Karnataka High Court
Shri 1008 Parshwanath Digambar Jain ... vs Shri Parshwanath Jain Mandir (Basti) ... on 14 February, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3500
WP No. 102494 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 102494 OF 2023 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI 1008 PARSHWANATH DIGAMBAR JAIN
BASTI COMMITTEE YAMAKANA MARDI
TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETRY
SHRI JINNAPPA
S/O NINAPPA SAMAY,
AGE. 70, OCC. SOCIAL SERVICE AND
SHRI 1008 PARSHWANANTH DIGAMBAR JAIN
BASTI COMMITTEE, YAMAKANA MARDI,
R/O. VPC 47, SAMAY GALLI,
YAMAKANMARDI VILLAGE,
TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591246.
2. SHRI DEVAGOUDA
S/O MALAGOUDA PATIL
AGE. 78 YEARS, OCC. SOCIAL SERVICE AND
YASHAVANT PRESIDENT OF SHRI 1008 PARSHWANATH DIGAMBAR
NARAYANKAR
JAIN, BASTI COMMITTEE, YAMAKANA MARDI,
R/O. BAZAR ROAD, YAMAKANMARDI,
Digitally signed
by YASHAVANT VILLAGE, TQ. HUKKERI,
NARAYANKAR
Date: 2024.02.20
DIST. BELAGAVI 591246.
16:29:08 +0530
3. SHRI ASHOK
S/O RAYAGOUDA PATIL
AGE. 80, OCC. SOCIAL SERVICE AND
VICE PRESIDENT OF SHRI 1008 PARSHWANATH
DIGAMBAR JAIN, BASTI COMMITTEE, YAMAKANA MARDI,
R/O. SHRI NIDI APARTMENT
MALAMADDI DHARWAD 580001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NAVEEN R MELINAMANI , &
SRI. KUSHAL V BOLMAL.,ADVOCATES)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3500
WP No. 102494 of 2023
AND:
SHRI PARSHWANATH JAIN MANDIR
(BASTI) TRUST, YAMAKAN MARDI
TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
PERSON AND PRESIDENT
SHRI RAJENDRA
S/O DHARMI KOTIMANI
AGE. 47, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YAMAKAN MARDI, TQ. HUKKERI,
DIST. BELAGAVI 591246
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHRIKANT T PATIL &
SRI. ROHIT S PATIL .,ADVOCATES)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY XTH
ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN MISC.NO.152/2022 DATED
02.01.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-L HEREIN BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT
PETITION AND DISMISSING THE MISC.NO.152/2022 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order passed by the Xth Additional District Judge, Belagavi in Misc.No.152/2022 dated 02.01.2023 vide Annexure-L herein by allowing this Writ Petition and dismissing the Misc. No. 152/2022 filed by the respondent.
b. Issue such other relief's and pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3500 WP No. 102494 of 2023
2. A trust by name Shri Parswanath Swami Basti, Yamakalmardi came to be registered under Bombay Trust Act 1950 on 13.10.1956. Subsequently, an application was made to the Assistant Charity Commissioner for registration of the said trust, which was so done on 24.8.1999 on the basis of a changed report.
3. The trust represented one Sri.Rajendra s/o Dharmu Kotimani had filed a petition under Section 3 and 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920 (for short "Act of 1920") in Misc.No.152/2022 before the X Additional District Judge, Belagavi seeking approval of the resolution passed by the trust as regards the managing committee of the trust. The names of the said members of the managing committee having been provided with the change report, was accepted by the said Court and the names of the Managing Committee has been provided by a trust was approved to be legal and valid vide the impugned order dated 2.1.2023, it is -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:3500 WP No. 102494 of 2023 challenging the same the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the District Court did not have powers under Section 3 and 7 of the Act of 1920 for approving the Managing Committee. The approval of the managing committee is not an aspect covered under section 3 or 7 of the Act of 1920.
5. In this regard he relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of Shri.Chandrahas S/o Ekanath Dhumal & Another vs. Shri.Rohan Anil Salve & Another in WP No.111276/2009 dated 17.12.2021 and in the case of Shri. Vanavasi Shri. Ram Mandir Trust vs. Shri. Raghavendra Sondur & another dated 15.12.2021 in WP No.104185/2021 to contend that this court has already come to a conclusion that there are no powers under Section 3 and 7 of Act of 1920 for approval of managing committee and as such he -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:3500 WP No. 102494 of 2023 submits that the impugned order is required to be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for respondent would submit that the earlier managing committee has continued and said managing committee has been running the affairs of the trust from the year 1999. A resolution has been passed by the managing committee as regards which an application was filed. If the order is set aside, then the manner and methodology of running the trust would be adversely affected and as such, the resolution having been passed, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the resolution, the aggrieved party have to approach the jurisdictional Court under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. Heard Sri.Naveen R.Melinamani., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Shrikant T. Patil., learned counsel appearing for respondents. perused papers.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3500 WP No. 102494 of 2023
8. A short question that would arise for consideration is whether the District Court under Section 3 and 7 of the Act of 1920 can approve the list of managing committee and/or validate the list of managing committee submitted by the trust.
9. The above aspect is no longer res integra this Court has categorically dealt with the same in its order dated 17.12.2021 in WP No.111276/2019 and order date 31.3.2022 in WP No.104185/2021 and has come to a conclusion that the provision of Section 3 and 7 would apply in the limited conspectus of aid and advice and/or seeking for documents of the trust and nothing else.
10. If at all, a scheme of management is required to be framed. The same would have to be so done under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
11. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that in the present case the respondent-trust could not have approached the District Court under -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:3500 WP No. 102494 of 2023 Section 3 and 7 of the Act of 1920 for approval of the managing committee.
12. The said Court did not have jurisdiction to do so under Section 3 and 7 of the Act of 1920. Hence the order itself is without jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, I pass the following;
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. A certiorari is issued. The order passed by the X Additional District Judge, Belagavi in Misc.No.152/2022 dated 2.1.2023 is hereby quashed.
iii. Since the resolution in question in the present matter has been passed by the Annual General Body in its meeting held on 26.6.2022. If at all any person is aggrieved by said resolution, such person could always approach the jurisdictional Court under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. -8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3500 WP No. 102494 of 2023 iv. In view of the disposal of the main matter, the pending IA does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26