IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 12H DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY

WRIT PETITION NOs.84895-899 OF 2011 (GM-KSR)

C/W

WRIT PETITION NOS. 80541-548/2012

WRIT PETITION NO. 84894/2011










WRIT PETITION NOS. 7994-8049 OF 2012

WRIT PETITION NOS.84895-899 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

1. APPASAB PATIL

S/O LATE BASWANTRAO PATIL,

AGE: 68 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE AND SOCIAL WORKER,

R/O RADDEWADI TQ. JEWARGI,DIST. GULBARGA.

2. SHAMBU REDDY

S/O BHAGANNA MADRI,AGE: 65 YEARS,

OCC: SOCIAL WORKER AND

2

AGRICULTURE,R/O KODLE TQ. SEDAM,

DIST. GULBARGA.

3. SAHEBREDDYS/O SHIVASHARNAPPA,

AGE: 60 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE,

YADGIR,TQ. & DIST. YADGIR.

4. RATNAKAR S/O BASAPPA KUPENDRA

AGE: 54 YEARS,OCC: ADVOCATE & NOTARY,

R/O H.NO.4-601-11C,

4TH CORSS, M.B. NAGAR,GULBARGA.

5. DR. RAJESHWARI

D/O SIDDANGOUDA,AGE: 33 YEARS,

OCC: PRIVATE PRACTICER/O WADAGERA,

TQ. SHAHAPUR,DIST. YADGIR.

…PETITIONERS(BY SHRI P. VILASKUMAR MARTHAND RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKATHROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,BANGALORE.

2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

SOCITIES, & DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES,GULBARGA.

3

3. HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATIONSOCIETY THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT,

AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,NEAR STATION IB,

GULBARGA – 585 102.…RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SHRI ASHOK S. KINAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUEWRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT

ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 31.10.2011, 02.11.2011,31.10.2011, 26.10.2011 AND 02.10.2011 RESPECTIVELY, IN

RESPECT OF RESOLUTION DATED 24.10.2011 PASSED BY

RESPONDENT NO.3 WHICH ARE AT ANNEXURES – K AND K1 TOK4 RESPECTIVELY.


BETWEEN:

1. SRI SHIVASHARANAPPA S/O SANGANGOUDA

AGE: 47 YEARS,OCC. AGRICULTURE

R/O LIG-3, OPP. KEB TRANSFORMMSK MILL ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR

GULBARGA

2. SRI. ANANTAPPA S/O HANMANTHAPPA HUMLI

AGE: 72 YEARS,OCC. RETD. GOVT. SERVANT

R/O PLOT NO.46, NGO COLONY,OKALY CAMP, SEDAM ROAD

GULBARGA

3. SMT. USHA W/O SOMASHEKHAR PATILAGE: 55 YEARS,

OCC. HOUSEWIFE

4

R/O H.NO.1-79, "SIDDA RATNA"DHANVANTRI COLONY, KUSNOOR ROAD

GULBARGA – 585 105.

4. DR. SOMASHEKHAR S/O SIDRAMAPPA PATILAGE: 65 YEARS,

OCC. PROFESSORR/O H.NO.1-79, "SIDDA RATNA"

DHANVANTRI COLONY, KUSNOOR ROADGULBARGA – 585 105.

5. SRI. HANMANTHRAYA S. PATIL

AGE: 70 YEARS,OCC. AGRICULTURUE

R/O ALOOR (B)

P.O. SUNTANOORTQ. ALAND, DIST. GULBARGA

6. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR H. PATIL

AGE: 38 YEARS,OCC. AGRICULTURUE

R/O ALOORP.O. SUNTANOOR

TQ. ALAND, DIST. GULBARGA

7. SANTOSH S/O SURESH PATILAGE: 35 YEARS,

OCC. AGRICULTURUER/O H.NO.1-79, "SIDDA-RATNA"

R/O DHANAVANTRI COLONY

KUSNOOR ROAD, GULBARGA – 585 105

8. SMT. MOHITA PATIL W/O SANJEEV MUDDHAAGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURUE

R/O H.NO.1-79, "SIDDA-RATNA"R/O DHANAVANTRI COLONY

KUSNOOR ROAD, GULBARGA – 585 105…PETITIONERS

(BY SHRI PRABHAKAR B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

5

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

M.S. BUILDING,BANGALORE.



3. HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATION

SOCIETY, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT,


GULBARGA –…RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SHRI B.V. JALDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUEWRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT

ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE PETITIONERS NO.1TO 8 DATED 28.10.2011 WHICH IS ANNEXURE-1 TO 8.

WRIT PETITION NO. 84894 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

DR. SIDDANAGOUDAS/O MALLIKARJUNGOUDA,

AGE: 54 YEARS,OCC: PROF. OF SURGERY

OF MRMC GULBARGA, R/O GULBARGA…PETITIONER

(BY SHRI P. VILAS KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

6

AND:



BANGALORE.

2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVESOCITIES, & DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES,

GULBARGA.

3. HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATIONSOCIETY, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT,

AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,

NEAR STATION IB,GULBARGA –

…RESPONDENTS(BY SHRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;

SHRI B.V. JALDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT

OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BYTHE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE PETITIONER DATED 28.10.2011

WHICH IS ANNEXURE-K.


BETWEEN:

DR. VEERANNA

S/O MALLAPPA,AGE: 58 YEARS,OCC: HOD, MEDICINE,

AT MRMC GULBARGA,R/O VITHAL NAGAR, GULBARGA.

…PETITIONER


7

AND:



BANGALORE.

2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVESOCITIES, & DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES,

GULBARGA.


AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,

NEAR STATION IB,GULBARGA –


SHRI B.V. JALDE & ASHOK S. KINAGI, ADVOCATES FOR R3)


OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BYTHE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE PETITIONER DATED 28.10.2011

WHICH IS ANNEXURE-K.


BETWEEN:

SHIVANNA S/O SHARNAPPA HIRAPUR

AGE: 69 YEARS,OCC: RETD. JOINT DIRECTOR,

INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE,R/O MIG. 11 ANAND NAGAR,

RAJAPUR GULBARGA.…PETITIONER

(BY SHRI K.B. RAO, ADVOCATE)

8

AND:


THROUGH THE SECRETARY,TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

BANGALORE.

2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES,OF KARNATAKA STATE,

BANGALORE.

3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAROF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

GULBARGA

4. THE PRESIDENT,

HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATIONSOCIETY, AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,


(BY SHRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SHRI ASHOK S. KINAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT

OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN

THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CALLING FOR THE RECORDS OR

PROCEEDINGS DATED 24.10.2011 OF THE RESPONDENT

SOCIETY AND AFTER GOING INTO LEGALITY AND VALIDITY

THEREOF, QUASH AND OR SET ASIDE IMPUGNED LATTER

DATED 28.11.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-C.

9


BETWEEN:

1. SHIVALINGAPPA

S/O SHANTAPPA KALASHETTYAGE: 45 YEARS,

OCC: BUSINESSAT & POST DEVAL GHANAGAPUR

TQ. AFZALPURDIST. GULBARGA

2. ANAVERAPPA S/O SHANTAPPA KALSHETTY

AGE: 47 YEARS,

OCC: BUSINESSAT POST. DEVAL GHANAGAPUR

TQ. AFZALPURDIST. GULBARGA

3. SIDRAMAPPA

S/O SHANTAPPA KALSHETTYAGE: 50 YEARS,

OCC: BUSINESSR/O DEVAL GHANAGAPUR

TQ. & DIST. GULBARGA

4. BASAVARAJS/O MAHALANGAPPA PATIL

AGE: 29 YEARS,

OCC: BUSINESSR/O VENKAT BENNUR

TQ. & DIST. GULBARGA

5. MALLIKARJUNS/O NIJALINGAPPA SHIVAGOL

AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRI,R/O HEBBAL, TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. GULBARGA

10

6. NAGESHS/O BASAVARAJ SHIVAGOL

AGE: 30 YEARS,OCC: CONTRACTOR

R/O HEBBALTQ. CHITTAPUR

DIST. GULBARGA

7. SHANKAR S/O NINGAPPA DEVATAGEAGE: 40 YEARS,

OCC: AGRIR/O HEBBAL

TQ. CHITTAPURDIST. GULBARGA

8. SUNITA REVANSIDDAPA AMBULGIAGE: 35 YEARS,

OCC: BUSINESSR/O H.NO.8-1304/14, GANDHI NAGAR

HUMNABAD ROADGULBARGA

9. AKSHATA SAJJAN

AGE: 30 YEARS,OCC: HOUSEHOLD

R/O H.NO.1-1495/6-14OPP. APPA HOUSE

GADUTAI COLONYGULBARGA

10. JAYSHREE SAJJANAGE: 56 YEARS,

OCC: AGRIR/O H.NO.1-1495/G-14

OPP. APPA HOUSEGADUTAI COLONY

GULBARGA

11

11. SHIVASHANKAR GACHINMATHS/O CHANNABASAYYA SWAMY

AGE: 45 YEARS,OCC: DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

R/O SHIVA NILAYAH.NO. 1-1495/103/27

GODUTAI NAGARGULBARGA

12. MD. KHADIR ALI

AGE: 36 YEARS,OCC: BUSINESS

R/O H.NO.4-570/6, LOWER LANEDARGA ROAD

SANTRASWADI

GULBARGA

13. HEENA KOUSARAGE: 31 YEARS,

OCC: BUSINESSPLOT NO. 6 NEW JWEARGI ROAD

BESIDE SHAMS FUNCTION HALLGULBARGA

14. NETRA SAJJAN

AGE: 23 YEARS,OCC: DOCTOR, R/O H.NO.1-495/G-14

OPP. APPA HOUSE, GODUTAI NAGARGULBARGA

15. REVANTKUMARS/O MALLAPPA SAJJAN,

AGE: 21 YEARS,OCC: BUSINESS,

R/O H.NO.1-495/G-14,OPP. APPA NAGAR,

GULBARGA.…PETITIONERS


12

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKATHROUGH THE SECRETARY,

DEPT. OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCITIES,M.S. BUILDING,

BANGALORE.

2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES,& DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES,

GULBARGA.

3. HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATION SOCIETYTHROUGH ITS PRESIDENT,

AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,

NEAR STATION IB,GULBARGA – 585 102.



THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE

WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENTISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE PETITIONERS 1 TO

15 DATED 26.10.2011, 28.10.2011 AND 02.11.2011 WHICH AREAT ANNEXURE- K, K-1 TO K-14.


BETWEEN:

1. RAJESHWARIW/O CHANNABASAPPA PATIL

AGE: 48 YEARS,OCC: LEGAL PRACTITIONER,

& AGRICULTURE, R/O H.NO.10-105/48,SHARAN NAGAR,

OPP. N.V. SCHOOL, GULBARGA

13

2. SANGAMESH

S/O CHANNABASAPPA PATILAGE: 21 YEARS,

OCC: STUDENT,R/O H.NO.10-105/48,

SHARAN NAGAR,OPP. N.V. SCHOOL, GULBARGA

3. S/O CHANNABASAPPA PATIL

AGE: 19 YEARS,OCC: STUDENT,

R/O H.NO.10-105/48,SHARAN NAGAR,

OPP. N.V. SCHOOL, GULBARGA

…PETITIONERS(BY SHRI P. VILAS KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:



M.S. BUILDING,BANGALORE.





GULBARGA –…RESPONDENTS


14

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE

WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENTISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE PETITIONERS

DATED 28.10.2011 WHICH ARE AT ANNEXURE-D, E AND FRESPECTIVELY.


BETWEEN:

SHIVARAJ S/O GURUSHANTAPPA PATIL

AGE: 50 YEARS,OCC: PROFESSOR,

R/O H.NO.104,

MAHANT JYOTI,G.D.A. LAYOUT,

GOKUL NAGAR,GULBARGA – 585 103.

…PETITIONER(BY SHRI K.B. RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:


THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. DEPT.OF CO-OPERATION, VIDHAN SOUDHA,

BANGALORE.

2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

SOCIETIES,BANGALORE.

3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR

OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,GULBARGA.

15

4. THE PRESIDENT

H.K.E. SOCIETY,GULBARGA.

…RESPONDENTS(BY SHRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 to R3;



OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION INTHE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS, CALLING FOR THE

RECORDS OR PROCEEDINGS DATED 24.10.2011 OF THERESPONDENT SOCIETY AND AFTER GOING INTO LEGALITY AND

VALIDITY THEREOF, QUASH AND OR SET ASIDE IMPUGNED

LETTER DATED 26.10.2011 VIDE ANNEXURES- C AND L.


BETWEEN:

ANNARAO S/O BASALINGAPPA PUNEKARAGE: 69 YEAS,

OCC: RETIRED S.P.R/O H.NO. 171, SHANTI NAGAR,

M.S.L.K. MILL, ROAD,GULBARGA – 585 103.

…PETITIONER(BY SHRI K.B. RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKATHE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. DEPT.

OF CO-OPERATION,BANGALORE.

16

2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAROF SOCIETIES AND

DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CS.GULBARGA.

3. THE PRESIDENT

HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATIONSOCIETY,

AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,GULBARGA.

…RESPONDENTS(BY SHRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;



227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRITOF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN

THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS, CALLING FOR THERECORDS OR PROCEEDINGS DATED 24.10.2011 OF THE

RESPONDENT SOCIETY AND AFTER GOING INTO LEGALITY ANDVALIDITY THEREOF, QUASH AND OR SET ASIDE IMPUGNED

LETTER DATED 26.10.2011 VIDE ANNEXURES-1.


BETWEEN:

VASUDEVS/O K. BHIM RAO ALIAS K.B. VASU

AGE: 31 YEARS,

OCC: ASST. EDITOR,JAGVANI KANNADA DAILY,

AND GENERAL SECRETARY,DIST. BAHUJAN SAMAJ PARTY,

R/O L.I.G – 5, ANAND NAGAR,RAJAPUR ROAD,

GULBARGA –585 105.…PETITIONER

(BY SHRI K.B. RAO, ADVOCATE)

17

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. DEPARTMENT

OF CO-OPERATION,BANGALORE.

2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAROF SOCIETIESGULBARGA – 585 102.

3. THE PRESIDENTHYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATION

SOCIETY,AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,




227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT

OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN

THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS, CALLING FOR THE

RECORDS OR PROCEEDINGS DATED 24.10.2011 OF THE

RESPONDENT SOCIETY AND AFTER GOING INTO LEGALITY AND

VALIDITY THEREOF, QUASH AND OR SET ASIDE IMPUGNED

LETTER DATED 31.10.2011 ANNEXURE- C INCLUDING THE

PROCEEDINGS OF 24.10.2011 OF RESPONDENT NO.3 AND

ANNEXURE-J.

18


BETWEEN:

KAILASHNATH PATILS/O VEERENDRA PATIL,

AGE: 61 YEAES,OCC: SOCIAL WORK & EX.MLA

R/O CHINCHOLI,TQ. CHINCHOLI,

DIST. GULBARGA.…PETITIONER

(BY SHRI P. VILASKUMAR , ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKATHROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,BANGALORE.




SOCIETY THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT,AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,

NEAR STATION IB,

GULBARGA – 585 102.

4. SHRI P.S. SHANKARRETURNING OFFICER,

HKE SOCIETY,GULBARGA.


SHRI B.V. JALDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

19


227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRITOF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY

THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE PETITIONER DATED 28.10.2011IN RESPECT OF RESOLUTION DATED 24.10.2011 IS AT

ANNEXURE-J.


BETWEEN:

SRI. LINGANAGOWDA S. DESAIS/O LATE SHIVAMANAPPA DESAI,

AGE: 70 YEARS,

R/O HADANOOR VILLAGE,SORAPUR TALUK,

YADGIR DISTRICT.

…PETITIONER(BY SHRI RAVI B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND:


DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE,SOCIETIES, M.S. BUILDING,

BANGALORE – 560 001,REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATIONSOCIETY, AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,

NEW STATION IB,GULBARGA – 585 102.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1;


20


227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THEAMENDED BYE – LAW 7(B)(II) OF AMENDED BYE-LAW OF THE

2ND RESPONDENT HKE SOCIETY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C.


BETWEEN:

1. SRI YANKA REDDYS/O SAHEB REDDY,

AGED 38 YEARS,R/OF HATTIKUNI TALUK,

YADAGIRI DISTRICT

2. SRI. G.S. RAHAMAT SAHEB

S/O SHAIK MOHAMMED SAHEBAGED 52 YEARS,

H.NO.4-463, SANTRASWADI,GULBARGA TOWN AND DISTRICT

3. SRI. ARUN KUMAR

S/O NEELKANTA NAGOOR,AGED 36 YEARS,

PLOT NO.15, OPP. CO-OPERATIVETRAINING CENTRE, PRAGATHI COLONY,

GULBARGA

4. SMT. ANURADHA

W/O BASAVARAJ,AGED 28 YEARS,

R/O HATTIKUNI,YADAGIRI TALUK AND DISTRICT

GULBARGA

5. SRI. VISHWANATHS/O SIDHIKANT,

AGED 39 YEARS,

21

R/OF MAHAGAON,GULBARGA TALUK AND DISTRICT

6. SMT. NIKITA

W/O VISHWANATH TADKALR/OF MEHAGAON,

GULBARGA TALUK AND DISTRICT

7. SRI. SHARANABASAPPAS/O SAIBANNA DHANNI,

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,KHB COLONY, OLD JEWARGI ROAD,

GULBARGA

8. SRI. AYUB KHAN

S/O LADLESAB, H.NO.11-1041/50/56/BIIQBAL COLONY, M.S.K. MILL ROAD,

GULBARGA TOWN AND DISTRICT

9. SRI. SHRIKANTS/O SHVIASHARNAPPA MALLABADKAR,

AGED 38 YEARS,R/AT PLOT NO.94, SRI GANESH NAGAR,

RING ROAD, GULBARGA TOWNAND DISTRICT

10. SRI. RAVINDRA

S/O ANNEPPA AGSAR,AGED 38 YEARS,

H.NO.11/A. G.D.A LAYOUT,

SADAM ROAD, GULBARGATOWN AND DISTRICT

11. SRI. SHVIAPUTRAPPA

S/O SHIVASHARNAPPA MALLABADKAR,AGED 38 YEARS,

PLOT NO.94, SRI GANESH NAGAR,RING ROAD, GULBARGA.

22

12. SRI. AYYANGOUDAS/O DODAPPAGOUDA,

AGED 58 YEARS,R/OF YELHERI,

YADGIRI TALUK AND DISTRICT

13. SRI. SHARANA GOWDAAGED 58 YEARS,

S/O DODDAPPA GOWDA,R/OF YELHERI,

YADGIRI TALUK AND DISTRICT

14. SRI. BASAVARAJS/O SIDDANAGOUDA,

AGED 52 YEARS,

R/OF MUSTOOR, KOILOOR POST,YADGIRI TALUK AND DISTRICT

15. SMT. JAGDEVI

W/O BASAVARAJ BILJUNDI,AGED 44 YEARS,

NO. 8-1302/D, NEAR GUNJ BUSSTAND, GULBARGA TOWN AND

DISTRICT

16. SRI. MALLAN GOWDAS/OMAHADEVAPPA GOWDA,

AGED 48 YEARS,R/O TANGADIGI, IBRAHIMPUR POST,

SHAHAPUR TALUK,

YADAGIRI DISTRICT

17. SRI. LINGA REDDYS/O SIDRAMAPPA BANDALLI

R/OF R/O TANGADIGI, IBRAHIMPUR POST,SHAHAPUR TALUK, YADAGIRI DISTRICT

18. DR. JAGANNATH REDDY

S/O LINGA REDDY,

23

AGED 38 YEARS,R/OF WADAGERA, SHAHAPURA

TALUK, YADAGIRI DISTRICT

19. SRI. RAVI KUMARS/O AYYANGOUDA,


YADAGIRI TALUK AND DISTRICT

20. KUMARI SHAILAJAD/O HANUMANTHA REDDYKAVLOOR,

AGED 23 YEARS,STATION ROAD,

YADAGIRI TOWN AND DISTRICT

21. SRI. SIDDARAMA REDDY

S/O MOHAN REDDY,AGED 20 YEARS,

R/OF ARIKKERA (B)YADAGIRI TALUK AND DISTRICT

22. SMT.NIMBEMMA

W/O MOHAN REDDY HADIMANI,AGED 44 YEARS,

R/OF ARIKERI (B)YADAGIRI TALUK AND DISTRICT

23. SMT. BASAMMA

W/O AYYANNGOUDA,



24. SRI. RAHUL S/O MALLA REDDYAGED 22 YEARS, HOUSE NO.5-1-275,

BASAVESHWARNAGAR,YADAGIRI TOWN AND DISTRICT

24

25. KUMARI RAJESHWARID/O MALLA REDDY

AGED 22 YEARS,HOUSE NO.5-1-275,

BASAVESHWARNAGAR,YADAGIRI TOWN AND DISTRICT

26. SRI. VENKATA REDDY

S/O BHEEMA REDDYAGED 25 YEARS,

R/OF ARIKERA (B)YADGIRI TALUK AND DISTRICT

27. SRI.BASAVARAJ

S/O SIDDANAGOUDA KANDALLI,

AGED 52 YEARS,R/OF HEDIGIMADRI,


28. SRI. S.MALLANNAS/O SHESHAPPA ANOOR,

AGED 68 YEARS,GOGI MOHALLA,


29. SRI. DEVENDRAS/OMALLANNA ANOOR

AGED 35 YEARS,GOGI MOHALLA,


30. SMT. SHEELA

D/O S.MALLANNA ANOOR,AGED 30 YEARS,

GOGI MOHALLA,YADAGIRI TOWN AND DISTRICT

31. SRI PRABHAKAR

S/O S MALLANNA ANOOR

25

AGED 44 YEARSR/OF GOGI MOHALLA

YADAGIRI TOWN & DISTRICT

32. SRI SURESHS/O BASAVARAJAGOUDA

AGED 28 YEARS, R/OF KYATNALYADAGIRI TALUK & DISTRICT

33. SRI LINGA REDDY

S/O SIDRAMAPPA BADALLIR/OF R/O TANGADIGI, IBRAHIMPUR POST

SHAHAPUR TALUKYADAGIRI DISTRICT

34. SMT SHRUTHIW/O RAGHAVENDRA REDDY MALIPATIL

AGED 24 YEARSR/OF HEDIGIMADRI

YADAGIRI TALUK & DISTRICT

35. SRI SURESHS/O BASAVARAJAPPA AKKAM

AGED 26 YEARSR/OF KODLA, SEDAM TALUK

GULBARGA DISTRICT

36. SRI BASSANGOUDAS/O SHANTHAGOUDA

AGED 32 YEARS

R/OF CHANMANALLIBANDALLI POST,

YADGIRI TALUK & DISTRICT

37. SMT LAKSHMIW/O BASSANGOUDA POLICE PATIL

AGED 24 YEARS, R/OF CHAMANALLI,

26

BANDALLI POSTYADGIRI TALUK & DISTRICT

38. SRI BASAVARAJ

S/O SIDDANAGOUDAAGED 36 YEARS

R/OF CHAMANALLI, BANDALLI POSTYADGIRI TALUK & DISTRICT

39. SMT SHARANAMMA

W/O SIDDANAGOUDAAGED 40 YEARS

R/O CHAMNALLI, BANDALLI POST,YADGIRI TALUK AND DISTRICT

40. KUMARI PRATIBHAD/O SHIVA REDDY

AGED 24 YEARSHOUSE NO.5-140-3,

HOSUR ROAD,YADAGIRI TOWN & DISTRICT

41. SRI PARVATH REDDY

S/O GURANGOUDAAGED 30 YEARS

R/OF HADNOOR , SHORAPUR TALUKYADAGIRI DISTRICT

42. SRI MOHAN REDDY

S/O GURANGOUDA NAVADGI

AGED 37 YEARSR/OF HADNOOR, SHORAPUR TALUK

YADGIRI DISTRICT

43. SMT SRIDEVIW/O MOHAN REDDY NAVADGI

AGED 27 YEARS, R/OF HADNOOR,

27

SHORAPUR TALUKYADAGIRI DISTRICT

44. SRI MALLANGOUDA

S/O SHIVAPPA GOUDA SASNOORAGED 34 YEARS

R/OF HADNOOR, SHORAPUR TALUKYADAGIRI DISTRICT

45. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR

S/O SIDDANAGOUDA BONALAGED 51 YEARS


46. SMT SRIDEVIW/O CHANDRASHEKAR BONAL


YADAGIRI DISTRICT

47. SRI RAMANAGOUDA P DESAIS/O PARWATHAPPA GOUDA DESAI


YADAGIRI DISTRICT

48. SRI RUDRAGOUDAAGED 54 YEARS

S/O NAGAPPA RABBANALLI


49. SMT SHANTHAMMA

W/O RUDRAGOUDA RABBANALLIAGED 44 EYARS


28

50. SRI BASAVARAJS/O SAHEB GOWDA


YADAGIRI DISTRICT

51. SMT NEELAMMAW/O BASAWARAJ YALAGI

AGED 30 YEARSR/OF HADNOOR, SHORAPUR TALU

YADAGIRI DISTRICT

52. SMT CHANNAMMAW/O PARVATH REDDY NAVADGI

AGED 28 YEARS


53. SRI SHARAN GOWDA

S/O MAHADEVAPPA GOUDAAGED 36 YEARS

R/OF TANGADGI, IBRAHIMPUR POSTSHAHAPUR TALUK,

YADAGIRI DISTRICT

54. SRI SHARANA GOUDAS/O SHANKUKHAPPA GOUDA VANIKYAL


YADAGIRI DISTRICT

55. SRI MALLANGOUDA

S/O SHANMUKHAPPA GOUDA VANIKYALAGED 34 YEARS


29

56. SRI SUBHASH

S/O SHIVAPUTRAPPA SARADGI,AGED 36 YEARS

LIG- 108, BADEPUT 1ST PHASE,GULBARGA TOWN & DISTRICT.

…PETITIONERS(BY SHRI S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKADEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE,

SOCIETIES, M.S. BUILDING,BANGALORE – 560 001,

REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. THE SECRETARY

DEP. OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,M.S BUILDING,

BANGALORE – 560 001.

3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVESOCIETIES- AND REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES,

GULBARGA DISTRICT,GULBARGA – 585 102


SOCIETY, AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,NEW STATION IB,

GULBARGA – 585 102.REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT

30

5. THE RETURNING OFFICER

ELECTIONS TO HYDERABAD- KARNATAKAEDUCATION SOCIETY, DR. P.S. SHANKAR,

M.R. MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS,GULBARGA.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;

SHRI B.V. JALDE, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT

TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO ACT ON THE

REPRESENTATION DATED 28.02.2012 AT ANNEXURE-T, MADEBY THE PETITIONERS BY INITIATING APPROPRIATE ACTION

AGAINST THE FOURTH RESPONDENT SOCIETY TO COMPLY WITHTHE ORDERS OF THIS HON’BLE COURT PASSED IN WRIT

PETITION NO.48208/2011 AND OTHER CONNECTED WRITPETITIONS AND TO ISSUE LIST OF VOTERS COMPRISING OLD

MEMBERS (COMPRISING 927 OLD MEMBERS) TO THE ELECTIONDATED 18.03.2012.

IN THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD,

RESERVED FOR JUDGEMENT, COMING ON FORPRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE

FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The common prayer made by the petitioners in these

petitions is for a direction to the second respondent-Deputy

Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Registrar of Societies,

Gulbarga to induct the petitioners as Members of the third

31

respondent-Hyderabad-Karnataka Education Society (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Society’ for short). Prayer is also made to

quash the endorsement issued on various dates in respect of the

resolution dated 24th October 2011 passed by the third

respondent-Society.

2. Commonness in all these petitions are that the

petitioners are the residents of Hyderabad-Karnataka region,

which comprises of four districts, viz. Gulbarga, Bidar, Raichur

and now Yadagiri. They have made application to the Society for

membership pursuant to the Notification issued on 8th October

2010 and the third respondent-Society has rejected their

applications by returning the Demand Drafts sent along with it.

The said notification of the third respondent-Society was issued

as per their undertaking given to the Court in Writ Petition

No.19466 of 2010, which by its order dated 5th October 2010

came to be disposed of, considering the said undertaking of the

third respondent, and further directing the third respondent to

issue a paper publication inviting applications for membership to

the Hyderabad-Karnataka Education Society. It was also made

32

clear that the Notification would specifically indicate that the

format of the Application would be displayed on Notice Boards of

all the institutions being run and managed by the Society. The

Society issued notification only as a formality and none of the

petitioners have been taken as its members. The rejection of

their membership is because of the resolution made by way of

amendment to the bye-laws by incorporating Rule 7(B)(ii).

3. The petitioners claim that they are the residents of

Hyderabad-Karnataka region and are agriculturists, social-

workers, advocates, professors, doctors, and etc. They are

interested in becoming members of the Society to serve the said

region as well as the State. It is also stated in the petition that

keeping the said object the Society was registered in the year

1957. The memorandum dated 19th March 1958 came-up with

an intention of developing higher education in professional

courses in Hyderabad-Karnataka region and was desirous of

forming a Society for the said purpose. There was no higher

education facility in the field of Engineering and Medicine, etc.

The petitioners state that the then Divisional Commissioner,

33

Gulbarga Division along with District Commissioners of two

Districts viz. Raichur and Bidar, formed an association along with

council of members comprising 25 in number, of which four

members are Divisional Commissioner and District

Commissioners and the remaining 21 comprised of Legislators,

Members of Parliament and elite members from the three

Districts of erstwhile Hyderabad-Karnataka. Clause (iv) of the

bye-laws of the Association permits, any member, who

contributes Rs.1,000/- or more to the Society, would be a Patron

of the Society; and any person who contributes not less than

Rs.500/- and not more than Rs.1,000/- as a life member of the

society. Further, any member who contributes not less than

Rs.25/- per annum shall be an ordinary member of the Society.

As per this Clause, each and every person could become a

member of the Society by paying the said amount. In course of

time, more particularly in the year 1980-81, the newly elected

governing council, brought an amendment to bye-laws through

Resolution No.5 to bye-law 7(B)(ii) that “the Governing Council

shall scrutinize all applications and to admit the applicant as a

Member, if he/she is supported by not less than 2/3rd majority of

34

the Governing Council Members present. If the applicant is not

admitted then the amount of admission fee shall be refunded to

him. Reasons for rejection of application need not be given.

The decision of the Government Council is final. The refusal

shall be communicated to the applicant concerned within 15 days

from the date of the decision.” The learned counsel for the

petitioners submitted that by virtue of said amendment to the

bye-law, the elected governing council is acting contrary to the

interest, aims and objects to which the founders formed the

Society. When the petitioners were not permitted to become the

members by virtue of the said amendment, they approached this

court in Writ Petition No.19466 of 2010 and the Division Bench

of this Court while disposing of the petition by its order dated

05th October 2010 directed the third respondent to issue

notification along with the format of application to invite

applications to get membership to the Society. After the

disposal of the said petition, a notification though was issued,

but by operating amended bye-law 7(B)(ii), rejected the

applications of these petitioners without assigning any reasons

and the rejection was also in the blank printed format and only

35

the names of the petitioners and date were filled-in and issued

to the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners submitted that the action of the Society in rejecting

the applications of the petitioners is contrary to the direction

issued by this Court in Writ petition No.19466 of 2010 as well as

its bye-laws.

4. It is also submitted that the resolution was passed in

the Special General Body Meeting conducted on 30th March 1981

and the same was forwarded to the District Registrar of

Societies, Gulbarga, and in turn the Registrar, by its order dated

31st March 1981 by exercising his power under Section 10(2) of

the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, ordered to register all

the 41 amendments made through resolution by Special General

Body Meeting on 30th March 1981 with effect from 31st March

1981. Hence, it is submitted that this Resolution of making

amendment to bye-laws by a Special General Body Meeting on

30th March 1981 is contrary to Section 10(2) of the Karnataka

Societies Registration Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

Act’ for short. To buttress this submission, the learned counsel

36

relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of HEBBAR

SREE VAISHNAVA SABHA, BANGALORE v. G.S. YOGNARASIMHA

AND OTHERS reported in the case of 2009(4) Kar.L.J 11 wherein

it is held that “Until and unless the members let known as to the

proposed amdendment, it may not be proper for him to exercise

his proxy vote. Thus, both the provisions of Sections 9 and 10

mandate that the Special General Body Meeting should contain a

written or printed report and proposed amendment apart from

the date, time and place of the meeting. Therefore, we are

unable to appreciate and accept the arguments advanced by the

learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that there is no

mandatory requirement for inclusion of the report of the

proposed amendment.” On these grounds the learned counsel

for the petitioners submitted to set aside the order of the second

respondent and also prayed for a direction to the Society to

issue application forms to the petitioners with prior intimation to

the Governing Council and provide membership to them.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

Society submitted to dismiss the petition on the following counts,

37

viz. on maintainability, on delay and laches and on the ground of

locus standi. He also submitted to dismiss the petition on the

ground of jurisdiction. With regard to the submission to dismiss

these petitions on the ground of inordinate and unexplained

delay on the part of the petitioners, it is submitted that the

amendment was brought to bye-laws by its Special General Body

Meeting as back as on 30th March 1981 as also its acceptance on

31st March 1981, should have been challenged by the petitioners

if they are so aggrieved, at the earliest point of time or within a

reasonable time. It is submitted that the amendment made to

the bye-laws is only in the form of contract between the

Members of the Society. When a contract is entered into

between the Members by way of an understanding through a

Special General Body Meeting, the same shall not be the subject

matter of this Court and if at all the petitioners are aggrieved,

they have to approach the Civil Court.

6. With regard to the locus standi of the petitioners, it is

submitted that the petitioners are strangers and are unrelated to

the Society or its administration; and hence they do not have

38

any locus standi to challenge the amendment made to bye-law

of the Society. The amendment to bye-law is purely an internal

administration of the Society for which the majority members of

the society have agreed, and the same has been accepted and

registered by the Registrar of co-operative Societies. Hence, on

the said ground the petitions are to be dismissed. It is further

submitted that the bye-laws and/or the amendment made to

bye-laws cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. In support of this submission, the learned

counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of SRI

PANCHALINGA PANCHAPPA PATTANASHETTI AND OTHERS v.

THE COMMISIONER FOR CANE DEVELOPMENT AND DIRECTOR

OF SUGAR AND OTHERS reported in 2004(4) KCCR 2489

wherein it has been held that “the amendment to bye-law is

neither a law nor a statute for the purpose of Article 13 of the

Constitution of India and the bye-law is only a term of contract

between the members of the Society. He also relied upon the

judgment in the case of GURAPPA v. SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY

EMPLOYEES CONSUMERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED AND

OTHERS reported in 1983(1) KAR.L.J 106 wherein it is held that

39

“a bye-law of a co-operative society is not ‘law’ within Article 13

of the Constitution and the bye-law comparable to the Articles of

Association of a company or a friendly society is only a term of

contract between a member and the society.” Hence, it is

submitted that a writ petition challenging bye-law is not

maintainable. On similar lines, the learned counsel also relied

upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

CHANDER MOHAN KHANNA v. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING AND OTHERS reported

in 1981(4) SCC 578; and in the case of SMT. DAMYANTI

NARANGA v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHES reported in AIR

1971 SC 966.

7. Lastly, it is submitted that the contention of the

petitioners that they have not been heard before rejecting of

their applications is only an illusion of the petitioners. Since the

petitioners are not members and are only strangers, they need

not be heard before rejecting their applications and on this

ground also petitions are to be dismissed.

40

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Before going

to the merits of the case, the objections raised by the third

respondent, especially on the ground of maintainability, is

required to be dealt with. Amendment was brought to the bye-

laws of the third respondent-Society on 30th March 1981 and the

same was registered on 31st March 1981. It is the case of the

third respondent that there is an inordinate delay of more than

three decades in approaching this Court and hence on the

ground of delay and laches these petitions are to be dismissed.

The petitioners, basically, are not the members of the Society

and are approaching the Society to get membership. It is their

case that since the Hyderabad-Karnataka region felt lack of

facilities for higher education in professional courses, the then

Divisional Commissioner of Gulbarga Division and the District

Commissioners of two Districts viz. Raichur and Bidar made an

effort to register an Association to improve this field of

education. Till then, there was no Society existing in this region

to improve the education in the field of higher education to

professional courses. If original bye-law is looked into, it is the

Divisional Commissioner and the District Commissioners of two

41

Districts viz. Raichur and Bidar have constituted a Managing

Council and the remaining 21 members comprised of elite

persons like Legislators, Members of Parliament, Doctors,

Lawyers, Professors, etc. The Divisional Commissioner and the

District Commissioners, by using their good offices, have

collected money and material appealing to the public to donate

generously for the said cause by issuing pamphlets. The

pamphlets were printed in local language as also in Marathi and

Urdu including English languages and distributed locally for the

purpose of establishing the Society. The Chairman of the

Council-Divisional Commissioner instructed the Government

departments to collect additional revenue, tax from each

cultivator of all the three districts and in response to the same,

the cultivators of the region paid additional revenue to help the

governing council to proceed further. It is stated in the petitions

that an amount in the tune of Rs.99,58,784/- was collected in

the year 1957 itself. Presidents of the Marketing Committees,

Senior Marketing Officers, Regional Transport Officers and other

Government Officials were requested to collect funds vide

proceedings of the Divisional Commissioner Gulbarga dated 27th

42

December 1957. Resolution dated 3rd August 1958 was passed

to authorize the Chairman-Divisional Commissioner to open an

account in his name. The governing body, to manage the affairs

of the Engineering College, constituted Candidates Selection

Committee, Purchase Committee and Staff Selection Committee.

It is further to be stated that the District Committee, Gulbarga

collected one thousand tonnes of cement for the construction of

Engineering College, giving a rebate of Rs.20/- per tonne; and

the Government of India through Government of Mysore was

requested to waive levy of excise duty and baggage charges on

one thousand tonnes of cement. Though these things are

pleaded in the petition, the same are not countered by the

respondent by filing objections. The Society opened an

Engineering College and a Medical College for which even the

Government of India and the Government of Mysore have

contributed. These submissions have been made by the

petitioners in order to emphasise that the Society came into

existence at the instance of the Divisional Commissioner, the

District Commissioners and the general public. The bye-law,

provide and permit that all the persons of this region can

43

become members of the Society. In view of the same, the

learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners

are also entitled and eligible to become the members of the

governing council, but clandestinely the elected members of the

Society, on 30th March 1981, brought amendment to the bye-

laws to prevent the general public becoming Members with an

intention to protect their own interest. Since the date of

amendment to bye-laws, these petitioners are making attempt

by approaching the Government and the third respondent, to

become members of the Society. As stated earlier, a writ

petition was also filed before this Court seeking a direction to the

respondents to give membership to the petitioners. This effort

shows that an attempt has been made by the petitioners to get

membership. When a claim of this nature is made, the persons

who approach this Court, cannot be shunted out on the ground

of limitation. No doubt, it is very clear from the pleadings of the

petitioners that there is a huge gap between the date of

amendment to the bye-laws and the date of filing the petitions,

but, limitation is not applicable to the petitioners to file writ

petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is a

44

well-established principle that a statute cannot regulate the

jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of SMT. SUDAMA DEVI v.

COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS reported in (1983)2 SCC 1 held

that “there is no period of limitation prescribed by any law for

filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is in

fact doubtful whether any such period of limitation can be

prescribed by law. In any event one thing is clear and beyond

doubt that no such period of limitation can be laid down under

Rules made by the High Court or by practice. In every case it

would have to be decided on the facts and circumstances

whether the petitioner is guilty of laches and that would have to

be done without taking into account any specific period as a

period of limitation. There may be cases where even short delay

may be fatal, while there may be cases where even a long delay

may not be evidence of laches on the part of the petitioner.” As

it is held in the above said judgment, the delay and laches has to

be screened depending upon case to case. Even under Article

226 of the Constitution the delay of merely a few days may be

45

fatal to the cases and an inordinate delay of decades together

also may be cases for condonation.

9. The second ground taken by the Society with regard to

maintainability is that the bye-laws are the contract between the

Members of the Society and are not open to challenge. No

doubt, it is true that the members of the Society can amend the

bye-laws of the Society and can delete or bring-in new

amendments to the bye-laws by holding a Special General Body

meeting. The said objection is not applicable to the present case

for the reason that amendment has been made to the bye-laws

of the third respondent-Society on 30th March 1981 by conferring

power on the governing council to decide the fate of the

applications seeking membership depending upon the voting of

two-third majority of members. The said amendment was made

by the Special General Body Meeting on 30th March 1981 which

itself is not an end and the same should be in accordance with

the provisions of the Act. It is useful to refer to Section 10(2) of

the Act which reads thus:

“10. Change of name, rules and regulations.-

46

(1) xxx xxx xxx

(2) Every amendment made under sub-section (1) shall,

within thirty days be filed with the Registrar. If the Registrar

is satisfied that the amendment made under sub-section (1)

is in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the rules

made thereunder, he shall register it. Such amendment shall

have effect from the date of resolution passed under sub-

section (1).”

10. The said amendment to the bye-law could be brought

by a Resolution passed in a Special General Body meeting, and

for conducting such Meeting, written or printed notice shall have

to be communicated to all the members of the society twenty-

one days prior to the date of meeting. The provision itself has

fixed the mandatory proceedings for the purpose of issuance of

notice in writing or in a printed form and it is to be delivered by

registered post twenty-one days prior to such Special General

Body meeting and if the same is examined, in the proceedings

made by the third respondent, I find that there is no discussion

made in the proceedings as to whether twenty-one days’ prior

notice has been given to all the members and what was the total

number of members present in the meeting and the presence of

47

proxy members for the said purpose. Proviso to Sub-section (2)

of Section 10 of the Act further provides that the resolution

passed has to be forwarded within thirty days to the Registrar

and the bye-laws are to be accepted on satisfaction by the

District Registrar of Societies. It also says that after the

Registrar satisfying himself that the amendment made is in

accordance with the provisions of the Act, then only he has to

accord sanction to the amendment to be brought in to the bye-

laws. In the present case, the order of second respondent is

examined and no reference is made in that regard and it is not

clear as to whether he had applied his mind with regard to he

satisfying in bringing amendment to the bye-laws. The words

employed in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act are to be

understood in an objective manner. The Registrar has to verify

and assign reasons in his order as to whether he had been

satisfied with the formalities and requirements provided under

sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act and the same has been

complied by the third respondent-Society. Resolution was

passed on 30th March 1981 in principle, the approval has been

accorded and are accepted under sub-Section (2) of Section 10

48

of the Act on the very next day i.e. on 31st March 1981. It is not

forthcoming as to whether the Registrar has applied his mind in

that regard. The words employed therein raises doubt as to

whether Registrar has exercised his power for the purpose of

satisfaction under sub-Section 2 of Section 10 of the Act or not?

Since the District Registrar has not discharged his statutory duty

and amendment to the bye-laws have not been accepted and

adopted as per the provisions of the Act, the same suffers and

are ultra vires to the provisions of the Act. On this ground when

it is examined, it is found that the exercise made by the second

and third respondents is bad in law. The submission made on

behalf of the Society to the effect that it is for the Society to

amend its bye-laws though is valid, but in the light of the

discussion made above the same is not sustainable. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of N BALAJI v. VIRENDRA SINGH AND

OTHERS reported in 2004(8) SCC 312 at paragraph 12 of the

judgment has held that “the exercise of the discretionary power

can be interfered by the High Court only if the order passed is

violative of some fundamental or basic principle of justice and

fair play or suffers from any patent or flagrant error." The said

49

judgment squarely applies to the case on hand. Hence, it is to

be held that the action of the third respondent is in violation of

Section 10(2) of the Act.

11. In the case of GRIDCO LIMITED AND ANOTHER v.

SADANANDA DOLOI AND OTHERS reported in (2011)15 SCC 16,

it is held that “Interference is permissible where action of

authority is mala fide, arbitrary, irrational, disproportionate or

unreasonable or perverse or irrational or in such outrageous

defiance of logic that person taking decision can be said to have

taken leave of his senses.”

12. The next defence taken by the respondents is that the

petitioners are strangers and do not have any locus standi. The

respondents should not forget that it was only the strangers,

who have formed the Society, with a staunch desire to develop

an Education Society to impart higher education in professional

courses in Hyderabad-Karnataka region. The members, as on

that day, felt that the region lacks facilities for higher education

in professional courses in the backward districts, and it is at that

time such strangers decided to form a Society. When the third

50

respondent is also one such stranger, how can it raise such an

objection when the other competent members make an

application to get membership to the Society. The selfless action

of the governing council members in 1958, has made the Society

to reach to this height today, wherein it has got forty education

institutions, of which thirty institutions are getting aid by

Government of India and the Government of Karnataka. Apart

from getting aid, the institutions are also getting concessions

from the Government. Initially, land was given by the

Government. Materials and funds were raised by the

Government Officials of various departments as also Government

of Mysore gave concessions and the Government of India waived

levy of excise duty and baggage charges on one thousand

tonnes of cement at Rs.20/- per tonne. When such is the

position of the respondent at the initial stage, now it is untenable

to take that stand. Clause (4) in the original bye-law provides

for membership to all the persons irrespective of caste, colour

and creed and the attempt made by the elected members in the

year 1981 to empower the governing council to decide the fate

of the applicants to get membership by voting of two-third

51

majority can be termed only as an ulterior motive. No doubt,

making amendment to its bye-laws is for the Society, but while

so amending they should have looked back at the founders who

laid foundation for the Society and on which foundation today

this castle has come-up. Hence, the submissions of the learned

counsel for the third respondent-Society that the petitioners

have no locus standi cannot be accepted and accordingly

rejected.

13. The another objection raised by the Society is that

bye-laws cannot be challenged in a writ jurisdiction. This similar

contention was discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ZEE

TELEFILMS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in

(2005)4 SCC 649 wherein it has been discussed that though the

societies are registered under Societies Registration Act, but its

functions and control over the other limb is the deciding factor.

In this regard, it is also useful to refer to judgement of the

Madras High Court in the case of C. LAKSHMIAH REDDIAR v.

THE SRI PERUMBADUR TALUK reported in AIR 1962 MAD 169.

The facts in the said case are that the appellant’s nomination

52

was rejected on the ground that he had not brought to the

Society the quantity of fifty maunds of paddy for sale through

the Society when the society was a private society and the

proceedings relating to the internal administration of such a

society will fall outside the special jurisdiction of the Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution. The dismissal order of the

learned single Judge was challenged in Writ Appeal. By its order

dated 3rd May 1961, the order of dismissal was confirmed. While

dismissing the writ appeal, the Division Bench referred some of

the judgments, which I am borrowing, as they are academically

relevant to the case on hand. In the said judgement at

paragraph 3 of the judgement, it is observed that the objection

raised by the Advocate General was that a writ could not issue

under Article 226 of the Constitution to any body, which was not

a judicial or quasi judicial Tribunal statutorily entrusted with the

right and duty to decide the disputes between parties. (REX v.

ELECTRICITY COMMISSIONERS reported in 1924-1 KB 171). In

R v. DISPUTED COMMISSION OF DENTAI TECH reported in

1953-1-AELR 327, Lord Goddard, Chief Justice, has observed

that “the bodies to which in modern times the remedies of these

53

prerogative writs have been applied are all statutory bodies on

whom Parliament has conferred statutory powers and duties the

exercise of which may lead to the detriment of subjects.” By

referring to the said judgments, the Division Bench held that

“the regulations are framed by the Society itself and have no

statutory force. Clearly, thereon an order of this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution cannot issue to quash the

proceedings of such a body.”

14. The judgments referred to above are of the year 1961

and much water has flown since then. Enormous interpretations

and plethora of judgments of the High Courts and Hon'ble

Supreme Court are available today. The question of the Society

as to whether it is the case to be entertained under Article 226

of the Constitution or not, no more depends on it. The deciding

factor is its activities and functions. In the instant case, the

society was formed in the year 1958 to establish educational

institutions for professional courses in Hyderabad-Karnataka

region. The petitioners have placed materials and from that it is

found that the funding, to establish these education institutions,

54

was contributed by the officials of Government Departments and

general public. Even today, it is not clear from the third

respondent as to whether the place where the institution is put

up is a Government land or the land granted to it. When the

Society was started, it was confined to three districts and now it

is four districts, i.e. after the formation of a new District Yadgiri.

Initially, there might have been only 2-3 institutions whereas

today the society has grown up enormously and nearly forty

Engineering and Medical institutions are established out of which

thirty institutions are getting aid from the Government of India

and the Government of Karnataka. The public function and the

public obligation which ought to have been discharged by the

Government or public authority for the purpose of Article 12 of

the Constitution of India, have been extended and now being

carried out by the Society. When such being the case, making

classification as to whether it is a State or an authority for the

purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution, depends upon the

nature of the Society and its capacity. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of G. BASSI REDDY v. INTERNATIONAL CROPS

RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND ANOTHER reported in (2003)4 SCC

55

225 at paragraph 28 of the judgement has held that “A writ

under Article 226 can lie against a “person” if it is a statutory

body or performs a public function or discharges a public or

statutory duty (Praga Tools Corpn. V. C.A. Imanual, Sri Anadi

Mukta Sadguru Trust V. V.R. Rudani SCC at p.698 and VST

Industries Ltd. V. Workers’ Union). ICRISAT has not been set up

by a statute nor are its activities statutorily controlled.

Although, it is not easy to define what a public function or public

duty is, it can reasonably be said that such functions are similar

to or closely related to those performable by the State in its

sovereign capacity.”

15. Discharging of function of the Society is a function

performable by the State Government and also it is a public duty

and public obligation carried out by the third respondent-Society.

Under the Constitution of India, it is the duty of the State to

provide education and now it is the fundamental right to get

education. These two things are conjointly performed by the

third respondent-Society. While performing these duties, it is

also receiving aid from the public and also aid from Government

56

apart from receiving some concessions. When a society is

functioning at this height, how can it not be amenable to this

Court to find out whether its functions are being carried out in

accordance with law and/or in the larger public interest? While

answering whether it is a State or not, one thing is definite. This

Court can interfere with the functioning of the society and cannot

shut its door. “If it is not part of the State, the aggrieved person

has a remedy under the Constitution by invoking power under

Article 226. A violator who is a private body exercising public

function would not go scot free merely because it is not part of

the State under Article 12.” (borrowed from page 6584 Vol.6 8th

Edition-Commentary on the Constitution of India by Durga Das

Basu.)

16. In this regard, it is necessary to refer to the

judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BINNY

LTD. AND ANOTHER v. V. SADASIVAN AND OTHERS reported in

(2005)6 SCC 657 wherein at paragraph 11 of the judgement, it

is observed thus:

57

“11. Judicial review is designed to prevent the cases of

abuse of power and neglect of duty by public authorities.

However, under our Constitution, Article 226 is couched in

such a way that a writ of mandamus could be issued even

against a private authority. However, such private authority

must be discharging a public function and that the decision

sought to be corrected or enforced must be in discharge of a

public function. The role of the State expanded enormously

and attempts have been made to create various agencies to

perform the governmental functions. Several corporations

and companies have also been formed by the government to

run industries and to carry on trading activities. These have

come to be known as Public Sector Undertakings. However,

in the interpretation given to Article 12 of the Constitution,

this Court took the view that many of these companies and

corporations could come within the sweep of Article 12 of the

Constitution. At the same time, there are private bodies also

which may be discharging public functions. It is difficult to

draw a line between the public functions and private

functions when it is being discharged by a purely private

authority. A body is performing a "public function" when it

seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public or a

section of the public and is accepted by the public or that

section of the public as having authority to do so. Bodies

therefore exercise public functions when they intervene or

participate in social or economic affairs in the public interest.

In a book on Judicial Review of Administrative Action (Fifth

Edn.) by de Smith, Woolf & Jowell in Chapter 3 para 0.24, it

is stated thus:

58

"A body is performing a "public function" when it

seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the

public or a section of the public and is accepted by

the public or that section of the public as having

authority to do so. Bodies therefore exercise public

functions when they intervene or participate in

social or economic affairs in the public interest.

This may happen in a wide variety of ways. For

instance, a body is performing a public function

when it provides "public goods" or other collective

services, such as health care, education and

personal social services, from funds raised by

taxation. A body may perform public functions in

the form of adjudicatory services (such as those of

the criminal and civil courts and tribunal system).

They also do so if they regulate commercial and

professional activities to ensure compliance with

proper standards. For all these purposes, a range

of legal and administrative techniques may be

deployed, including: rule-making, adjudication (and

other forms of dispute resolution); inspection; and

licensing.

Public functions need not be the exclusive domain

of the state. Charities, self-regulatory organizations

and other nominally private institutions (such as

universities, the Stock Exchange, Lloyd's of

London, churches) may in reality also perform

some types of public function. As Sir John

59

Donaldson M.R. urged, it is important for the courts

to "recognise the realities of executive power" and

not allow "their vision to be clouded by the subtlety

and sometimes complexity of the way in which it

can be exerted". Non-governmental bodies such as

these are just as capable of abusing their powers

as is government."

17. Article 226 of the Constitution of India vests

extraordinary power to the Court. Exercising of discretionary

power depends upon case to case and fact to fact. Whenever it

is found that the activities in the public interest are required to

be interfered with, and to exercise the said right in the interest

of public at large, this Court can exercise its discretionary power.

In the case of AIR INDIA LTD. v. COCHIN INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT LTD. AND OTHERS reported in (2000)2 SCC 617

wherein at paragraph 7 of the judgement, it is observed thus:

“7. …Even when some defect is found in the decision-making

process the court must exercise its discretionary power

under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it

only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the

making out of a legal point. The Court should always keep

the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether

its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a

60

conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires

interference, the court should intervene.”

18. As it is held in the above said case, it is for this Court

to decide whether it is appropriate to interfere or not. As long as

this extraordinary discretionary power is available under the

Constitution of India this court shall not shirk in discharging its

duties. This does not mean that illegality is being committed by

the third respondent-Society. What is to be conveyed is that the

respondent cannot take a ground that this Court should not

interfere even if some lapses are found. It is true that lapses

could be found in the governing council of the Society or in

administration of any other institution. But, what is required is,

whether the lapses so committed or said to have occurred, are

substantial in nature which are required to put to halt in the best

interest of the Society and public at large. In the light of the

reasons stated above and in the light of the judgments referred,

I reject the contention taken by the Society that bye-laws could

not be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

61

19. As discussed earlier, the third respondent gave an

undertaking before this Court that it would issue a paper

publication inviting applications for membership to the

Hyderabad-Karnataka Education Society within one week. When

such undertaking is given to the Court and the same has been

believed and writ petition No.19466 of 2010 came to be disposed

of, then the third respondent should have taken extraordinary

care and responsibility in issuing notification. From the petition

it is seen that in the year 1958 a notification was issued inviting

applications for membership in three districts by issuing

pamphlets in local language as also in Marathi, Urdu and English

languages. When such great thing was done by the founders,

the third respondent should have posed a question for itself, as

to why it cannot issue such a notification. No doubt, notification

was issued on 8th January 2010 and it has not placed any

material before this Court as to how many applicants are given

membership pursuant to the said Notification. It must also have

stated that whether the Notification has been issued in wide

publication in local language and also in Marathi, Urdu and

English languages, since the portion of the region is dominated

62

by the border area of Maharashtra and Hyderabad. No materials

have been placed before this Court in that regard. On receiving

applications, the same were rejected by issuing an endorsement

which is in a printed format just by writing the names and the

date which is a stereo-type rejection. The third respondent-

Society should have stated as to why these applications have

been rejected and whether two-third majority voting is secured

or not pursuant to the amended bye-law is not forthcoming.

20. In the light of foregoing reasons, order Annexure-B

dated 31st March 1981 passed by the third respondent Deputy

Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Registrar of Societies,

Gulbarga in No.RS/HKE/80-81 is quashed. Consequently, the

bye-laws of the third respondent-Society amended by Resolution

dated 31st March 1981 are also quashed. The Respondent –

Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society, is directed to issue

notification as per the order dated 5.10.2010 in W P

No.19466/20910 in Kannada, Urdu, Marathi and English

languages calling for membership, giving wide publication

specifying therein the format of the application. which has to be

63

displayed in all the educational institutions of the respondent

society, office of the Deputy Commissioners, Assistant

Commissioners and Tahsildars of the Hyderabad-Karnataka

Districts. On receipt of the applications, the same shall be

considered in accordance with bye-laws of the society. The

Registrar of Co-operative Societies is directed to supervise the

respondent-Society as to issuance of a public notification calling

applications for membership to the Society and consideration of

the same.

Election to the Executive Council of the society shall be

held for the remaining 21 members. The official members such

as, Divisional Commissioner (now Regional Commissioner) and

Deputy Commissioners of Hyderabad-Karnataka Districts, shall

continue as per the bye-law.

Petitions are disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

lnn

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH...