IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.36772/2018 & WRIT PETITION No.38410/2018 & WRIT PETITION No.38413/2018 C/W WRIT PETITION Nos.36973-36977/2018(GM-KSR) IN WP Nos.36772/2018 & 38410/2018 & 38413/2018 BETWEEN:
1. RAJYA VOKKALIGARA SANGHA K R ROAD BANGALORE-560 004.
BY ITS TEMPORARY SECRETARY SRI H. M. NARAYAN MURTHY 2. DR. SHIVALINGAIAH FORMER VICE PRESIDENT AND PRESENTLY DIRECTOR RAJYA VOKKALIGARA SANGHA K R ROAD, V. V. PURAM, BANGALORE-560 004.
R/AT “THAVARU” 3RD CROSS, TAVAREGERE, MANDYA-571 400.
3. SRI H. M. NARAYANA MURTHY, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY PRESENTLY DISIGNATED AS TEMPORARY SECRETARY RAJYA VOKKALIGARA SANGHA K R ROAD, V. V. PURAM, BANGALORE-560 004. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI SRIKANTH. M.P., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY COOPERATION DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES 2ND CIRCLE, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT SAHAKARA SOUDHA8TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003.
3. SRI H. S. ASHOKANAND IAS (RETIRED), APPOINTED AS ADMINISTRATOR, RAJYA VOKKALIGARA SANGHA, K R ROAD, V. V. PURAM, BANGALORE-560 004 RESIDING AT NO.552, 2ND MAIN ROAD, BEML 5TH STAGE, JAWAHARLAL ROAD, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 098.
4. SRI S.T. RAJASHEKHAR, S/O LATE S.B. TANKE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, ADVOCATE, FORMER DIRECTOR OF RAJYA VOKKALIGARA SANGHA, R/A DEVALADAKERE VILLAGE, SAKLESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.
5. SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE SUBBANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, ADVOCATE, FORMER DIRECTOR OF RAJYA VOKKALIGARA SANGHA, R/A No.8 AND 9 RMV 2ND STAGE, NEW BEL ROAD, 7TH CROSS, KGE LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560094.
6. SRI S.N. GANGADHADARA S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RETIRED SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, R/A NO.8 AND 9, RMV II STAGE, NEW BEL ROAD, 7TH CROSS, KGE LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560094.
7. SRI K. PUTTANARASAPPA, S/O LATE KAMBEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP, R/A No.1766, 8TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, HAMPI NAGAR, VIJAYANAGARA, BANGALORE-560040.
8. SRI VINOD GOWDA, S/O THAMME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/O MALALURU VILLAGE AND POST, CHIKKAMANGALORE, MEMBER-64492.
9. SRI M. RAJAKUMAR, S/O LATE MALLIKARJUNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/A SAMBHRAMA NILAYA, VINAYAKA BADAVANE, JNANA BHARATHI POST, NAGADEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560056. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI D.R. ANANDEESWAR, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SRI D.N. NANJUNDAREDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI R. ANILKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI K.N. PUTTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R9) … THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2018 PASSED BY RESPONDENT-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-AB IN RELATION TO APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR TO THE 1ST PETITIONER SANGHA AND ETC.
IN WP Nos.36973-36977/2018 BETWEEN:
1. SRI M. L. SATISH, S/O LATE SRI LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.248, 10TH CROSS, ‘D’ BLOCK, SAHAKARA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560092.
2. SRI D. V. RAMESH, S/O SRI D. V. VENKATARAMANE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.A-904, APARNA ELINA, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU-560022.
3. SRI B. P. MANJEGOWDA, S/O LATE SRI PUTTASWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.2351/A, 2ND MAIN, 4TH CROSS HAMPINAGAR, RPC LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560040.
4. PROF. K. MALLIAH S/O LATE SRI KAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.324, 7TH MAIN, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BEHIND VIDYAPEETA BENGALURU-560085.
5. SRI K. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE SRI KEMPAGOLAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, TEJESWI NILAYA, GOTTIGE PALYA, NAGARBHAVI BENGALURU-560091. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI S.G. PRASHANTH MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SRIRANGA. S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERTATION VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES NO.1, ALI ASKER ROAD, BENGALURU-560052.
3. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY -CUM-DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES ZONE-II, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT SAHAKARA SOUDHA, 8TH CROSS ROAD, 3RD MAIN ROAD, MARGHOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU.
4. RAJYA VOKKALIGARA SANGHA, NO.148, K. R. ROAD, V. V. PURAM BENGALURU-560004.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 5. SRI H. S. ASHOKANAND IAS (RETD), ADMINISTRATOR, RAJYA VOKKALIGARA SANGHA NO.148, K. R. ROAD V. V. PURAM BENGALURU-560004. RESIDING AT NO.552, 2ND MAIN ROAD BEML, 5TH STAGE JAWAHARLAL ROAD, RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560098.
6. SRI S.T. RAJASHEKAR, S/O LATE S.B. TANKE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, ADVOCATE, FORMER DIRECTOR OF RAJYA VOKKALIGARA SANGHA, RESIDING AT DEVALADAKERE VILLAGE, SAKLESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.
7. SRI S.N. GANGADHARA SON OF LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RETIRED SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RESIDING AT NO.8 AND 9, RMV II STAGE, NEW BEL ROAD, 7TH CROSS, KGE LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560094.
8. SRI K. PUTTANARASAPPA, S/O LATE KAMBEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP, RESIDING AT No.1766, 8TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, HAMPI NAGAR, VIJAYANAGARA, BANGALORE-560040.
9. SRI VINOD GOWDA, SON OF THAMME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT MALALURU VILLAGE AND POST, CHIKKAMANGALORE, MEMBER-64492.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI D.R. ANANDEESWAR, HCGP FOR C/R-1;
MEMO OF APPEARANCE NOT FILED IN RESPECT OF R1 TO R3; SRI K.N. PUTTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R9) SRI M.P. SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI D.N. NANJUNDAREDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI R. ANILKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
….
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT-1 DATED 20.8.2018 [ANNEXURE-A] AND DECLARE THAT THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENT-1 STATE GOVERNMENT IN APPOINTING AN ADMINISTRATOR TO THE RESPONDENT-4 RAJYA VOKKALIGARA SANGHA IS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 27-A[1][c] OF THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners, who have filed Writ Petition Nos.36772/2018 & 38410/2018 & 38413/2018 are the Temporary Secretary, Director and Former Assistant Secretary of Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha and the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.36973-977/2018, are the Members of the Executive Committee of Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha.
2. The petitioners are before this Court for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned Government Order dated 20.8.2018 bearing No. Sa.e.112 Sa.Sum.No.2018, Bangalore, appointing an Administrator to the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha, and to declare that the action of the 1st respondent/State Government in appointing the Administrator to the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha is in violation of Section 27-A(1)(c) of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
I – THE FACTS OF THE CASE 3. It is the case of the petitioners that Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha (4th respondent in Writ Petition Nos.36973-977/2018) was originally registered as a Society under the provisions of the Mysore Societies Act on 9.9.1907. As per Rule 7 of the Bye-laws of the Sangha, the Executive Committee was formed and Directors were elected from 11 Districts and there are totally 35 Directors, who are elected and they constitute an Executive Committee. As per the provisions of Rule 7(3) of the Bye-laws, the Executive Committee shall elect two Presidents, one Joint Secretary, one Treasurer and one Assistant Secretary. In the Annual General Body Meeting held on 3.3.2002, the provisions of Rule 7(3)(a) came to be amended which provided for expressing ‘No Confidence Motion’ in respect of the office bearers and also the provisions provided 2/3rd majority of the members of the Executive Committee to vote in the ‘No Confidence Motion’.
4. In the meanwhile, ‘No Confidence Motion’ came to be moved on 27.12.2016 by 18 members which included displaced President Sri D.N. Bette Gowda and displaced Secretary Prof. M. Nagaraj and thereafter, two more Directors Sri T. Manohar and Dr. Renuka Prasad K.V. also supported the ‘No Confidence Motion’. On 2.1.2017, the then General Secretary Sri Ulloor C. Manjunath rejected the request to convene a meeting and ultimately a writ petition came to be filed before this Court and this Court by the order dated 17.1.2017 dismissed the same with certain observations. Then the petitioners issued a notification indicating that the elections to the post of Office Bearers will be held on 20.8.2018 and though the election was scheduled to be held at 12 noon, the impugned order came to be issued at 11 a.m. by which time, the Administrator – 3rd respondent had already taken charge of the said Sangha.
5. Since the previous election for constituting Executive Committee was conducted on 5.1.2014 and the term of office was supposed to end on 4.9.2019, steps were taken to conduct elections before the expiry of the date, but the petitioners and other members were shocked to learn that the 1st respondent-State Government has issued the Government Order on 20.8.2018 for appointment of Administrator to the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court for the relief as sought for.
II- STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT 6. The State Government has filed its statement of objections in both the writ petitions contending that the petitioners have suppressed the material facts and have not come to the Court with clean hands and hence the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts. Admittedly, the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha has held only one General Body Meeting in the last 7 years and for the years 2012-2018 only one General Body Meeting was held on 11.12.2016. No General Body Meeting was held thereafter even during the period from 2012 to 2016 and 2016 to 2018 which is contrary to the provisions of Section 11 of the Act.
7. The respondents have further contended that the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha has to comply with the provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws. Admittedly, the General Body Meeting has not been held since 2016 and the audited accounts have not been filed with the Registrar which is contrary to the provisions of Section 13 of the Act and Bye-laws of the Sangha. It is further contended that the Sangha has sent notice for the election to be held on 20.8.2018. They have further contended that Annexure-AA is a fabricated document which is apparent from the fact that the petitioners in writ petition Nos. 36973-977/2018 have not whispered about any such notice for holding any such election, etc., and even the variation in the dates in the pleadings and the documents also indicate that such notice for election was never sent. It is further contended that petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.36772/2018 is shown to be Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha represented by Temporary Secretary. When once the Administrator is appointed under Section 27-A of the Act, the Governing Body of the Society shall cease to exercise any powers and perform or discharge any duty conferred or imposed on it under the Act or the memorandum of association or bye-laws of the Society. Hence, it is contended that the Society can be represented only by the Administrator and not by the Temporary Secretary as claimed. Therefore, the writ petitions are bad for misjoinder of parties and therefore, are liable to be rejected.
8. It is further contended that all these writ petitions are filed challenging the Government Order dated 20.8.2018 mainly on the ground that the impugned order is passed without hearing the petitioners and without enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of Section 27-A(1)(c) of the Act and the petitioners have deliberately not referred to Section 27-A(1)(a) of the Act which specifies that an Administrator can be appointed, in case the Society has not held the Annual General Body Meeting.
9. It is further contended that the provisions of Section 11 of the Act specifies that every year every Society shall hold a general meeting called the Annual General Meeting. Even Bye-law No.17 of the Sangha, which is a Society, registered under the Act also specifies that a General Meeting of the Society shall be called every year in the month of June, in which the audited accounts shall be placed and approval thereof shall be taken from the General Meeting. It is contended that in the present case, the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha has not held general meeting during the years 2011 to 15 and 2016 to 2018. During the years 2012 to 2018, which is a period of 7 years, only one general meeting was held on 11.12.2016. Though two years have elapsed since then, no general meeting was held. In view of the same, it is contended that, having regard to the provisions of Section 27- A(1)(a) of the Act, the State Government is empowered to appoint an Administrator.
10. The respondents further contended that though the petitioners contend that the State Government while passing the impugned order has not followed the principles of natural justice and no enquiry was held, the enquiry has to be contemplated when an order is being passed under Section 27-A(1)(c) of the Act and not in a case which falls within the ambit of Section 27A- (1)(a) of the Act. Admittedly, the present case falls under the provisions of Section 27-A(1)(a) of the Act and therefore, the contention with regard to question of hearing the petitioners or holding an enquiry does not arise at all.
11. The respondents have denied the further averments made in the writ petitions and contended that, after passing of the impugned order by the State Government appointing an Administrator, the Administrator has taken charge on 21.8.2018 and is being discharging his duties/functions ever since then. In fact, during the academic year 2017-2018, the fees collected from the first year MBBS students in respect of the management seats of the medical college run by the Sangha, was Rs.five crores, whereas, after the Administrator took charge on 21.08.2018, the fee collected from the students of the first year MBBS course is, Rs.10,83,58,500/-, which clearly indicates that there has been gross mismanagement, misfeasance and misuse of funds and the conduct of the petitioners, who are the Members of the Executive Committee of the Sangha has been wholly unfair. That apart, there have been host of complaints lodged by the students and their parents regarding the gross misconduct and corruption by the Members of the Executive Committee. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief and hence sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
12. During pendency of the present writ petitions, an application was filed by the impleading applicants seeking permission to implead themselves and to come on record as respondent Nos.4 to 9. After hearing the parties, this Court by the order dated 28.11.2018 allowed the application and permitted the proposed impleading applicants to come on record as respondent Nos.4 to 9, who have also filed their written submission reiterating the objections filed by the State Government contending that, the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha has committed several mismanagement, misfeasance and misuse of funds, against the interest of the Sangha while admitting the students to the Medical College run by the Sangha for the First Year MBBS Course and there has been host complaints lodged by the students and their parents regarding the gross misconduct and corruption by the Executive Committee Members. The Office bearers of the Sangha and its Executive Committee Members have collected entire admission fees fixed by the Government from the MBBS students and inspite of collecting entire admission fees from students for the respective academic year, they have not deposited the entire amount to the account of the Sangha. They have remitted only a part of the amount and retained the balance amount with themselves with an undertaking that they will remit the same at a later stage. But till now, they have not remitted the same. Hence, the Sangha-Institution has suffered huge loss of money. In those context, some of the students, who have been admitted in excess than the quota fixed by the Government for Medical Courses by misleading them for extraneous consideration and when their admissions were not approved by the MCI/University, had also approached this Court and this Court had passed strictures on the Management of the Institution by imposing penalty of Rs. Three Crores which shows that the Managing Committee is not protecting the interest of the Institution/Sangha and there are criminal cases registered against some of the Office Bearers or Directors. Therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petitions.
III- ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES 13. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.
14. Sri M.P. Srikanth, learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.36772/18 and 38410/2018 and 38413/2018 contended that the District Registrar submitted a report on 20.8.2018 and on the same day, the State Government has passed the impugned order appointing the Administrator without even giving any notice and an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, which cannot be sustained. He further contended that in view of the provisions of Section 27A (1)(a) to (c) of the Act, before appointing an Administrator, enquiry has to be held and hence, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is in utter violation of the said provisions of the Act. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained. He would further contend that, the State Government, before passing any orders on the report of the Registrar, ought to have held an enquiry, which is mandatory. The same is not done and hence, he sought to quash the impugned order by allowing the writ petitions.
15. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments:
1) Sri Srinivasa Educational Society., Regd. , Gnana Tharagini Girls High School, Hoskote –vs- The Chief Secretary, Youth and Education Department, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore and Others reported in (1980 ) 1 KLJ 376- para-2;
2) Peoples Education Society Belgaum – vs- State of Karnataka reported in 1979(2) KLJ 343 para-4 to the effect that the former members of the Institution can maintain a writ petition;
3) Vidyodaya Vidya Peetha Education Society by its Secretary and Others – vs- State of Karnataka and Others reported in 2001(2) KCCR 1118 Paras 9 and 10;
4) Sri V. Narayanaswamy and Another –vs- State of Karnataka and Others reported in 2004(1) KCCR 204 with regard to maintainability of the writ petition – Paras 5 and 7.
16. Sri S.G. Prashanth Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.36973-977/2018, while adopting the arguments advanced by Sri M.P. Srikanth, contended that, the impugned order passed by the State Government appointing an Administrator is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:
i) Muniswamy K. and Others –vs- State of Karnataka and Others reported in 2015(1) KLJ 461;
ii) State Bank of Patiala and Others –vs-
S.K. Sharma reported in (1996)3 SCC 304 para 28;
iii) Noida Enterpreneurs Association –vs- Noida and Others reported in (2011) 6 SCC 508 –paras 27 and 28; and iv) Peoples Education Society Belgaum –vs- State of Karnataka and Others reported in 1979(2) KLJ 343 para-3.
17. Per contra, Sri Udaya Holla, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, reiterating the averments made in the statement of objections, vehemently contended that, in view of the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Act, the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha has to hold General Body Meeting every year and submit audit accounts every year as per the provisions of Section 12 of the Act and Bye-laws of the Sangha. But admittedly the Sangha has conducted only one General Meeting for the last seven years i.e., on 11.12.2016 and no General Body Meeting was held thereafter even during the period from 2012 to 2016 and 2016 to 2018. The audited accounts of the Sangha has also not been placed before the General Body Meeting for the last five years, though it is mandatory under the provisions of the Act and Bye-laws of the Sangha. There are innumerable complaints of misfeasance, malversation and corruption against several Executive Members of the Sangha.
18. He further contended that, based on the said failure on the part of the Sangha and on the report submitted by the Registrar, the State Government considering the entire material on record, has proceeded to pass the impugned order exercising powers under the provisions of Section 27-A(1)(a) and not under Section 27-A(1)(c) of the Act, as contended by the petitioners. Therefore, it is contended that an enquiry is contemplated only when an order is being passed under Section 27-A(1)(c) and not in the case which falls within the ambit of Section 27-A(1)(a) of the Act. Admittedly the General Meeting was not held by the petitioners for the last two years and for five years during the period 2012 to 2016. So also the audited accounts have not been placed before the General Meeting as contemplated under the provisions of Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act and the bye-laws of the Sangha which specifies that every year there should be a General Body Meeting and audited accounts have to be placed before the general meeting. Therefore, the question of hearing the petitioners or holding an enquiry does not arise at all.
19. He would further contend that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts of the case. He also invited attention of the Court to the Bye-law No.7 where the Working Committee of the Sangha has been constituted and its duties are specified under Bye-law Nos.9, 10, 12 and 17(1) of the Sangha. He further contended that the petitioners in W.P.No.36772/2018 have not been authorized either under the Act or Bye- laws of the Sangha and therefore, the writ petitions filed by them are not maintainable. He further contended that no rejoinder is filed by the petitioners to the allegations made in the statement of objections or in respect of the reasons assigned by the State Government in the impugned order while appointing the Administrator. He would further contend that the petitioners in W.P.Nos.36973-977/2018 are the Members of the Executive Committee, who are tainted and violated the provisions of Sections 11,12, 13 and 15 of the Act as well as the Bye-laws of the Sangha. The petitioners have admitted in Annexures-F and G that they have not followed the provisions of the Act and Bye-laws.
20. In support of his contentions, learned Advocate General appearing for the State has relied upon the following judgments:
i) M.C. Mehta –VS- Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1999 SC 2583 Para 21;
ii) Ram Krishna Verma and Others –vs- State of U.P. and Others reported in (1992) 2 SCC 620 Para 16;
iii) Union of India –vs- Alok Kumar reported in (2010) 5 SCC 349; Paras-83 and 85;
iv) Dharampal Satyapal Limited –vs- Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519 Paras-
38, 39 and 47.
v) Nilesh Kumar, Sonali Kumari –vs- State of Karnataka and Others reported in ILR 2013 Kar. 1555 Paras 10.1 to 10.9 vi) M.P. Mittal –vs- State of Haryana and Others reported in (1984) 4 SCC 371 Para-5;
vii) T.N. Rugmani and Another –vs- C. Achutha Menon and Others reported in 1991 Supp (1) SCC 520; and viii) Kishore Samrite –vs- State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2013)2 SCC 398.
Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petitions.
21. Sri K.N. Putte Gowda, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 9, while adopting the arguments addressed by the State, contended that all the petitioners, who are the Directors of the Sangha have not come to the Court with clean hands, mind and heart and are not entitled to any relief as sought for and the petitioners have not conducted Annual General Body Meeting and had also not placed audited accounts as contemplated under the provisions of Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act and the Members of the Managing Committee have misused the amount received towards admission fees for MBBS Course, Dental Courses, Graduation Courses by remitting only part of the amount and retaining the balance of the amount, thereby the Sangha has suffered huge loss of money. He further contended that while admitting the students for MBBS Course, they have violated the norms of MCI University by admitting excess students by misleading them for extraneous consideration and those students had approached this Court, wherein this Court passed strictures against the Management of the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha by imposing penalty of Rs.Three Crores which clearly depicts that the Managing Committee is not protecting the interest of the Sangha and there are criminal cases filed against the Office Bearers and Directors of the Sangha for cheating the NRI students. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petitions.
IV- CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ADMINISTRATOR 22. Sri Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Administrator sought to justify the impugned order passed by the State Government appointing the Administrator and contended that the State Government has appointed the Administrator mainly on the ground that the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha has not followed the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act and has not conducted the Annual General Meeting for the last seven years and only one General Body Meeting is conducted for the years 2012-18 on 11.12.2016 and have not submitted audited accounts as contemplated under the Act. Therefore, based on the report of the Registrar, the State Government has come to the conclusion that the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha has violated the mandatory procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Sections 11, 12 and 13 and Bye- law No.17(1) of the Sangha and therefore, has proceeded to appoint the Administrator under the provisions of Section 27-A(1)(a) of the Act. Hence he contended that the question of issuing notice to the petitioners would not arise.
23. He would further contend that the impugned order appointing the Administrator made on 20.8.2018 is for a period of 6 months. Accordingly, the Administrator took charge on 21.8.2018 and four months have already been elapsed. After taking charge, the Administrator has collected about Rs.10,83,58,500/- (Rupees Ten Crores Eighty Three Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand and Five Hundred only) towards fee, from the students who have been admitted for the I Year MBBS course in the Medical College run by the Sangha. Whereas, during the last academic year, i.e., prior to the appointment of the Arbitrator, the fee collected from the students of the Ist year MBBS course was only Rs. Five Crores, which clearly depicts that there has been gross mismanagement, misfeasance and misuse of funds. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petitions.
V - POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 24. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration in the present writ petitions are:
i) Whether the impugned order passed by the State Government is under the provisions of Section 27-A(1)(a) or Section 27-A(1)(c) of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960?
ii) Whether the petitioners have made out any case to interfere with the impugned order passed in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the facts and circumstances of the present case?
VI - CONSIDERATION 25. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record, carefully.
26. It is the case of the petitioners in all these writ petitions that, the State Government has proceeded to pass the impugned order appointing Administrator based on the report without holding any enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of Section 27-A(1)(c) of the Act, raising various grounds. It is the specific case of the respondents that the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha has not conducted the General Body Meeting for the last 7 years and not submitted the audited accounts as contemplated under the provisions of Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act and the Bye-laws of the Sangha. The entire case of the respondents is that on the basis of the report to the effect that the Sangha has violated the provisions of Sections 11, 12, 13 and 15 of the Act and Bye-laws of the Sangha, the State Government has proceeded to appoint the Administrator exercising the powers under the provisions of Section 27-A(1)(a) of the Act and therefore, the question of issuing notice for enquiry does not arise.
27. As can be seen from the prayer sought in both the writ petitions, the petitioners have sought to quash the impugned order appointing the Administrator mainly on the ground that the respondents neither have issued notice nor have held enquiry and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.
28. The second prayer in W.P.Nos.36973-977/2018 is to declare that the action of the 1st respondent in appointing the Administrator to the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha is in violation of Section 27-A(1)(c) of the Act.
29. A careful reading of the pleadings in both the writ petitions clearly depicts that it is not the case of the petitioners that the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha has conducted General Body Meeting every year as contemplated under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act and submitted audited accounts before the General Body Meeting under Section 12 of the Act as well as under the Bye-Laws. It is the specific case of the respondents that the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha has violated the provisions of Sections 11, 12, 13 and 15 of the Act and Bye-laws of the Sangha. It is an admitted fact that for the last seven years, no General Meeting was held or audited accounts has been placed before the General Body Meeting for approval. It is also not the case of the petitioners or the Sangha that the Registrar has not at all held any enquiry under Section 25 of the Act before submitting the report.
30. On careful reading of the entire pleadings, there is no specific allegation against the Government that the Government has passed the impugned order appointing the Administrator with malafide intention and the entire case of the petitioners is under the provisions of Section 27-A(1)(c) of the Act.
31. To understand better the case of the parties, it is relevant to consider the provisions of Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act which read as under:
“11. General meeting.- (1) Every society registered under this Act shall hold every year a general meeting called the annual general meeting at which the report of the management of the society for the previous year together with an audited copy of the balance sheet, income and expenditure account and the auditor’s report shall be submitted for approval.
(2) The first annual general meeting shall be held by a society within eighteen months of its registration. The next annual general meeting of the society shall be held within nine months after the expiry of the year in which the first annual general meeting was held; and thereafter an annual general meeting shall be held within nine months after the expiry of each year:
Provided that the Registrar may, for any special reason, extend the time within which an annual general meeting shall be held, by a further period not exceeding six months:
Provided further that except in the case referred to in the preceding proviso not more than eighteen months shall elapse between the date of one annual general meeting and that of the next.
(3) A special general meeting may be convened at any time on the requisition of the president or the chairman, if any, of the governing body, or on the requisition of not less than one-third of the number of members of the governing body, or one-tenth of the total number of members of the society, entitled to vote who shall state in writing the business for which they wish the meeting to be convened and the governing body shall, within ten days from the date of the receipt of the requisition, proceed duly to call a meeting for the consideration of the business stated on a day not later than forty days from the date of the receipt of the requisition.
(4) If a member has no registered address in India and has not supplied to the society an address within India for the giving of notice to him, a notice advertised in a newspaper in Kannada and in a newspaper in English or any other language circulating in the neighbourhood of the registered office of the society shall be deemed to be duly given to him on the day on which the advertisement appears in the newspaper.
12. Accounts.- (1) The governing body of every society registered under this Act shall keep at the registered office of the society or at such other place in the State as the governing body thinks fit, proper books of account with respect to,— (a) all sums of money received and expended by the society and the matters in respect of which the receipt and expenditure takes place;
(b) all sales and purchases of goods by the society; and (c) the assets and liabilities of the society.
(2) Every balance sheet of a society shall give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the society as at the end of the year and every income and expenditure account shall give a true and fair view of the excess of income over expenditure, or excess of expenditure over income, of the society for the year.
[(3) In the case of a society the accounts of which are made up with the previous sanction of the Registrar to any date other than the 31st day of December, the first balance sheet and the first income and expenditure account of such society after such previous sanction is accorded shall, for the purposes of sub-section (2), be for such period as the Registrar may specify in the order according previous sanction.
13. Balance sheet and annual list of governing body to be filed with Registrar.- On or before the fourteenth day succeeding the day on which the annual general meeting of a society is held, there shall be filed with the Registrar a list of the names, addresses and occupations of the members of the governing body then entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society and a copy of the balance sheet and income and expenditure account audited by a person who under section 226 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Central Act 1 of 1956), can act as an auditor of companies registered in the State of Karnataka.
Provided that if for any sufficient reason a society has not filed the list of members of governing body and a copy of balance sheet and income and expenditure account on or before the fourteenth day of the Annual General Body meeting of the Society it may make an application to the Registrar to condone the delay and permit to file the records and the Registrar may if he is satisfied that there are sufficient reasons for the delay in filing such records, condone the delay and permit the society to file such records subject to payment of fine as may be prescribed and where no sufficient reasons are shown, he may after giving an opportunity of being heard to the society reject the application and return such records to the society:
Provided further that, where a society has failed to file such records for a consecutive period of five years, the Registrar, may after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the society, by an order cancel the registration of such society and direct dissolution of the society, and thereupon the assets of the society shall be distributed, and the liabilities discharged in the same manner as if the society had been dissolved under section 22.
Explanation: For the purpose of this proviso, where the application filed by a society to condone the delay in filing records for any year is rejected and the records are returned under the first proviso, such society shall be deemed to have failed to file records for that year. “ 30. By a plain reading of the said provisions makes it clear that every Society registered under the Act shall hold every year a general meeting called the annual general meeting at which the report of the management of the society for the previous year together with an audited copy of the balance sheet, income and expenditure account and the auditor’s report shall be submitted for approval. The first annual general meeting shall be held by a society within eighteen months of its registration. The next annual general meeting of the society shall be held within nine months after the expiry of the year in which the first annual general meeting was held; and thereafter an annual general meeting shall be held within nine months after the expiry of each year. The governing body of every society registered under this Act shall keep at the registered office of the society or at such other place in the State as the governing body thinks fit, proper books of account with respect to all sums of money received and expended by the society and the matters in respect of which the receipt and expenditure takes place, all sales and purchases of goods by the society and the assets and liabilities of the society. Every balance sheet of a society shall give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the society as at the end of the year and every income and expenditure account shall give a true and fair view of the excess of income over expenditure, or excess of expenditure over income, of the society for the year. In the case of a society the accounts of which are made up with the previous sanction of the Registrar to any date other than the 31st day of December, the first balance sheet and the first income and expenditure account of such society after such previous sanction is accorded shall, for the purposes of Sub-section (2), be for such period as the Registrar may specify in the order according previous sanction. The balance sheet and annual list of governing body to be filed with Registrar on or before the fourteenth day succeeding the day on which the annual general meeting of a society is held. In view of the aforesaid provisions, conducting General Body Meeting, submitting accounts and balance sheet are mandatory.
33. The Bye-laws of the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha produced by the petitioners as per Annexure-B in W.P.No.36772/2018 i.e., the Terms (‘Nibandhanegalu’) as per Bye-law Nos.9 and 10, Duties of Adhyaksha as per Bye-law No. 12(4) and (7) Meeting of the Members as per Bye-law No.17(1) read as under:
“¤§AzÀs£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ:
9. PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ¸À«ÄwUÀ¼À PÀvÀðªÀåUÀ¼ÀÄ:
1. ¸ÀAWÀzÀ PÀlÖqÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÁSÉUÀ¼À PÀlÖqÀUÀ¼ÀÄ, D¹Û, ZÀgÀ-¹ÜgÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ, ºÀt oÉêÀt EªÀÅUÀ¼À£É߯Áè PÁ¥ÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
2. ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÁSÉAiÀÄ DzÁAiÀÄ-ªÉZÀÑ, ¯ÉÃuÉ-zÉsÃuÉ ªÀUÉÊgÉ J¯Áè ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀézÀ ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀªÀ£ÀÄß PæÀªÀĪÁV EqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
3. ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÁSÉUÀ¼À «²µÀÖ DzÀ½vÀzÀ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ®Æè dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆvÀÄÛ ¤ªÀð»¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
4. ¥æÀwªÀµÀð DSÉÊgÁzÀ PÀÆqÀ¯É DAiÀiÁ ªÀµÀðzÀ ¯ÉPÀÌUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁr¹ DrmïgÀªÀjAzÀ ¥Àj±ÉÆâü¹zÀ ¯ÉPÀÌUÀ¼À£ÀÄß Drmï ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀªÀð¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£ÉUÉ EqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
5. ¸ÀAWÀzÀ »vÀ¢AzÀ DUÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ RZÀÄðUÀ½UɯÁè C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
10. CzÀsåPÀëgÀ PÀvÀðªÀåUÀ¼ÀÄ:
1. ¸ÀAWÀzÀ CxÀªÁ ±ÁSÉAiÀÄ J¯Áè PÁAiÀÄ𠤪ÀðºÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J¯Áè «ZÁgÀUÀ¼À°èAiÀÄÆ ¥æÀzsÁ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðAiÀĪÀjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¸À®ºÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀðºÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
2. PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ wêÀiÁð£ÀPÉÌ M¼À¥ÀlÖAvÉ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ CxÀªÁ ±ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¹§âA¢ ºÀtPÁ¸ÀÄ DzÁAiÀÄ-ªÀåAiÀÄ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ EªÀÅUÀ¼À «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð C¢üPÁgÀªÀ¤ßlÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ DqÀ½vÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀqɸÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
3. vÀÄvÀÄð RZÀÄð ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV §AzÁUÀ° CªÀ±ÀåªÁV RZÀÄð ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁUÀ° `1,00,000/-
gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀªÀgÉUÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. ºÁUÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÝPÉÌ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ¸À«Äw ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è PÀqÁØAiÀĪÁV M¦àUÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ.
4. J¯Áè ¸À¨sÉUÀ¼À°èAiÀÄÆ CzÀsåPÀëvÉ ªÀ»¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀsåPÀëvÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀªÀ¤ßÃAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ J¯Áè £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÉPÁqÀÄð ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸À¨ÉsAiÀÄ F £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄA¢£À ¸À¨sÉUÉ PÀqÁØAiÀĪÁV MzÀV¹ M¦àUÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ.
5. ¸ÀAWÀzÀ°è vÀÄvÁðV DUÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ PÉ®¸ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ SÁ° ©zÀÝ PÉ®¸ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨sÀwð ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. »ÃUÉ vÀÄvÁðV ªÀiÁr¹zÀ PÉ®¸ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀAUÁ«ÄAiÀiÁV SÁ° PÉ®¸ÀUÀ½UÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÉêÀÄPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ¸À«Äw UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ PÀqÁØAiÀĪÁV vÀgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
6. CzÀsåPÀëgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G¥ÁzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ ¸À¨sÉUÉ UÉÊgÀĺÁdgÁzÀ°è ºÁdjgÀĪÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ ¥ÉÊQ M§âgÀ£ÀÄß CzsÀåPÀëgÀ£ÁßV Dj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ CA¢£À ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðPÀ¯Á¥ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
(C) CzÀsåPÀëgÀ PÁAiÀÄ𠤪ÀðºÀuÉ: PÉÃAzæÀ ¸ÀAWzÀ À PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¢£À¤vÀåzÀ PÉ®¸ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀĸÀÆvæÀªÁV £ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä J¯Áè ¹§âA¢AiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É CzsÀåPÀëjUÉ ºÀvÉÆÃn EgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. CzsÀåPÀëgÀ C¢üãÀzÀ°è ¥ÀÆuÁðªÀ¢üAiÀÄ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁj (Executive Officer)AiÀÄÆ EgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ M¦àUÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ £ÉëĹPÉƼÀÀÄzÀÄ. EªÀjUÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¸ÀA¨sÁªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ¸À«Äw ¤zsÀðj¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. EªÀgÀ CªÀ¢ü CzsÀåPÀëgÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ ¹Ã«ÄvÀªÁVgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.
(D) f¯Áè ¸À«ÄwUÀ¼ÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÁAiÀÄ𠤪ÀðºÀuÉAiÀÄAvÉ EgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
12 ¥æÀzsÁ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ±ÁSÉAiÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðAiÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀåUÀ¼ÀÄ:
4. ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ CzÀsåPÀëgÀ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ PÉÆÃlÄð PÀbÉÃjUÀ¼À°è J¯Áè ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀqɸÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
7. ¥æÀzsÁ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðAiÀĪÀgÀ UÉÊgÀÄ ºÁdjAiÀÄ°è CªÀgÀ PÀvÀðªÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð ¤ªÀð»¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
17. ¸ÀªÀð ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ ¸À¨sÉ.:
¸ÀªÀð ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ vÁjÃR£ÀÄß 21 ¢ªÀ¸ÀUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄAZÉAiÉÄà ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ «¼Á¸ÀPÉÌ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. EAvÀºÀ ¸ÀªÀð ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ ¸À¨ÉsAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥æÀw ªÀµÀðªÀÇ dÆ£ï ªÀiÁºÉAiÀÄ°è PÀgÉAiÀÄvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. »ÃUÉ PÀgÉzÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è DqÀ½vÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÆß DrlgïgÀªÀjAzÀ ¥Àj±ÉÆ¢ü¸À®àlÖ ¯ÉPÀÌUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ¸À«ÄwAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ElÄÖ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ M¦àUÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ. ¤§AzsÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ «±ÉõÀ ¸ÀªÀð¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ C£ÀĪÀÄwUÉ M¼À¥ÀnÖzÉ.”
34. By a reading of the said Bye-laws makes it clear that, it is the duty of the Office Bearers to protect the branches, buildings, both moveable and immoveable, fixed deposits and maintain the income and expenditures, assets and liabilities and all books of Membership should be maintained properly. They shall have to take special responsibility in respect of admission also and at the end of every year, they shall have to submit the annual audit accounts of the auditor in the General Body Meeting for approval. They also have to obtain the approval for the expenses incurred on behalf of the Sangha.
35. Bye-law 17(1) of the Sangha specifically depicts that the Annual General Meeting shall be conducted after giving 21 days notice to all the Members and the meeting shall be called every year in the month of June and after such meeting, audited accounts shall be placed before the Committee which has to be approved in the Special General Meeting.
36. In view of the aforesaid provisions of the Act and Bye-laws of the Sangha, it is clear that the petitioners have neither followed the procedure nor have conducted the General Body Meeting or have placed the audited accounts of the Sangha before the General Body Meeting every year. Admittedly, the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha has held only one General Body Meeting for the last 7 years and for the years 2012-2018 only one General Body Meeting was held on 11.12.2016 and no General Body Meeting was held thereafter. So also, the audited accounts of the Sangha have not been placed before the General Body Meeting for the last five years as mandated in terms of the provisions of Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act, Memorandum of Association and Bye-laws of the Sangha. Therefore, the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha has violated the provisions of the Act and the Bye-laws stated supra.
37. In view of the above, the Registrar of the Societies has conducted the enquiry and submitted the report. Based on the said report and in view of the admitted facts, the State Government has proceeded to appoint the Administrator to the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha exercising the powers under the provisions of Section 27-A(1)(a) of the Act and not under the provisions of Section 27-A(1)(c) of the Act as alleged in both the writ petitions. Therefore, the question of issuing notice to the petitioners and holding enquiry does not arise.
38. It is also relevant to state at this stage that the petitioners in W.P.Nos.36973-977/2018 at para-11.8 in categorical terms have admitted that they have not followed the mandatory provisions of Act and Bye-laws of the Sangha, which read as under:
“11.8 The 4th Respondent – Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha has been submitting the Audited Accounts, Balance Sheet, Income & Expenditure Accounts to the competent Authorities as required under Section 13 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, Though, there was a delay in submitting the Audited Accounts for the period 2013-14, 2014-15, the said delay was condoned considering the sufficient cause shown by the 4th Respondent - Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha. However, the Audited Accounts for the period 2014-15 and 2015-16 could not be submitted in as much as the same was required to be placed before the General Body Meeting for taking approval. Indeed, the 4th Respondent – Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha had convened General Body Meeting on 25.02.2018, however, the same could not take place due to unavoidable circumstances and in view of the Political interference. In that view of the matter, the Audited Accounts for the period 2014-15 and 2015-16 could not be submitted to the competent Authorities. However, the Petitioners herein submit that the Audited Accounts including the period 2016-17 are kept ready for submission and the same will be submitted in due course, immediately, after obtaining the approval of the General Body. Under such circumstances, non-submission of Audited Accounts alone cannot be a ground for appointing an Administrator to the 4th Respondent – Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha.”
39. It is also relevant to state at this stage that the petitioners, who are the members of the Executive Committee in W.P.Nos.36973-977/2018 have admitted the violation of the provisions of the Act and Bye-laws as per Annexure-F dated 3.4.2017 and Annexure-G dated 31.8.2017, letter written by the President of Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha to the Registrar of the Societies.
40. In the absence of any pleadings in both the writ petitions that the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha has followed the procedure as contemplated in consonance with the provisions of Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act and in terms of the Bye-laws of the Sangha and in view of the specific allegations made in the impugned order passed by the State Government while appointing the Administrator as well as in the statement of objections, that the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha has not conducted the Annual General Body Meeting for the last seven years and not submitted any audited accounts for the last five years, the same are in utter violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act and Bye-laws stated supra. Therefore, the case of the petitioners squarely falls within the provisions of Section 27-A(1)(a) of the Act. The State Government, who is the competent authority under the provisions of Section 27-A of the Act, keeping all these relevant factors and based on the material, has proceeded to invoke the provisions of Section 27-A(1)(a) of the Act by appointing an Administrator for a period of six months with a direction to conduct and complete the elections and hand over the charge to the newly elected body strictly in compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 27-A of the Act.
41. The petitioners themselves have categorically admitted in the pleadings of the writ petitions as well as Annexures that they have not conducted the General Body Meeting and have failed to produce any authenticated documents to substantiate their stand that they have conducted General Body Meeting. When they failed to call for General Body Meeting for the last seven years and have not submitted the annual accounts for more than 5 years, now it is not open for them to take a hyper technical ground that the State Government ought to have given a personal hearing to them and conducted proper enquiry before passing the impugned order. The object is to ensure a fair hearing, a fair deal to a person whose rights are going to be affected. Accordingly, in view of the admitted violations by the petitioners themselves in the pleadings, question of holding enquiry as alleged under the provisions of Section 27-A(1)(c) of the Act would not arise as the State Government has proceeded to pass the impugned order only under the provisions of Section 27-A(1)(a) of the Act and not under Section 27-A(1)(c) of the Act. The same is in accordance with law.
42. It is also not in dispute that the elections of the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha was held on 5.1.2014, as admitted by the petitioners in W.P.Nos.36973-77/2018 and the term is for a period of 5 years and hence the term of the existing Executive Committee will expire on 4.1.2019. Now the Administrator appointed on 20.8.2018 is for a period of six months and he has taken charge on 21.8.2018 whereby already four months has already been elapsed. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioners have not made out any case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the State Government.
43. For the reasons stated above, with regard to the first point raised in the present writ petitions, it has to be held that the impugned order passed by the State Government appointing the Administrator is under the provisions of Section 27-A(1)(a) of the Act and not under Section 27-A(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, there is no enquiry required as alleged in view of the admitted pleadings and annexures stated supra in the writ petitions.
44. In view of the admitted facts that the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha has neither followed the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act nor the Bye-laws of the Sangha or conducted the Annual General Body Meeting for a period of 7 years and has not placed audited accounts for a period of five years, the question of hearing the petitioners would be a procedural formality with no tangible result and the petitioners would forfeit the right to notice, since they took undue advantage by protracting the proceedings or nullifying the very object of the Act and Bye-laws of the Sangha.
45. Admittedly, in the present case in view of the admitted and undisputable facts the only conclusion that would be possible is that the denial of natural justice is itself a prejudice and will not apply to the present petitioners and my view is fortified by the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India –vs- Alok Kumar reported in 2010(5) SCC 349 wherein at paras-83 and 85 it has been held as under:
“83. Earlier, in some of the cases, this Court had taken the view that breach of principle of natural justice was in itself a prejudice and no other `de facto' prejudice needs to be proved. In regard to statutory rules, the prominent view was that the violation of mandatory statutory rules would tantamount to prejudice but where the Rule is merely directory the element of de facto prejudice needs to be pleaded and shown. With the development of law, rigidity in these Rules is somewhat relaxed. The instance of de facto prejudice has been accepted as an essential feature where there is violation of non-mandatory rules or violation of natural justice as it is understood in its common parlance. Taking an instance, in a departmental inquiry where the Department relies upon a large number of documents majority of which are furnished and an opportunity is granted to the delinquent officer to defend himself except that some copies of formal documents had not been furnished to the delinquent. In that event the onus is upon the employee to show that non-furnishing of these formal documents have resulted in de facto prejudice and he has been put to a disadvantage as a result thereof.
85. Doctrine of de facto prejudice has been applied both in English as well as in Indian Law. To frustrate the departmental inquiries on a hyper technical approach have not found favour with the Courts in the recent times. In S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan [1980 (4) SCC 379], a three Judge Bench of this Court while following the principle in Ridge v. Baldwin stated that if upon admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion was possible, then in such a case that principle of natural justice was in its self prejudice would not apply. Thus, every case would have to be examined on its own merits and keeping in view the statutory rules applying to such departmental proceedings. The Court in S.L. Kapoor held as under:
"18. In Ridge v. Baldwin [1964 AC 40, 68 : 1963 2 All ER 66, 73] One of the arguments was that even if the appellant have been heard by the Watch Committee nothing that he could have said could have made any difference. The House of Lords observed at (p. 68):
"It may be convenient at this point to deal with an argument that, even if as a general rule a watch committee must hear a constable in its own defence before dismissing him this case was so clear that nothing that the appellant could have said could have made any difference. It is at least very doubtful whether that could be accepted as an excuse. But, even if it could, the watch committee would, in my view, fail on the facts. It may well be that no reasonably body of men could have reinstated the appellant. But as between the other two courses open to the watch committee the case is not so clear. Certainly, on the facts, as we know them the watch committee could reasonably have decided to forfeit the appellant's pension rights, but I could not hold that they would have acted wrongly or wholly unreasonably if they have in the exercise of their discretion decided to take a more lenient course."
46. Even assuming for the sake of arguments, the State Government issued notice with hearing, the same would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision maker, then no legal duty to supply a hearing arises. Admittedly in the present case, violation of the provisions of the Act and Bye-laws of the Sangha are not denied by the petitioners and on the basis of the basic violation of the Act and Bye-laws, the report was submitted to the Registrar of the Societies-the State Government, who is the competent Authority to exercise the powers under Section 27-A of the Act which clearly depicts that the State Government has proceeded to appoint Administrator only under the provisions of Section 27-A(1)(a) of the Act. Even though if notice was issued in those circumstances, no purpose would be served since the result would be the same, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Limited –vs- Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519 wherein at paragraphs-38, 39 and 47 it has been held under:
“38. But that is not the end of the matter. While the law on the principle of audi alteram partem has progressed in the manner mentioned above, at the same time, the Courts have also repeatedly remarked that the principles of natural justice are very flexible principles. They cannot be applied in any straight-jacket formula. It all depends upon the kind of functions performed and to the extent to which a person is likely to be affected. For this reason, certain exceptions to the aforesaid principles have been invoked under certain circumstances. For example, the Courts have held that it would be sufficient to allow a person to make a representation and oral hearing may not be necessary in all cases, though in some matters, depending upon the nature of the case, not only full-fledged oral hearing but even cross- examination of witnesses is treated as necessary concomitant of the principles of natural justice. Likewise, in service matters relating to major punishment by way of disciplinary action, the requirement is very strict and full- fledged opportunity is envisaged under the statutory rules as well. On the other hand, in those cases where there is an admission of charge, even when no such formal inquiry is held, the punishment based on such admission is upheld. It is for this reason, in certain circumstances, even post-decisional hearing is held to be permissible. Further, the Courts have held that under certain circumstances principles of natural justice may even be excluded by reason of diverse factors like time, place, the apprehended danger and so on.
39. We are not concerned with these aspects in the present case as the issue relates to giving of notice before taking action. While emphasizing that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in straight-jacket formula, the aforesaid instances are given. We have highlighted the jurisprudential basis of adhering to the principles of natural justice which are grounded on the doctrine of procedural fairness, accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals, etc. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason – perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling – it is felt that a fair hearing 'would make no difference' – meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision-maker – then no legal duty to supply a hearing arises. Such an approach was endorsed by Lord Wilberforce in Malloch v. Aberdeen Corporation, who said that “…A 'breach of procedure...cannot give (rise to) a remedy in the courts, unless behind it there is something of substance which has been lost by the failure. The court dos not act in vain”.
Relying on these comments, Brandon LJ opined in Cinnamond v. British Airports Authority[21] that ‘….no one can complain of not being given an opportunity to make representations if such an opportunity would have availed him nothing'. In such situations, fair procedures appear to serve no purpose since 'right' result can be secured without according such treatment to the individual.
47. In Escorts Farms Ltd., this Court, while reiterating the position that rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice, held that, at the same time, it would be of no use if it amounts to completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits. It was so explained in the following terms:
“64. Right of hearing to a necessary party is a valuable right. Denial of such right is serious breach of statutory procedure prescribed and violation of rules of natural justice. In these appeals preferred by the holder of lands and some other transferees, we have found that the terms of government grant did not permit transfers of land without permission of the State as grantor. Remand of cases of a group of transferees who were not heard, would, therefore, be of no legal consequence, more so, when on this legal question all affected parties have got full opportunity of hearing before the High Court and in this appeal before this Court.
Rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits. In view of the legal position explained by us above, we, therefore, refrain from remanding these cases in exercise of our discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.”
47. It is also an undisputed fact that some of the petitioners, who are former Directors, Temporary Secretaries and Members of the Executive Committee have not placed any record before the Court to show that the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha has followed the mandatory procedure as contemplated under the Act and the Bye-laws as stated supra and when the petitioners invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, it is always open for this Court to decline the relief to such petitioners, if the grant of relief would defeat the interest of justice. This Court always has the power to refuse the relief where the petitioners seek to invoke its writ jurisdiction in order to secure a dishonest advantage or perpetuate an unjust gain. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts, the petitioners, who are the Members of the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha, cannot be allowed to invoke the powers of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India when they have failed to fulfill the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Bye-laws stated supra.
48. The material on record clearly depicts that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands, mind and heart, and have suppressed the material facts of the case. Though it is not stated in the impugned order, but the fact remains that some of the Office Bearers who collected the entire admission fees from the students for the respective academic years while admitting students for the Course of MBBS., Engineering, Dental Courses, Post Graduation Courses, etc., have not remitted the entire admission fee collected, but have remitted only part of the amount by retaining the balance amount with themselves with an undertaking that they will remit the same at a later stage. Till today, they have not remitted the same and thereby Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha has suffered loss of huge money. It is also not in dispute that while admitting NRI students to MBBS Course, the Committee of Management/Sangha has violated the norms of Medical Council of India and University and excess students have been admitted by misleading them for extraneous consideration. Some of the aggrieved students had approached this Court in W.P.No. 49585/2014 and connected matters and this Court imposed costs of Rs.One Crore in each writ petitions, i.e., W.P.Nos.49627/2014, 49200/2014 and 49201/ 2014 payable to the petitioners by the respondents, thereby imposing penalty on the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha, which clearly depicts that the Managing Committee is not protecting the interest of the Institution/Sangha and is damaging the image of the Sangha in the public at large. The judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners with regard to Section 27-A(1)(c) of the Act are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
49. The material on records also clearly depicts that the Sangha is established to protect its community students, to provide education and to safeguard the interest of the Society at large. Though the Sangha was established in the year 1906 and now it has grown up and well established by the sacrifice of great persons, who were the Directors, Adhyaksha or Office Bearers, unfortunately, due to recent developments for the last 10 to 15 years as per the pleadings in the writ petitions, there are litigations by the aggrieved students against the Management quota and the matter had gone up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in view of the specific admissions made in the writ petitions, the Office Bearers of the Sangha have not conducted themselves to protect the aim and object of the Sangha and in consonance of the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and Bye-laws of the Sangha, which clearly depicts that the Sangha has not conducted itself in a proper manner. For the reasons stated above, with regard to the second point raised in the present writ petitions, it is answered that the petitioners have not made out any case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the State Government, in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
50. Though respondent Nos.4 to 9 filed the written statement and brought to the notice of the Court that several irregularities have been committed by the Office Bearers of the Sangha including criminal cases, this Court cannot take into consideration to supply new material to the impugned order. As it is well settled by the catena of decisions of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondents cannot supplement to the impugned order by way of additional documents or the statement of objections in support of the impugned order. The State Government, who has passed the impugned order is justified in appointing the Administrator under the provisions of Section 27-A(1)(a) of the Act in view of the admitted facts and violation of the provisions of Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act and the Bye-laws of the Sangha, as stated in the pleadings of the writ petitions.
51. It is high time for the members of the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha or any other Sanghas or Societies to maintain honesty and integrity while electing the Office Bearers of the respective Societies in the interest of Community and Society at large. It is to be remembered that "there is no wealth greater than good reputation and, bad reputation is death itself". The persons who contest the elections to the Societies or particular Sangha as Members should adopt and practice three principles of life: "Daiva Preethi, Papa Bheethi, Sanga Neethi i.e., Love for God, Fear of sin, Morality in Society". If there is no Morality to a person to contest the election for the Society or on behalf of any Sangha, it is his death itself.
52. The Vokkaliga community has its own history of 1600 years and there were great personalities, who sacrificed their life to improve the Community and the Society at large. Unfortunately, the recent developments not only in the petitioners’ Sangha, but also in any other Society, the persons who want to become Members of a particular Sangha or Society, try to become Members only to improve their wealth, earn name and fame. Therefore, it is high time for the members of a particular Society to elect a reasonable personality, who can achieve the goal and object of a particular Society. Then only effective steps can be initiated to bring forward a particular Society. Otherwise one day, the concerned Society will be ruined by the Members, who aspire for wealth, name, fame, power and money which should not be encouraged.
VII - CONCLUSION 53. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order passed by the State Government in exercise of powers under the provisions of Section 27-A(1)(a) of the Act is in accordance with law and the petitioners have not made out any case to interfere with same in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.
54. However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the State Government shall appoint a high ranking Officer forthwith, to oversee the election to be conducted by the Administrator in a fair manner, in the interest of justice.
Ordered accordingly.
Nsu/-
Sd/-
Judge