Karnataka High Court
Krantiveer Sangolli Rayanna vs Krantiveer Sangolli Rayanna on 23 August, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 70879 OF 2012 (GM-KSR)
BETWEEN
KRANTIVEER SANGOLLI RAYANNA
RESIDENTIAL HIGH SCHOOL TRUST,
(TRUST REG.NO.E-494(BGM),
NEHRU NAGAR, BELGAUM-590010,
[REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
SHRI. REVAPPA HANJAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SALAPUR TANDA-591 123,
TQ: RAMADURG, DIST: BELGAUM.] DELETED
REPRENTED BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN.
MEGAPPA S/O. MANNAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, R/O. SALAPUR TANDA,
SAROJA
TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
HANGARAKI
...PETITIONER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARANTAKA
DHARWAD
(BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)
BENCH
AND
1. KRANTIVEER SANGOLLI RAYANNA
RESIDENTIAL HIGH SCHOOL TRUST (R),
NEHRU NAGAR, BELGAUM-590 010,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ALLEGED CHAIRMAN,
SHRI RAMAPPA PANDAPPA PAMMAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. VAIBHAV NAGAR, BELGAUM-590 010.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
2. THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES AND
DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
PICKET ROAD, CAMP, BELGAUM-590 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA A. MALI, ADV. FOR R1 )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE REGISTRATION OF FIRST
RESPONDENT TRUST BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT AT
REGISTRATION NUMBER rDgïJ¯ï/¸ÀA.£ÉÆÃA/J¸ï.N.Dgï/©fJA/1043/2011-12
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 09.08.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. This writ petition is filed praying this Court to
issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other order or
direction quashing registration of respondent No.1-Trust
by respondent No.2 at Registration No.
rDgïJ¯ï/¸ÀA.£ÉÆÃA/J¸ï.N.Dgï/©fJA/1043/2011-12 produced at
Annexure-K and issue any other writ or direction or order.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
3. The main contention in this petition is that on
28.02.1979 the petitioner-Trust was registered with the
Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belagavi at Registration
No.E-494(BGM). Revappa Hanjappa Lamani who
represents as Chairman in the present petition was elected
as the Chairman of the petitioner-Trust on 17.08.2003.
The respondent-Ramappa Pandappa Pammar who claims
to be the Chairman of respondent No.1-Trust along with
two others filed a suit against the petitioner-Trust, its
Chairman and Managing Committee members in
O.S.No.5/2008 before the Court of Principal District Judge,
Belagavi on 24.09.2008. The said Court rejected I.A.No.II
for temporary injunction but allowed I.A.No.III for
appointment of Deputy Director of Public Instructions,
Belagavi as Receiver to manage the petitioner-Trust and
its institutions vide order dated 26.07.2010. It is also
contended that respondent who claims to be the Chairman
of the petitioner-Trust filed Miscellaneous Petition
No.195/2010 before the Court of Principal District Judge,
Belagavi on 02.08.2010.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
4. The petitioner-Trust aggrieved by the order
dated 26.07.2010 passed by the Principal District Judge,
Belagavi on I.A.No.III in O.S.No.5/2008, preferred an
appeal before this Court in MFA No.23602/2010 and this
Court stayed the order dated 02.09.2010 passed by the
Principal District Judge, Belagavi on I.A.No.III in
O.S.No.5/2008 until further orders vide order dated
20.10.2010. It is also contended that the Principal District
Judge, Belagavi allowed the Miscellaneous Petition
No.195/2010 vide order dated 20.07.2011. The said order
was also challenged by filing CRP No.1123/2011 before
this Court. It is also contended that the said respondent
submitted an application to respondent No.2 to register
the respondent No.1-Trust under the Karnataka Societies
Registration Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of
1960' for brevity) on 02.01.2012 and the same was
registered and this Court also granted interim stay of the
order dated 20.07.2011 passed by the Principal District
Judge in Misc.Petition No.195/2010 for a period of three
months in CRP No.1123/2011.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
5. Counsel for the petitioner would also
vehemently contend in this petition that the alleged
Chairman of respondent No.1 himself had filed
O.S.No.5/2008 before the Court of Principal District Judge,
Belagavi against the Chairman of the petitioner-Trust and
others to declare that the Chairman of petitioner-Trust
namely Revappa Hanjappa Lamani and six others have no
right to act as Trustees of the petitioner-Trust and to
appoint new Trustees in their place. It is contended that
once the order was passed on I.A.No.III was stayed by
this Court, he ought not to have filed an application for
registration of respondent-Trust. It is also contended that
respondent No.2 failed to note that petitioner-Trust is
already in existence. Hence, another Trust cannot be
created in the same name, same address and same aims
and objects.
6. It is also contended that on receipt of the
application from the respondent for registration of
respondent No.1-Trust, it should have invited objections
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
from the public and also given notice to the Chairman of
the petitioner-Trust and other Trustees and ought to have
given an opportunity of being heard. Respondent No.2 also
failed to note that the respondent himself has filed a
miscellaneous petition without making any of the original
Trustees as parties to the proceedings and obtained an
order behind the back of the petitioner-Trust and the said
order was also questioned and order was also set aside. It
is also contended that respondent No.2 after receiving the
application and before permitting, should have notified the
petitioner-Trust and also followed the procedure
contemplated under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act of 1960
and Rule 3 of Karnataka Societies Registration Rules,
1961.
7. It is further contended that respondent No.2 did
not perform its obligation and hence registration of
respondent No.1-Trust by respondent No.2 is illegal and
liable to be cancelled. It is also contended that respondent
No.2 on the very same day in a lightning speed, registered
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
respondent No.1-Trust by throwing all the provisions of
the law to the wind and without any other objections, filed
the present writ petition seeking the relief of writ in the
nature of certiorari.
8. Counsel for the petitioner also brought to notice
of this Court the very proviso of Section 7 of Act of 1960
and contends that no society shall be registered by a
name which, in the opinion of the Registrar, is undesirable.
A name which is identical with, or too nearly resembles,
the name by which a society in existence has been
previously registered, may be deemed to be undesirable
by the Registrar under this section.
9. Counsel would also vehemently contend that
the very registration of the Trust is against the law. In
support of his argument, he relied upon the judgment of
this Court passed in W.P.No.80849/2012 decided on
13.02.2014 and brought to notice of this Court the
observation made in paragraph No.5 extracting Section 7
of the Act of 1960 and held that the petitioner-society is
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
subsequently registered society in the year 2007-08 under
the very name and it is not open for the authorities to
register the same in an identical name and cancelled the
same.
10. Counsel also relied upon the judgment of this
Court passed in W.P.No.17533/2021 connected with
W.P.No.22023/2021 decided on 17.10.2022 and brought
to notice of this Court the discussion made in respect of
Section 7 as well as 27 and contends that what would
unmistakably emerge is that registration of the 3rd
respondent/Association runs foul of the mandate of
Section 7 of the Act, as both the Associations are not too
nearly similar but are virtually same. Once a Society is
registered with a particular name, registration of a second
Society with the same name is impermissible. Section 27
of the Act makes acts to be unlawful activity only after the
registration of the Society. The Legislature in its wisdom
has not made pre-registration acts an offence and allowed
the writ petition and quashed the order impugned therein
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
and comes to the conclusion that registration of
respondent No.3/Association is illegal.
11. Counsel in support of his argument, has also
produced the original register along with a memo and
contends that the very contention of the respondent that
in the resolution dated 17.08.2003 three persons of Trust
were not alive, cannot be accepted and brought to notice
of this Court that respondent himself is a signatory to the
said resolution and now he cannot find fault with the
same. Counsel would also contend that though one of the
Trustees name was mentioned in the resolution, but he
had not signed and hence the contention that resolution is
passed by including dead person cannot be accepted. It is
contended that the respondent cannot blow hot and cold
being a party to the resolution dated 17.08.2003.
12. Per contra, counsel for the respondent would
vehemently contend that the averments made in the
petition are not correct and detail statement of objections
are filed and in the objections, it is contended that the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
present petition in the form for quashing of the
registration of the Trust is not maintainable and the
petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the present
petition. As such, the very petition itself requires to be
dismissed as not maintainable.
13. It is contended that the original Trust was
registered on 28.02.1979 and there were eight Trustees
including the Chairman. Thereafter, in the year 1979
certain changes in the members/Trustees came to be
effected and the same was approved by the Charity
Commissioner in Enquiry No.372/1979, wherein three
Trustees were removed and in their place three new
members were appointed. Subsequently, again during the
year 1988, there was further change in the constitution
and co-opted some other Trustees and reconstituted the
Trust. One Durgappa Neelannavar was the Chairman and
Revappa Hanjappa Lamani was the Vice Chairman.
Further, it is contended that when the Trustees started to
act prejudicially to the interest of the Trust on account of
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
highhanded attitude of the Trustee Revappa Hanjappa
Lamani who started to misuse the Trust funds for his
personal use and on account of the same there was a rift
between the Trust Chairman and Durgappa Neelannavar
and Revappa Hanjappa Lamani. Thereafter, the said
Revappa Hanjappa Lamani highhandedly started to claim
and conduct himself as the Chairman of the Trust and
ultimately after the death of Chairman, Durgappa
Neelannavar during the year 2003, the said Revappa
Hanjappa Lamani illegally declared himself as the
Chairman of the Trust by creating false and fabricated
documents of the General Body Meeting of the Trust
Committee member on 17.08.2003.
14. It is contended that under these circumstances,
in the meanwhile three Trustees died and one Trustee
resigned from the committee and produced death
certificates of three Trustees as Annexures-R.1 to R.3. It is
also contended that in view of illegal activities and
mismanagement of the public Trust, respondent No.1
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
herein filed a suit in O.S.No.5/2008 and an order was also
passed for appointing the DDPI, Belagavi as Receiver for
management of respondent No.1-Trust and the said order
was also challenged in MFA and the same was stayed. It is
also contended that the meeting was convened on
16.05.2010 and decided to co-opt new members as
Trustees against the vacant posts and it was unanimously
resolved to co-opt the members as Trustees and
accordingly reported the change and reconstitution of the
committee of Trustees to the Assistant Charity
Commissioner, Belagavi for its approval. Accordingly, the
committee resolved to delete the names of expired and
resigned members and in their place co-opted and added 4
members as co-opted Trustees and accordingly newly
reconstituted Trustees committee stood. The resolution
dated 16.05.2010 passed by the Trustee committee is
marked as Annexure-R4.
15. It is also contended that the claim made by
original petitioner and present applicant is only on
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
correction of document. Respondent No.2 after conducting
an enquiry as required under the provisions of the Act and
Rules, therein registered respondent No.1-Trust and
approved its by-laws and management committee and the
same is produced as Annexure-R5. The DDPI, Belagavi has
made report on 07.10.2013 to the Commissioner of Public
Instructions, Dharwad thereby clearly stating that there
are no documents to show that Revappa Hanjappa Lamani
was ever appointed as Chairman of Krantiveer Sangolli
Rayanna, Residential High School Trust and copy of the
report is also marked as Annexure-R6. Counsel has also
produced copy of the order passed by this Court in
CRP.No.1123/2011 decided on 08.10.2021 as Annexure-
R7.
16. Counsel would vehemently contend that
Annexures-R1, 2 and 3 are very clear that Annexure-D
resolution consists names of dead persons i.e. R.H.Lamani,
who passed away on 04.08.2003 and so also D.B.Madar,
who passed away on 20.08.1992 and D.Y.Chalawadi, who
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
died on 10.03.1999 and hence it is clear that the
resolution dated 17.08.2003 is created one and dead
person cannot participate in the said resolution. Counsel
also relied upon Annexures-R1, 2 and 3 which are the
death certificates of the said persons. Counsel would also
vehemently contend that after the repeal of the BPT Act
and consequent upon communication of Education
Department dated 07.10.2013 as per Annexure-R6, an
application was filed and got registered the Trust and
hence cannot find fault with the registration of the Trust.
17. Counsel would also contend that immediately
after the repealment of BPT Act, the respondent has
followed the procedure and filed an application and got
registered the Trust. Counsel also relied upon judgment of
this Court passed in W.P.No.101436/2018 connected with
other writ petitions and brought to notice of this Court
paragraph No.12, wherein specific point for consideration
was framed by this Court and discussion was made with
regard to the scope and effect of Sections 3 and 7 of the
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
Hindu Religious and Charitable and Religious Trust Act,
1920 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1920' for brevity)
and to what institutions was the BPT Act applicable and
what is the effect of repeal of the BPT Act and whether on
the repeal of the BPT Act, the Trust registered under the
said Act, would have to be registered under the Act of
1920 or under the Act of 1960.
18. Counsel also brought to notice of this Court the
discussion made by this Court in paragraph Nos.17 and
18, wherein while answering point No.4 it has been
discussed as to what is the effect of repeal of the BPT Act
and the counsel contends that the Court comes to the
conclusion that Trust is not carrying out any charitable or
religious act but it is carrying out educational activity and
hence Act of 1920 would not be applicable since the aims
and objects will not come within the mandate of Act of
1920. Counsel would also contend that while answering
point No.5 this Court had discussed in detail and comes to
the conclusion that the education institution ought to have
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
been registered under the Act of 1960. Hence, he prays
this Court to dismiss the writ petition.
19. Having heard the petitioner's counsel and the
counsel for respondent No.1 and considering the material
on record, Annexures as well as respective oral
submissions and also the citations which have been relied
upon by the respective counsels, the points that would
arise for consideration of this Court are:
i. Whether this Court can issue a writ of
certiorari or any other direction or order
quashing the registration of respondent
No.1-Trust in terms of Annexure-K?
ii. What order?
20. Having considered the grounds which have
been urged in the writ petition and the relief as sought and
also the contentions of the petitioner's counsel and the
counsel for respondent No.1, this Court has to mention the
admitted facts. Both the petitioner as well as respondent
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
No.1 do not dispute the fact that originally a Trust, in the
name of Krantiveer Sangolli Rayanna Residential High
School Trust, Nehru Nagar, Belagavi was registered by the
Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belagavi under the
provisions of the BPT Act. There were eight Trustees to
manage the affairs of the Trust originally and the said
Trust was registered on 28.02.1979. It is also not in
dispute in view of the contentions of the both the counsels
that in the year 1979 certain changes in the member
Trustees came to be effected wherein the original
petitioner in this petition Revappa Hanjappa Lamani was
inducted as Trustee of the said Trust in Enquiry
No.372/79. It is also not in dispute that during the year
1989 further change was made in respect of constitution
of Trustees Committee reporting appointment of Durgappa
Neelannavar as Trust Chairman and Revappa Hanjappa
Lamani as Vice Chairman in Enquiry No.601/89. It is also
not in dispute that the Chairman was passed away and
resolutions were passed on 10.08.2003 and 17.08.2003
and the said resolutions were passed as the original
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
petitioner in this petition was the Chairman and he led the
Trust meeting and he was elected as Chairman, but the
respondent No.1 disputed the resolution dated
17.08.2003.
21. It is important to note that in the said
resolution as per the original resolution book, respondent
No.1 was one of the invitee for the said meeting and he
also attested the said resolution dated 17.08.2003. It is
also important to note that thereafter also several
meetings were held on 07.09.2003, 09.10.203,
23.10.2003, 03.11.2003, 30.06.2004, 18.07.2004,
08.08.2004, 14.11.2004, 27.02.2005, 15.05.2005,
02.06.2005, 11.09.2005, 20.11.2005, 22.01.2006,
26.02.2006, 22.04.2006 and 28.05.2006. In all these
meetings, respondent No.1 has also participated and he
attested signature in terms of original resolution book
produced along with the memo by the petitioner's counsel.
It is also not in dispute that differences arisen between the
petitioner and respondent No.1 in 2008 and till then no
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
dispute and respondent No.1 had filed a suit in
O.S.No.5/2008 contending that there is illegal activities
and mismanagement of public Trust and in the said suit it
is questioned that the original petitioner and others were
illegally claiming to be Trustees and sought for an order of
injunction against the petitioner and others from acting as
the Chairman and Trustees of respondent No.1-Trust. It is
also not in dispute that that temporary injunction was
sought in the said suit and the same was rejected vide
order on I.A.No.II. However, the Trial Court granted an
order by allowing I.A.No.III wherein prayer of the plaintiff
was considered for appointment of the Deputy Director of
Public Instructions, Belagavi as receiver to manage the
petitioner-Trust and its institutions vide order dated
26.07.2010.
22. It is also the contention of the petitioner that
MFA No.23602/2010 was filed and order passed on
I.A.No.III in O.S.No.5/2008 was stayed by this Court vide
order dated 20.10.2010 and subsequently the said MFA
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
was also allowed. It is important to note that in the
meanwhile, respondent No.1 claimed that he is the
Chairman. On account of the meeting held on 16.05.2010
the members were co-opted and four members were as
co-Trustees and thereafter respondent No.1 herein has
approached the Principal District Judge, Belagavi by filing
Misc.No.195/2010 invoking Section 92 of the CPC for
approval of deletion of names of deceased and resigned
members/Trustees and in addition approval of co-opted
members and petitioner was also included in the Trust
Committee. Misc.No.195/2010 was filed based on the said
resolution dated 16.05.2010 and also prayer sought in the
said petition was approval and the Principal District Judge
vide order dated 18.11.2011 approved the prayer by
allowing the said petition.
23. It is also the contention of respondent No.1 that
they sought the relief before the Court in Miscellaneous
Petition and the relief was granted. It is also not in dispute
that the original petitioner in this petition along with two
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
others have filed CRP No.1123/2011 challenging the order
passed in Misc.No.195/2010 and this Court granted an
order of stay and ultimately the said petition was allowed
and set aside the order of the Principal District Judge,
Belagavi and matter was remitted back to the District
Court and the same is pending after the remand.
24. The main contention of the petitioner is that
respondent No.2 would not have registered the Trust in
the similar or identical name and hence the very
registration is erroneous. He also contends that as per
Section 7 of Act of 1960, no society shall be registered by
a name which, in the opinion of the Registrar, is
undesirable. Name of respondent No.1-Trust is exactly
identical with name of petitioner-Trust which is in
existence till today and the same has neither been
dissolved nor has its registration cancelled.
25. This Court would like to refer Section 7 of the
Act of 1960, which reads as under:
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
"7. Societies not to be registered with undesirable
names.- No society shall be registered by a name
which, in the opinion of the Registrar, is undesirable.
A name which is identical with, or too nearly
resembles, the name by which a society in existence
has been previously registered, may be deemed to
be undesirable by the Registrar under this section."
26. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon two
judgments in support of his argument. As per the
judgments passed by this Court in W.P.No.80849/2012
and W.P.No.17533/2021 referred to supra, it is clear that
similar identical society cannot be registered. This Court in
W.P.No.80849/2012 in para No.5 extracting Section 7 of
the Act of 1960 held that it is clear that no society shall be
registered by a name which is undesirable. A name which
is identical with, or too nearly resembles the name by
which a society already in existence has been previously
registered, may be deemed to be undesirable by the
Registrar.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
27. In the case on hand also, I have already
pointed out that there was no dispute with regard to the
registration of earlier Trust and also it is important to note
that the name of the original Trust is as Krantiveer
Sangolli Rayanna Residential High School Trust and the
present Trust is named as Krantiveer Sangolli rayanna
Residential High School, Samstha. Except using of the
word 'Samstha', both names are identical. The same is
also registered on 02.01.2012, whereas the petitioner-
original Trust was registered on 28.02.1979 itself and
respondent No.1 also does not dispute the same but in the
ingenious method got registered the Trust in 2012 based
on resolution of 2010.
28. The other judgment in W.P.No.17533/2021 is
also very clear and in para No.11 of the said judgment, it
is held that association runs foul of the mandate of Section
7 of the Act, as both the associations are not too nearly
similar but are virtually same. Once a society is registered
with a particular name, registration of a second society
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
with the same name is impermissible. The Court also held
that Section 27 of the Act makes acts to be unlawful
activity only after the registration of the society. The
legislature in its wisdom has not made pre-registration
acts an offence. It is also observed that the manner of
conduct of inquiry need not be gone into, as the very
complaint registered and the order passed would run foul
of Section 27 of the Act. Whether the inquiry has been
conducted in consonance with the principles of natural
justice or otherwise need not be gone into. In the result
what would unmistakably emerge is the illegality of the 3rd
respondent/association and illegal order passed cancelling
registration of petitioner/association.
29. Having perused the reasoning given by Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the above referred writ
petitions which have been relied by the petitioner's
counsel and taking note of the very proviso of Section 7,
when both the names are same, the same is not
permissible under Section 7 of the Act and on that ground
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
also the writ petition deserves to be allowed and there
cannot be a similar association which is identical and same
name has been used for registration of society.
30. It is also important to note that before
registration of the Trust on 02.01.2012, the very
respondent No.1 himself has filed a suit in O.S.No.5/2008
challenging the very act of Chairman and though contend
that document at Annexure-D is created and there were
name of some of the dead persons in the resolution,
counsel for petitioner brought to notice of this Court that
though their names have been mentioned, they have not
signed the said resolution. Apart from that, it is also very
clear that while selecting the original petitioner as
Chairman, the respondent No.1 was also a party to the
said resolution dated 17.08.2003 as he was invited as an
invitee and he attested his signature to the resolution and
admittedly differences were arisen in 2008 and he
ultimately filed a suit, wherein no injunction was granted
but receiver was appointed. The same was questioned
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
before this Court. An attempt is also made by filing
Misc.No.195/2010 based on the resolution dated
16.05.2010 and an attempt was made to pass resolution
and obtained an order and the said order was also set
aside by this Court in CRP No.1123/2011 and matter is
remitted back to District Court. Said issue is also pending
in O.S.No.5/2008 before the Principal District Judge,
Belagavi wherein a challenge is made by respondent No.1
and in spite of the challenging the same, adopted dubious
method and subsequently an attempt was made to
register the Trust in the similar name which is identical
and the same is prohibited under Section 7 of the Act.
31. When there is dispute with regard to resolution
dated 17.08.2003 under which the original petitioner was
elected as Chairman and this Court has pointed out in
subsequent to the said resolution also respondent No.1
has participated in all the proceedings till 2008 and an
attempt was made to register the Trust behind the back of
original petitioner and got it registered claiming that he is
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
the elected Chairman and so also when the matter is
seized before the Court in O.S.No.5/2008 and
Misc.No.195/2010 is also pending consequent upon the
order passed by this Court and issue with regard to who is
the Chairman and who is having right to continue has to
be decided before the Court in a suit filed by the
respondent No.1 as he made allegation against the original
petitioner and also it has to be noted that when the
Misc.No.195/2010 was filed under Section 92 of CPC and
along with petition separate plaint has to be filed seeking
the relief of framing of scheme and the same is also not
found in material and except seeking approval of the
Committee Members through the Court and adopted a
dubious method by respondent No.1 and matter requires
to be adjudicated in O.S.No.5/2008 as well as
Misc.No.195/2010 which is remitted back.
32. Counsel for respondent No.1 also relied upon
judgment of this Court with regard to registration of
society is concerned in W.P.No.101436/2018 and no doubt
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
counsel brought to notice of this Court points for
consideration framed by this Court as well as answer made
with regard to point No.4 as what is the effect of repeal of
BPT Act since no dispute that BPT Act was repealed in
2003 and there could be the procedure and no dispute
with regard to reasoning given by this Court is concerned
but the method adopted by respondent No.1 in getting
registered the Trust in spite of himself filing a suit as well
as Misc. petition, this judgment will not come to the aid of
respondent No.1.
33. The contention of the petitioner is that
respondent No.2 ought not to have registered similar Trust
and ought to have given notice and after holding enquiry
and giving an opportunity ought to have exercised his
power for registration of Trust/Association. When similar
Trust was in existence in the same name, respondent No.2
ought not to have registered the Trust when the
application was filed by respondent No.1. It is also
contended that in a high speed on the very same day
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
registered the Trust without holding inquiry and only
based on the report of the Education Department
registered the Trust, which cannot be a basis for
registration of the Trust.
34. There is force in the contention of the
petitioner's counsel that registration of respondent No.1-
Trust by respondent No.2 is in utter violation of principles
of natural justice. When the similar Trust was already in
existence, respondent No.2 after receiving an application,
ought to have notified the Trust which was already in
existence in the same name and also held an enquiry as
contemplated under Sections 4, 6 and 7 of Act of 1960
and Rule 3 of Karnataka Society Registration Rules, 1961
but instead of that as contended by the petitioner, on the
very same day when the application was filed, in a
lightning speed registered respondent No.1-
Trust/Association in non-compliance of Sections 4, 6 and 7
of Act of 1960 as well as Rule 3 of Karnataka Society
Registration Rules, 1961 as well as Section 27 of the Act.
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067
WP No. 70879 of 2012
Respondent No.2 while registering the similar Trust which
is already in existence in the same name ought not to
have registered the Trust as against the provisions of
Section 7 of Act of 1960 and also respondent No.1-Trust is
identical with the name of original Trust which is in
existence. It is also important to note that the earlier Trust
was not cancelled or dissolved. Apart from that, when
respondent No.1 himself has approached the Civil Court by
filing a suit in O.S.No.5/2008 and Misc.No.195/2010 ought
not to have approached respondent No.2 and got an order
by suppressing the fact that suit is pending before the
Court. Hence, the petitioner has made out grounds to pass
an order of writ of certiorari quashing registration made in
the name of respondent No.1-Trust as per Annexure-K.
35. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is allowed.
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12067 WP No. 70879 of 2012 Registration of respondent No.1-Trust by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-K is quashed.
The parties are given liberty to agitate their respective contentions before the competent forum with regard to their respective claim in the suit i.e. O.S.No.5/2008 filed by respondent No.1 as well as Misc.No.195/2010 filed by respondent No.1 and in any other forum in accordance with law.
The registry is directed to return the original Register produced before the Court along with memo to the counsel for the petitioner.
Sd/-
(H.P. SANDESH) JUDGE Sh, Ct-mck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 83