Karnataka High Court
Sri. Jagadguru Basavaraj Pattadarya ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2012
Author: H.N.Nagamohan Das
Bench: H.N.Nagamohan Das
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS
W.P. No. 64520/2011 (GM-KSR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. JAGADGURU BASAVARAJ PATTADARYA
MAHASWAMIGALU
AGE: 66 YEARS, THE PRESIDENT
SHRI. GURUSIDDESHWAR VIDYAVARDHAK AND
SANSKRITAK SAMSTHE, GULEDAGUDDA,
TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
2. SHRI JAGADGURU GURUSIDDESHWAR
VIDYAVARDHAK AND SANSKRITIK SAMSTHE,
GULEDAGUDDA, TQ. BADAMI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
SHRI HANUMANTAPPA DURGAPPA SANGAM,
AGE: 51 YEARS, R/O BAGALKOT .
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI : JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REGISTRAR FOR SOCIETY,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPT., M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE.
:2:
2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR FOR SOCIETIES,
BAGALKOT.
3. SHRI. YAMANAPPA LAXMAPPA MADAR
(CALLING HIMSELF AS SECRETARY)
AGE: 50 YEARS, R/O MURADI
POST. TOGUNASHI, TQ. BADAMI
DIST. BAGALKOT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI : DINESH M. KULKARNI FOR C/R3; SMT. K.
VIDYAVATHI, A.G.A. FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2
DATED:10/06/2011, WHICH IS PRODUCED UNDER
ANNEXURE-M.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners have filed this writ petition calling in question the order of the 2nd respondent dated 10.06.2011 Annexure-M.
2. Petitioner No.2 is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. There are two groups in the Society claiming management of the Society.
The controversy between two groups landed before this :3: Court in W.P. No. 62553/2009. This Court vide order dated 08.07.2009 passed an order as under:
ORDER The approval of the list of management by the District Registrar, Bagalkot, as per Annexure- J is called in question in this writ petition.
It seems there is a serious dispute between the two groups of Sri.Jagadguru Gurusiddeshwara Vidya Vardhaka & Sanskritika Samsthe, Guled Gudda. Each group claims that they have got right to manage the affairs of the society. It is not in dispute that Sri.Jagadguru Gurusiddeshwara Vidya Vardhaka & Sanskritika Samsthe is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Both the groups have given their list of members for the management for the year 2009. However, the list of the petitioner is not considered by the District Registrar while approving the list given by respondent Nos.3 and 4 i.e., the Chairman and Secretary of the society to decide the dispute relating to management. But, in this matter, admittedly no enquiry is held. In view of the same, the approval of the list submitted by respondent Nos.3 and 4 cannot be said to be :4: illegal. Hence, the same needs to be quashed. Accordingly, the following order is made:
The approval of the list submitted by respondent Nos.3 and 4 as per Annexure-J for the management of Sri.Jagadguru Gurusiddeshwara Vidya Vardhaka & Sanskritika Samsthe stands quashed. The District Registrar, Bagalkot, shall hold enquiry into the matter after notice to the petitioner as well as the respondents. However, in the meanwhile, respondents 2, 3 and 4 are permitted to manage the affairs of the Society as Chairman and Secretary respectively.
The enquiry shall be held by the District Registrar within 8 weeks. The parties shall co- operate for early decision.
Sri.R.M.Kulkarni, is directed to file vakalath on behalf of R-2.
3. Thereafter, the petitioners herein filed a petition before the 2nd respondent under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent initiated proceedings. Both the parties adduced evidence and produced documents before the 2nd respondent. After hearing both the parties, the 2nd :5: respondent has now passed the impugned order Annexure-
M. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. This Court in Amiya Vilas Swami and Others vs. Shankha Brita Das and Others, reported in 2008(3) Kar.L.J. 16, held as under;
(A) The Registrar can hold an enquiry and under Section 25, sub-section (2), clause (c), sub-clause (iii), he can communicate the result of the enquiry to the society concerned. Section is silent as to what happens to the report, or whether the Registrar can take further decision on the basis of enquiry. If a society is to be communicated with the result of the enquiry, whether such a society is bound by the report or whether the society in pursuance of the said report could take action, all that is provided is only enquiry and submitting of report. Under Section 27-A of the Act. The Government can appoint an Administrator, if the society fails to hold an election even after expiry of the term of the governing body and if there is long pendency of litigation or is not able to hold the annual general meeting, in such circumstances, the power is conferred on the State Government to appoint Administrator. This is again :6: the discretion of the State Government. It is not mandatory for the State Government to appoint Administrator based on report or based on information. The appointment of an Administrator will not resolve the inter se dispute between two groups claiming to constitute valid governing body or valid general body. In this case, both the groups are claiming that they are in the management or they are in the governing body. Provisions of Section 25 or 27-A do not provide for power to adjudicate, as to whether 'A' group is in governing body or 'B' group is in governing body..... Section 25 does not provide for raising any such dispute nor provide for adjudication, hence it cannot be inferred or understood to mean that the dispute touching the Constitution or a dispute between the members and the members and members and the society could be adjudicated. What is not provided in law cannot be inferred.........The discretionary power vested in the State to appoint an Administrator cannot be understood to mean that a remedy is available for the part to adjudicate his grievances and that cannot be termed as effective, sufficient or adequate remedy for adjudicating their grievances nor it is a remedy. The discretionary power is no related to adjudication of the dispute nor there are any other provisions which provide for adjudication as such.... Section 25 :7: or Section 27-A read with Rule 8, only provide for enquiry by the Registrar and to make a report to the Society, and at the best to the State Government and nothing more than that. If recommendation is to be accepted by the State, whether the State has to take action is also not mandatory. Even if action is taken, that action is not adjudication of dispute, but it is taking over of the management by appointment of an Administrator, which cannot be construed as remedy to the aggrieved party.... The reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs are two fold, one is declaring the plaintiffs 1 to 5 and defendants 1 to 10 are the members of the governing body and they constitute the sixth plaintiff-Society and the second one is, a declaration that the defendants 11 to 17 do not form the governing body nor they constitute sixth plaintiff- society. Section 25 is not a provision to adjudicate this dispute particularly when the plaintiffs allege that, defendants 11 to 17 are imposters, which matter is not within the domain of the Registrar to enquire, whether the defendants 11 to 17 are imposters and the power that is provided under Section 25 of the Act is not a mechanism much less a mechanism for adjudication by a Registrar. Even assuming for the argument sake that there is some mechanism for an enquiry, that by itself is not sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or :8: to confer jurisdiction on the Registrar to adjudicate the matter.
(B) Section 9 of the CPC confers power on the Civil Court to try all the suits of civil nature, except which are expressly or impliedly barred. It is nobody's case that, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred under the provisions of the Act. It is only by implication, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is sought to be ousted. Implication is an indirect method of ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. In such a case, the provisions which oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, must provide for a mechanism to adjudicate such dispute. The cumulative effect of the statutory provision should provide for adequate remedy on par with the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. In such circumstances, it can be inferred that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly excluded... ... Reading of provisions of Sections 10, 26 and 27 of the Act, it is clear that the intention of the Legislature is to provide adjudication only in respect of the matters mentioned therein, wherein the Registrar can hold an enquiry and pass an order and that order becomes final subject to appeal provided to the Appellate Tribunal. As far as the enquiry contemplated under Section 25 is concerned, there is :9: no such provision, which provides adjudication and give finality to dispute. Adequacy of the remedy is one of the requirements to exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Unless there is an adequate, effective and sufficient remedy provided by special statute, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be impliedly ousted....... No jurisdiction can be conferred on the Registrar which the legislation has not provided. The trial Court has held that, the Registrar can hold an enquiry under Section 25 of the Act and not the Civil Court. This finding of the Trial Court is most erroneous and is absolutely contrary to the scope of Section 25 of the Act. Exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot even be normally inferred, unless adequate provision is made to resolve the dispute. Neither Section 25 of the Act nor any other provisions of the Act provide for remedy to adjudicate the dispute one raised in the suit and the Trial Court is not justified in rejecting the plaint.
3. A reading of the above judgment makes it clear that the 2nd respondent - Registrar of Societies, can only hold an enquiry with regard to the affairs of the Society and has no power to adjudicate the status between the parties. It : 10 : further specifies that the Civil Court is having the jurisdiction to adjudicate the status between the parties. In the circumstances, it is to be held that the impugned order is only a report and not adjudication of status between the parties. The status of the parties in the 2nd petitioner Society is required to be adjudicated before the competent Civil Court. Reserving liberty to both the parties to work out their remedy before the competent Civil Court, this writ petition is hereby disposed of, treating the impugned order as only a report and not an adjudication of rights between the parties.
Sd/ JUDGE hnm/