN:
1. SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY PARISHISTA JATHI VIDYA SAMASTHE ® (SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY SCHEDULED CASTE EDUCATION SOCIETY) (REGD.) HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. BY ITS SECRETARY, SMT.MANJULA.
2. SMT. SUSHEELA W/O SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, MEMBER, SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY PARISHSITA JATHI VIDYA SAMASTHE ® HOLALKERE TALUK-577526 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
3. SMT. SHUBHAMANGALA, W/O NAGARAJ.H, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, DIRECTOR, SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY PARISHSITA JATHI VIDYA SAMASTHE ® HOLALKERE TALUK-577526.
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
4. SMT. BHAGYA R. G., W/O RAJAKUMARA.T, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, DIRECTOR, SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY PARISHSITA JATHI VIDYA SAMASTHE HOLALKERE TALUK-577526. CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
5. KUM. ANNAPURNA V, D/O VARADARAJU M., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, DIRECTOR, SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY PARISHSITA JATHI VIDYA SAMASTHE HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
6. SMT. SOWMYA P., W/O PRABHAKARA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, DIRECTOR, SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY PARISHSITA JATHI VIDYA SAMASTHE ® HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
7. SRI SIDDAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, MEMBER, SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY PARISHSITA JATHI VIDYA SAMASTHE ® HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
8. SRI JITHENDRIYA B S S/O B.D.SATHIGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, MEMBER, SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY PARISHSITA JATHI VIDYA SAMASTHE ® HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
9. SRI RAVIKUMAR S/O RAMANCHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, MEMBER, SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY PARISHSITA JATHI VIDYA SAMASTHE HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
10. SRI RAJESHA B R S/O RAMACHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, MEMBER, SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY PARISHSITA JATHI VIDYA SAMASTHE HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
11. SMT T LAKSHMAMMA W/O SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, MEMBER, SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY PARISHSITA JATHI VIDYA SAMASTHE HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
12. SRI SOMASHEKARA C S/O CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, MEMBER, SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY PARISHSITA JATHI VIDYA SAMASTHE HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
13. SRI B D SATHIGAIAH S/O DODDATHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, MEMBER, SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY PARISHSITA JATHI VIDYA SAMASTHE HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
14. SRI V PRADEEPA S/O VARADARAJ, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, MEMBER, SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY PARISHSITA JATHI VIDYA SAMASTHE HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
15. SRI NAGARAJA B S S/O SANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, MEMBER, SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY PARISHSITA JATHI VIDYA SAMASTHE HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
16. SRI VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, MEMBER, SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY PARISHSITA JATHI VIDYA SAMASTHE HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI R.S. RAVI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B. M. IRISHAD AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ENQUIRY OFFICER, AL ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA-577501.
3. SRI D MARAPPA SON OF BOMMALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O KANAMADUGU POST, KUDLIGI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583104.
4. SRI H NINGAPPA, S/O N.DURUGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O KANAMADUGU POST, KUDLIGI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583104.
5. SRI H HULIGAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O MAGIMAVINAHALLI POST, HABOBALLI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583104.
6. SRI G. OBALESH S/O KARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O 7TH WARD, KUDLIGI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583104.
7. SRI K M THIPPASWAMY, S/O K.M.SHARANAYYA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O KUDLIGI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583104.
8. SMT. P. INDUMATHI D/O.JAGEESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O RAMANAGAR, HABOHALLI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583104.
9. SRI H. M. KOTARAIAH S/O SOMASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O HABOHALLI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583104.
10. SRI N. S. M. SIDDALINGAIAH, S/O NIMBALAGERI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O KUDLIGI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583104.
11. SRI B. KENCHAPPA S/O LATE DURUGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O KANAMADUGU POST, KUDLIGI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583104 12. SRI M. SHANKARAPPA S/O LATE VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O KODIHALLI POST, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001.
13. SRI L. PARASHURAMA, S/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O 8TH WARD, HOSPET, BELLARY DISTRICT-583104.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D.R. ANANDEESWAR, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SRI G.F. HUNASIKATTIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R13) **** THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED REPORT THOUGH DATED 27.2.13, ISSUED BY THE R1, AS PER ANNEXURE-A, BY ISSUE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI.
IN WP No.18825/2013 BETWEEN SMT. PUTTAMMA, WIFE OF SATHIGAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS PRESIDENT SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY PARISHISTA JATHI VIDYA SAMSTHE (R) (SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY SCHEDULED CASTE EDUCATION SOCIETY) (REGD.) HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI V. R. SARATHY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ENQUIRY OFFICER ALI ASKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560001 2. SRI D MARAPPA SON OF BOMMALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O KANAMADUGU POST KUDLIGI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT-583101.
3. SRI H NINGAPPA S/O N DURUGAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O KANAMADUGU POST KUDLIGI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT-583101.
4. SRI H. HULIGAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O MAGIMAVINAHALLI POST HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583101.
5. SRI G. OBALESH S/O KARAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O 7TH WARD, KUDLIGI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT-583101 6. SRI K. M. THIPPASWAMY, S/O K M SHARANAYYA AGED ABOUT 47 YEAS R/O KUDLIGI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT-583135 7. SMT. P. INDUMATHI D/O JAGAEESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O RAMANAGAR HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583101.
8. SRI H M KOTARAIAH S/O SOMASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583101.
9. SRI N S M SIDDALINGAIAH S/O NIMBALAGERI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O KUDLIGI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT-583135.
10. SRI B. KENCHAPPA, S/O LATE DURUGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O KANAMADUGU POST KUDLIGI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT-583135.
11. SRI M. SHANKARAPPA S/O LATE VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O KODIHALLI POST HARAPANAHALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001 12. SRI L. PARASHURAMA, S/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O 8TH WARD, HOSPET, BELLARY DISTRICT-583101.
13. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES CHITHRADURGA DISTRICT-577501.
14. SRI RANGANATHASWAMY PARISISHTA JATHI VIDYA SAMSTHE (REGISTERED) HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577526. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. SMT. MANJULA.
15. ONKARAPPA A. E., S/O ESHWARAPPA, AGED 47 YEARS, WORKING AS HEADMASTER SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE, HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
16. S. GURUBASAPPA S/O SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED 48 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
17. DEVARAJAPPA M., S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED 38 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
18. YATHIRAJA NAIK S S/O SAKRA NAIK AGED 38 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577526.
19. SMT.USHA B.T., W/O SURESH R.S. AGED 34 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577526.
20. T.S.PRAKASH, S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, MAJOR, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
21. MAHESHWARAPPA C.R. S/O PATEL RUDRAPPA, AGED 53 YEARS, WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
22. S.MURALI S/O SRIRAMAPPA, AGED 45 YEARS, WORKING AS CRAFT TEACHER SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
23. SRIDHARA S/O RANGAPPA, AGED 47 YEARS, WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
24. M.SHIVANANDAPPA S/O DYAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, WORKING AS HEAD MASTER, SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE, MALEBENNURU, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
25. SHANKARAMURTHY H.K.
S/O KADEMANE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE, MALEBENNURU, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
26. NAGARAJAPPA H.
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA A.K. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE, MALEBENNURU, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
27. SHIVAJI RAO H.P. S/O PEEROJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE, MALEBENNURU, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
28. MOHAMMED SHARIEF KHAN S/O AHMAD SAB, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA PROUDA SHALE, MALEBENNURU, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
29. MAHENDRAPPA V.B. S/O BASAPPA U AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA PROUDA SHALE, MALEBENNURU, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
30. HALASWAMY K.H. S/O PARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA PROUDA SHALE, MALEBENNURU, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
31. SRI SHANMUKHAPPA, S/O RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WORKING AS PEON.
SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE, HOLALAKERE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
32. SRI MALLAPPA THEERTHA, S/O SATHYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WORKING AS PEON SRI RANGANAGTHA SWAMY SAMAGRA SHIKSHANA VASATHIYUKTHA PROUDA SHALE, MALEBENNURU, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D.R. ANANDEESWAR, HCGP FOR R1-R13;
SRI G. F. HUNASIKATTIMATH, ADV., FOR C/R2, R4-R12; SRI R.S. RAVI, ADV., FOR SRI IRISLAND AHMED, ADV.,FOR R-14;
SRI D.S. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, ADV., FOR R15 TO R32; NOTICE TO R-3 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 22.2.2019) **** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED REPORT DATED 27.2.2013 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY ISSUE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTIONS AS THE CASE MAY BE.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Writ Petition Nos.19021-19036/2013 are filed by the teachers of Sri Ranganathaswamy Parisishta Jathi Vidya Samsthe (Registered). Writ Petition Nos.18762- 18777/2013 are filed by the aforesaid Vidya Samsthe/ Society and Writ Petition No.18825/2013 is filed by the President of the Society, for a writ of certiorari to quash the Order/report dated 27.02.2013 vide Annexure-A passed by the first respondent and to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in WP Nos.19021-36/2013, not to withdraw or negate the salary grant already given to the petitioners therein vide Annexures-V1 to V5.
2. It is the case of the petitioners in WP Nos.18762- 18777/2013 that the petitioner No.1- Society came to be registered on 27.07.1989 under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (‘Act’ for short). Smt. Puttamma, W/o Sathigaiah, petitioner in W.P.No.18825/2013 was the President of the said Society for the period from 1989 to 1997. She tendered her resignation in the year 1997. On 18.09.2002, again she became member of the Society. She became President of the Society during the period 2004-05. During the year 2005-06, Society submitted the executive body list to the District Registrar of Societies under Section 13 of the ‘Act’. In the year 2006, respondent Nos.3 to 13 in WP Nos.18762-77/2013 and some other candidates filed W.P. No. 5198/2006 challenging the acceptance of records filed by the Society before the Court. This Court, by the order dated 11.11.2008, dismissed the writ petition filed by petitioners 1 and 2 therein reserving liberty to petitioner Nos.3 to 20 to make one more representation to the Deputy Registrar of Societies, Chitradurga, within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. On such representation being made by those petitioners, the Deputy Registrar was directed to look into their grievance with regard to the disputed questions pertaining to their resignation and pass appropriate order.
3. The Deputy Registrar, instead of verifying whether the respondent Nos.2 to 13 have tendered resignation or not, conducted enquiry invoking Section 25(1) of the ‘Act’ and passed an order dated 21.07.2009 declaring that President-Smt.Puttamma, is not member of the Society and appointed an election officer to conduct election for the year 2004-05. Aggrieved by the same, the Society, the President-Smt. Puttamma and other employees of the schools challenged the said Order in W.P.Nos.23227-228/2009 and connected matters. This Court, by the order dated 07.12.2010, allowed the writ petitions and quashed the report submitted by the District Registrar and directed the Registrar to hold enquiry, afresh. Though the Society was a party in the writ petitions, the first respondent-Registrar of Cooperative Societies, instead of issuing notice to the Society, issued notice only to Smt.Puttamma calling upon her to appear for enquiry. On 27.02.2013, the Registrar passed an order holding that the Society is open for general members and directed to hold elections to the governing body as per the members list existed during the year 2003. Therefore, the petitioners are before this court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri R.S.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.18762-777/2013 mainly contended that the impugned order passed by the first respondent- Registrar of Cooperative Societies, is erroneous, contrary to the material on record and contrary to the direction issued by this Court on earlier occasion while remanding the matter and is in utter violation of Rule 8 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Rules, 1961 (‘Rules’ for short). He further contended that, before passing the impugned order/report, no notice was issued to the present petitioners and therefore, the same cannot be sustained. He further contended that this Court, in W.P. No. 5198/2006, while remanding the matter, permitted petitioner Nos.3 to 20 to make one more representation to the Deputy Registrar of Societies, Chitradurga, and directed the said Deputy Registrar to look into the grievance with regard to the disputed questions pertaining to their resignation. Before passing the impugned order/notice, the first respondent has not issued notice to any Directors or members of the Society including the Society. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petitions.
6. Sri D.S.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.19021-036/2013 and Sri V.R.Sarathy, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP No.18825/2013 sought to support the contentions of Sri R.S.Ravi, learned counsel, and sought to allow the writ petitions.
7. Per contra, Sri D.R.Anandeeswar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in WP Nos.18762-777/2013 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the first respondent and contended that the Registrar, considering the entire material on record, proceeded to pass the impugned order based on the entire material on record. The same is in accordance with law. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petitions.
8. Sri G.F.Hunasikattimath, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 13 in WP Nos.18762-77/2013 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the first respondent. Sri V.R.Sarathy, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.18825/2013 supported the arguments advanced by Sri R.S.Ravi and contended that the impugned order passed by the Registrar is in violation of Rule 8 of the ‘Rules’ and Section 25 of the ‘Act’.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is the specific case of the petitioners that before passing the impugned order, the first respondent has not followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 25(1) of the ‘Act’ and Rule 8 of the ‘Rules’. Careful perusals of the impugned order vide Annexure- A, reveals that there is no reference to the notice issued either to the Society or members or Directors of the Society, before passing the impugned Order.
10. Section 25 of the ‘Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960’ reads as under:
25. Enquiry by the Registrar etc.:
(1) The Registrar may on his own motion and shall on the application of the majority of the members of the governing body or of not less than one--third of the members of the society, hold an enquiry or direct some person authorised by him by order in writing in accordance with the rules made in this behalf to hold an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a registered society.
(2) The Registrar or the person authorised by him under sub--section (1) shall have the following powers, namely,--
(a) he shall, at all reasonable times, have free access to the books, accounts, documents, securities, cash and other properties belonging to or in the custody of the society and may summon any person in possession or responsible for the custody of any such books, accounts, documents, securities, cash or other properties to produce the same at any place at the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof;
(b) he may summon any person who, he has reason to believe, has knowledge of any of the affairs of the society to appear before him at any place at the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof and may examine such person on oath;
(c) (i) he may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any rule or regulation prescribing the period of notice for a general meeting of the society, require the governing body of the society to call a general meeting at such time and place at the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof and to determine such matters as may be directed by him. If the governing body of the society refuses or fails to call a meeting, he shall have power to call it himself;
(ii) any meeting called under sub--clause (i) shall have all the powers of a general meeting called under the rules or regulations of the society and its proceedings shall be regulated by such rules or regulations;
(iii) when an enquiry is made under this section, the Registrar shall communicate the result of the enquiry to the society concerned.
11. The provisions of Rule 8 of the ‘‘Karnataka Societies Registration Rules, 1961’, reads as under:
8. Enquiry by the Registrar.- (1) Where the Registrar proposed to hold an enquiry under section 25, either on his own motion or on an application, he or the person authorised by him under the said section to hold an enquiry shall issue notice to the society concerned in this behalf.
(2) The said notice shall specify a date on which, place in which and the time at which, as also the matters in respect of which the enquiry will be held. The notice shall also call upon the society to furnish its explanation in respect of matters referred to therein before the date specified in the notice.
(3) The Society shall furnish its explanation to the Registrar or the authorised person before such date.
(4) On the date fixed for the enquiry, or on such other date or dates to which the enquiry might be adjourned, the Registrar or the authorised person shall give the society a oral hearing. He may also examine such persons as may be considered necessary. He may receive any relevant document. If the society fails to furnish its explanation as required under sub-rule (3) or to attend the enquiry on the date fixed or the adjourned date, the Registrar or the authorised person may proceed with the enquiry ex-parte.
(5) On the completion of the enquiry, the Registrar or the authorised person shall record his findings and communicate the same to the society concerned.
12. A conjoint reading of both the provisions makes it clear that, where the Registrar proposed to hold an enquiry under Section 25, either suo motu or on an application, he or the person authorized by him under the Section to hold an enquiry shall issue notice to the Society concerned in this behalf. Issuance of notice is mandatory before proceeding under Section 25 of the ‘Act’. Admittedly, in the present case, the first respondent has not issued any notice to the Society concerned before passing the impugned order/report. On that short ground alone, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.
13. The Division Bench of this Court, while considering the provisions of Section 25 of the ‘Act’ and Rule ‘8’ of the Rules, in the case of A.S.Kupparaju vs. General Secretary, Raju Kshatriya Welfare Association reported in ILR 1990 KAR 3721, at paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 27, held as under:
8. As we have noticed earlier in the course of this Order, Section 25 of the Act fell for consideration by a learned single Judge of this Court in Mahila Seva Samaj's case (supra). The relevant portion of the order as reported in 1980(1) Karnataka Law Journal at page 327 on page 328 is to be found in paras 8 and 9 and it is as follows:
"8. Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Act that is material for deciding the controversy reads thus:
"The Registrar may on his own motion and shall on the application of the majority of the members of the governing body or of not less than one third of the members of the society, hold an enquiry or direct some person authorised by him by order in writing in accordance with the Rules made in this behalf to hold an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a registered society."
Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Act, authorises the Registrar to direct an enquiry on his own motion or suo motu when an application is made to him by the majority of the members of the governing body of a society or by not less than l/3rd of the members of a society. Whether a suo motu enquiry should be ordered or not, is a matter exclusively for the Registrar to decide. In such case, the Registrar has the discretion and power to order an enquiry or not to order an enquiry. For making such an order, it is open to the Registrar to rely on any information, reports available or collected by him or furnished, to him by any other person. When an application is made by the majority of members of the governing body of a society or by not less than l/3rd of the members of the society and if the Registrar is satisfied with either of those requirements, he has no discretion in the matter and is under a compulsive duty to order an enquiry into the affairs of a society. But, before ordering an enquiry in the latter cases, he must be satisfied that the majority of the members of the governing body or not less than l/3rd of the members have made an application before him.
9. Earlier I have found that the Registrar has made in his order only on the application made by the three members of the society and not on an application, if any, made by the majority of the members of the governing body. It is not the case of the respondents that the said three members constitute not less than l/3rd of the members of the society. By no stretch of imagination, it is possible to hold that the Registrar has ordered an enquiry suo motu or on his own motion. In these circumstances, the impugned order made by the Registrar is wholly without jurisdiction, manifestly illegal..."
9. We are satisfied that the learned Judge correctly analysed the import of Section 25 of the Act and reached the right conclusions. The fault if any is in a coma missing after 'suo motu' in para 8 before "when an application is made". That way one may misread the order to mean "suo motu when the application is made". That becomes clear when the learned Judge clearly states 'whether a suo moto enquiry should be ordered or not' in the following sentence. In other words the learned Judge has enumerated correctly the three occasions on which the Registrar is directed to hold an enquiry. They are:
"(i) suo motu or on his own;
(ii) when an application is made by the majority of the members of the governing body of the society, and (iii) when an application is made by not less than one-third of the members of the society."
10. The significant feature to notice in the exercise of the power to hold an enquiry or direct the holding of an enquiry is in the employment of the expressions "may" and "shall" in the language of Section 25(1) of the Act. May, occurring just before "on his own" clearly indicates the directory nature. That is, if and when he acts on his own upon or with reference to information or material gathered by him from whatever source or sources, he has the discretion to hold or not to hold an enquiry or direct the holding of it or not holding it by person authorised by him. On the other hand, if it is a case falling either under the second or the third occasion indicated by us, that discretion is taken away by the Legislature and the Registrar is mandated to hold the enquiry or direct the holding of it by person authorised by him. For this reason in Rule 8 of the Rules reference is made to the application that is required to be made relating to the latter two occasions when the power is to be exercised.
27. In the result, for the reasons given, we hold that the decision of this Court in the case of Mahila Seva Samaj And Anr. v. Registrar of Societies and ors. is correctly decided. But we add that when the Registrar acts suo motu or on his own upon whatever material available other than a complaint by Members of the Society or the Governing Body without the requisite majority prescribed to him to exercise his power under Section 25(1) of the Act, he must do so only after due application of mind and disclosure of material upon which he is acting and that must be explicit in the order he is required to make. Such an order cannot be capricious or without proper examination and investigation of the material upon which he proposes to act lest such action becomes arbitrary.
14. Learned single Judge of this Court, in the case of Kodava Samaj vs. District Registrar reported in ILR 1993 KAR 2715 at paragraphs 5 to 8, has held as under:
“5. It is quite clear that under Section 25(1) the proceeding can be initiated by the Registrar on his own motion or he shall initiate proceedings on the application of the majority of the members of the Governing Body or of not less than 1/3rd of the members of the Society. The enquiry may be held by him or by directing some other persons authorised by him to hold the enquiry. The enquiry is regarding constitution, working and financial condition of the society. The powers of Registrar or the authorised person under Section 25(1) are enumerated under Sub-section (2). One of the powers is a power given to the Registrar or the authorised person requiring the Governing Body of the society to call a General Meeting to determine such matters as may be directed by him. Though Mr. Karanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that Registrar has no power to direct the society to hold an election, it is not possible to accept this contention because an enquiry into the constitution and working of the registered society would include the enquiry into the propriety of continuation by a Working Committee and the need to elect a new committee if the existing working committee functions contrary to the bye-laws of the Society. Section 25(2)(c) should be read so as to include a power in the Registrar to direct the holding of the election to the General Body if the occasion demands.
6. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner is justified in his attack against the propriety of the initiation of the proceedings under Section 25 in the instant case. Admittedly the complainants were only a small fraction of the total strength of the society. Similarly, majority of the members of the Governing Body were not the complainants. Therefore the only other possibility is that the Registrar should have acted on his own motion; but nowhere the Registrar states that the proceedings were initiated on his own treating the complaint lodged with him as an information. This apart there is a procedural defect while making the order. In an enquiry under Section 25 the Registrar shall have to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 8. As per Rule 8(2) the notice is to be issued by the Registrar specifying the date on which, place in which and the time at which, the matters in respect of which the enquiry will be held. The notice shall have to be issued to the society concerned. In the instant case the notice shall have to be issued to the petitioner giving the particulars stated in Rule 8(2) so that the petitioner could have furnished its explanation in respect of the matters referred in the notice. Rule 8(3) and (4) provide the other stages of the enquiry culminating as per Rule 8(5) 7. Before issuing the notice the Registrar should be satisfied with the requirements of Section 25(1). In other words there should have been a proper application either by the majority of the members of the Governing Body or of not less than 1/3rd of the members of the Society. If such an application is not there then if the Registrar considers it a fit case to hold an enquiry, he must initiate action suo moto for which he must have some material before him. The principle applicable has been explained by a Bench of this Court in A.S. KUPPA RAJU v. GENERAL SECRETARY, RAJU KSHATRIAS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, . There is also another Decision reported in S. Srinivasa Rao v. Sub-Registrar (Headquarters), which points out the need to adhere strictly to the requirements of Section 25(1) before initiating any enquiry. Mr. A.K. Subbaiah, learned Counsel for the respondent-2, however contended that on the admitted facts the first respondent was justified in directing the society to hold the election.
8. The question is whether the first respondent who is a statutory functionary could make an order without taking into consideration the provisions of the Act. When a power is to be exercised in a particular manner, the law is firmly established that such a power should be exercised only as provided by law which has created the jurisdiction -vide RAMACHANDRA KESHAV ADKE (DEAD) by LRS. v. GOVINDJOTI CHAVARE AND ORS., . The means adopted should be as legal as the ultimate order made by the authority. In these circumstances it is not possible to sustain the impugned order. There is no material to indicate that a show cause notice under Rule 8 was issued to the petitioner Society in the instant case.
15. In view of the aforesaid provisions of Section 25 of the ‘Act’ and Rule ‘8’ of the ‘Rules’ and dictum of the Hon’ble Division Bench and coordinate Bench of this Court stated supra, it is the duty of the Registrar, before holding enquiry under Section 25 of the ‘Act’ to follow the provisions of Rule 8 of the ‘Rules’ and the Registrar should be satisfied with the requirement of Section 25(1) of the ‘Act’ before issuing notice. Admittedly in the present case, the Registrar has not followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 25(1) of the ‘Act’ and Rule 8 of the ‘Rules’. On that short ground alone, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
16. For the reasons stated above, all the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order/report passed by the Registrar is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the first respondent for reconsideration, afresh, after following the procedure contemplated under Section 25(1) of the ‘Act’ and Rule 8 of the ‘Rules’, strictly in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE kcm