IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.60535/2016 (GM-KSR) BETWEEN:
SRI SRINGERI SADGURU SEVA SAMITHI (R) REPTD., BY ITS SECRETARY SRI K RAMACHANDRA REG NO.O.S.C/259/89-90 NO.1965, 5TH CROSS SOMESHWARA PURAM TUMKUR-572102 (BY SRI K T VASUDEVA IYENGAR, ADV.) ... PETITIONER AND:
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 2. THE SECRETARY DEPT. OF HOME AFFAIRS GOVT. OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA NO.1, AI ASGAR ROAD BANGALORE-560001 4. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA IST FLOOR, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA TUMKUR-572102 5. THE DY.REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA IST FLOOR, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA TUMKUR-572102 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR-572102 7. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI GAYATHRI CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., SOMESHWARAM EXTN. TUMKUR-562102 8. THE CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL OLD KGID BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001 9. K S JAGANNATHA ADVOCATE AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS HARISATHASA ASSOCIATES NO.2, UPSTAIRS LAKSHIRAM BUILDING BEHIND HOTEL DWARAKA M G ROAD TUMKUR-572102 (BY SRI M A SUBRAMANI, HCGP. FOR R1-6 SRI T SESHAGIRI RAO, ADV. FOR R7 R8 & 9 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) ... RESPONDENTS THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO IT IS PRAYED THAT THE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO INTERVENE A SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ANNX-"J" ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR, DATED 05.05.2009 WITH RESPECT TO FD NO.1688 AND SB ACCOUNT NO.640 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS IMMEDIATELY MAKE GOOD THE LOSS ACCESSIONED TO THE PETITIONER BY IMMEDIATELY CREDITING ALL THE FUNDS IN THE NAME OF SRI SHRINGERI SADGURU SEVA SAMITHI, TUMKUR, HELD BY IT WITH M/S GAYATHRI CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., TUMKUR, FD NO.1688 AND SB ACCOUNT NO.640 TOGETHER WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 18% P.A. AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 05.05.2009 as at Annexure-J to the petition.
2. The petitioner contends that he is the authorized person to represent the petitioner-Samithi and in that light is assailing the order at Annexure-J. At an earlier point, the registration of the petitioner was cancelled through the order dated 31.05.2008 in view of the decision that had been taken. On the registration being cancelled, the amount of Rs.20,000/- along with interest was ordered to be disbursed to the different organizations named in the order dated 05.05.2009. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the said order is before this Court.
3. The contention as urged presently is that against the order dated 31.05.2008, the petitioner herein was before this Court in W.P.No.4055/2014. This Court through the order dated 20.06.2014 allowed the petition and the order dated 31.05.2008 which was impugned therein at Annexure-P was quashed. Further, the petitioner was granted the liberty of filing the list of office bearers as well as the audited accounts for the period from 1996 onwards upto 2007 and the respondent therein was directed to consider and pass orders thereupon. Returns stated to have been filed by the petitioner is acknowledged on 19.02.2016. It is in that light the petitioner contending that the status of the petitioner has been restored is making out a grievance with regard to the disbursement of the amount which belonged to the petitioner society.
4. Learned Government Advocate while opposing the prayer made in the petition would point out that the order impugned is dated 05.05.2009 and when such order is assailed belatedly this Court should reject the petition on the ground of delay and laches. It is contended that at this point in time the consideration of the prayer of the petitioner would not arise and the relief as sought is liable to be rejected.
5. In that light, having taken note of the rival contentions, it is no doubt true that the order impugned herein is dated 05.05.2009 and it is consequent upon the order dated 31.05.2008. However, what cannot be lost sight is that the order dated 31.05.2008 whereby the registration of the petitioner was cancelled though assailed belatedly in W.P.No.4055/2014, this Court has entertained the petition and passed the order dated 20.06.2014. If in that light the order passed by this Court has attained finality, the fruits of such order cannot be denied to the petitioner on technical grounds. If pursuant to the said order, returns have been filed by the petitioner and the respondent in W.P.No.4055/2014, who was directed to consider the case of the petitioner, has thereafter passed orders and restored the registration of the petitioner, in such event the benefit as a consequence thereof is also required to be considered.
6. Hence, at this juncture, though I do not find the need to quash the order dated 05.05.2009, taking note of the said order whereunder in the circumstance of the cancellation of the registration, the amount has been disbursed, the appropriate course would be to direct respondent No.4 herein to take note of the grievance of the petitioner, verify the records and if the petitioner’s registration has been restored in accordance with law and the petitioner is in charge of the affairs of the petitioner, respondent No.4 shall issue notice to the said organizations to whom the amount has been disbursed pursuant to the order dated 05.05.2009, indicating therein the subsequent developments and in that light the need that has arisen to restore the funds of the petitioner. Depending on the reply that would be put forth by the said organizations, respondent No.4 after providing opportunity to the petitioner shall pass appropriate orders in that regard. If need be, respondent No.4 in that circumstance shall modify the order dated 05.05.2009 in terms thereof. On the other hand if respondent No.4 arrives at a conclusion that the relief as prayed, in view of the objections if any, raised by the said organizations to whom notice is issued cannot be granted to the petitioner herein, reasons therefor shall be intimated to the petitioner.
In terms of the above direction, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE akc/bms