Karnataka High Court
Shree Gorakshana Sabha Sankeshwar vs Shree Gorakshana Sabha Sankeshwar on 30 June, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNA TAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED TH IS THE 30 T H DAY OF JUNE 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUS TICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
WRIT PETITION NO.104926/2017 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
SHREE GORAKSHANA SABHA SANKESHWAR
TAL: HUKKERI
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
SHRI RAMESH S/O. BHIMANGOUDA BIRADAR
AGE: 38 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTU RE
R/O VIJAY COLONY
TAL: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKO T-587101
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SACHIN S MAGADUM, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
SHREE GORAKSHANA SABHA SANKESHWAR
TAL HUKKERI
BY ITS ALLEGED AU THORIZED PERSON
HANAMANT S/O HONNAPPA CHIKKEGOUDAR
AGE: 37 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTU RE
R/O: YADAWAD, TAL: GOKAK
DIST: BELAGAVI- 590001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI R M KULKARNI, ADVOCA TE.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS F ILED UNDER A RTILCES
226 & 227 OF THE CONS TITU TION OF IND IA, PRAYING
2
TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2017, PASSED IN
MISC.NO.66/2017, ON TH E F ILE OF VIII ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESS IONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, VIDE
ANNEXURE- E, ETC.,.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING , TH IS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records.
2. It is seen from the records that petitioner Shree Gorakshana Sabha, Sankeshwar, is a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The main aim and objective of the petitioner trust is to protect the cows and provide fodder, water, shelter and medical treatment. Originally, on the basis of this trust, a committee consisting of 11 members in the managing committee was constituted. However out of 11 members, 8 trustees died in long passage of 3 time. The remaining 3 trustees started managing the committee of the trust. They are (1) Sri Basavanneppa Shivappa Nesari, (2) Sri Gurulingappa Shivalingappa Indi and (3) Sri Shivamuri Dundappa Kabburi. According to them, in a meeting held to select new trustees, they have selected four more trustees, vide meeting and resolution dated 1.10.2015 and in fact after constitution of the new trust consisting of 7 members including the erstwhile 3 trustees the said Gurulingappa Shivalingappa Indi who is present before the Court this day has moved the District Court for approval of the new committee in Misc.Application No.257/2015. After due procedure being followed, the learned District Judge i.e., VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, vide order dated 30.1.2016, has approved the constitution of new committee of the said trust and permitted the other four persons to be added as members of the said trust committee. 4
3. The petitioner claiming himself as the president/chairman of the said trust committee (parallely constituted) on the basis of a decree passed in O.S.No.341/2016, wherein the chairman of the committee Sri Gurulingappa Shivalingappa Indi and the present petitioner have entered into a compromise. By virtue of the same, the petitioner appears to have been considered as chairman of the said committee.
4. Subsequently, the respondent herein claims to be the trustee of the said trust has also filed another petition in Misc.Application No.66/2017 on the file of the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, seeking approval of the newly constituted committee of the said trust. The name of the respondent i.e., Hanamant H. Chikkegoudar is shown as a member of the said committee and also one Sri Shivanandaswamigalu is shown as a managing member of the said 5 committee. The said committee was also approved by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore the above said circumstances clearly goes to show that according to the earlier order of the District Judge in Misc.Application No.257/2015, 7 persons claim to be the members of the said committee of the trust and by virtue of the order in Misc.Application No.66/2017, 11 persons claim to be the members of the said committee of the trust. Therefore it goes without saying that two groups are fighting for the same cause, who amongst the two group is the actual committee of the said trust, has to be ascertained.
5. The records also disclose that there is no dispute that the said three persons i.e., erstwhile trustees are still present and alive and they are the proper persons who have to move the Court for the purpose of constituting a new committee of the trust. Accordingly the said 6 Gurulingappa Shivalingappa Indi has rightly moved the District Court for the purpose of nominating the other four persons as committee members of the said trust. When the said committee of the trust is in force, the 2nd miscellaneous petition is filed without making at least the erstwhile three trustees/members of the said erstwhile committee as parties. But the respondent Hanamant H. Chikkegoudar who represented Shree Gorakshana Sabha, Sankeshwar in Misc.Application No.66/2017 has not even spelt out as to why the earlier committee has to be cancelled and new committee has to be constituted.
6. There is no whisper in the orders of the learned District Judge with reference to the earlier committee or the existence of the erstwhile trust committee. Therefore it clearly goes to show that without making erstwhile trustees as parties 7 to Misc.Application No.66/2017, behind their back, the impugned order appears to have been secured by the said Sri Hanamant H.Chikkagoudar. Under the above said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent ought to have made the earlier trustees as parties to the Misc.Application No.66/2017. If that would have been done, the erstwhile trustees would have brought to the notice of the Court about what transpired in the committee, and about the other four persons who have already been elected and about the passing of the orders by the District Judge earlier in Misc.Application No.257/2015, so as to enable the Court to pass appropriate orders in this regard.
7. In the absence of making them as parties, in the opinion of this Court, the order passed by the learned District Judge in Misc.Application No.66/2017 is not sustainable. 8 Hence the same is liable to be quashed. However it is made clear that the said Misc.Application No.66/2017 is restored on to the file of the learned VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, with a direction to the petitioner therein to bring all the necessary parties on record i.e., the other members of the committee who are claimed to be the trustees/committee members as per the orders in Misc.Application No.257/2015. Thereafter the learned Sessions Judge after hearing both the parties has to pass suitable orders in this regard.
8. It is also made clear that during the pendency of the proceedings both the parties are at liberty to make necessary application seeking necessary interim order for the purpose of managing the trust during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Sessions Judge. 9
9. With these observations the order passed in Misc.Application No.66/2017 is hereby set aside. The matter stands remitted to the Sessions Court to dispose of the said application as expeditiously as possible in the light of the observations made hereinabove.
10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mrk/-