Karnataka High Court
Sri Rudreshwara Education Society(R) vs The Secretary on 12 April, 2017
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.40683/2016 (GM-KSR)
BETWEEN:
SRI RUDRESHWARA EDUCATION SOCIETY(R)
HEASRAHALLI, NITTUR HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
SRI G PANCHAKSHARAIAH
S/O SRI GURUVEERAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O 9TH CROSS, S S PURAM
TUMKUR - 572102
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M V HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560001
2. THE REGISTRAR
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
ALI ASKAR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGA.)
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH
THE RULES 5A & 5B OF RULE 9 OF THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES
REGISTRATION [AMENDMENT] RULES DTD.05.03.2015 VIDE
ANNEX-B AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE
REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER DTD.2.7.2016 VIDE ANNEX-D
NOT TO LEVY/ COLLECT THE SCANNING FEES FOR THE
DOCUMENTS LIKE GC LIST AND AUDITED BALANCE SHEET
EVERY YEAR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking that Rules 5A and 5B of Rule 9 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Rules (Amendment) Rules, 2015 ('Rules 2015 for short) be quashed. In that regard, the petitioner is seeking that the request of the petitioner not to levy/collect scanning fee for the documents such as GC list and audited balance sheet every year be considered.
2. The petitioner is a Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 ('the Act' for short) and is carrying on its activities. As required under the Act, the petitioner has been 3 holding its General Body Meeting and the returns relating to the same is being filed with respondent No.2. By the amendment made to Rule 9 of the Rules, the respondents have imposed a fee for scanning and retaining the papers as mentioned therein, which are the annual returns filed by a Society registered under the Act. The petitioner contending that such amendment is not justified and the imposition of such fee has no nexus to the object, is before this Court assailing such Rule.
3. The respondents have filed their objection statement. They have sought to sustain the amendment made to the Rules 2015. In that regard, it is pointed out in the objection statement that Section 30(1) of the Act indicates the power of the Government to issue a notification in the Official Gazette and make such Rules. In that regard, it is pointed out that since the records are to be maintained in a digital form and also keeping in 4 view the fact that all the documents are to be retained for issue of copies as the application under the RTI Act would be received from time to time, the decision has been taken to scan the documents as and when they are filed in compliance with the requirement of the provisions of the Act, the minimum fee has been fixed. In that view, it is contended that when the power is available and the amendment is made in terms thereof, the challenge to the same is without basis and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. In the light of the contentions put forth, I have perused the provisions contained in Section 30 of the Act as referred to by the learned Government Advocate. A perusal of the same would indicate that the State Government by notification in the Official Gazettee can make such Rules as may be necessary for carrying out the purpose of the Act. Through sub-section 1(A) to Section 30, the different subject matters under which 5 such Rules could be framed are also enlisted and Clause
(e) to sub-section (1A) refers to the filing of the list and balance sheet and also the other documents. In that background, a perusal of Rule 9 to Rules 1961 indicates that the rate of fees and fines as provided therein is already available as contained in the Table. The present Rule as introduced is in addition to the Rule already existing therein by incorporating Rules 5(A) and 5(B) thereof and the very items of the documents for which fee is to be paid for the purpose of retaining such documents is due to retention in the digitalized form.
5. Therefore if these aspects are kept in view, when the Government is empowered under the provisions contained in the Act and in exercise thereof, a notification dated 05.03.2015 is issued and the same is published in the Official Gazette, the challenge as made would not be sustainable. In that background when such notification is issued as empowered under the Act and the fee as fixed 6 is taken into consideration, as also the number of documents that would be filed, certainly it cannot be said that the fee fixed is without nexus to the purpose. Therefore in the present circumstance, I see no reason to interfere with the notification assailed in this petition.
Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE hrp/bms