Karnataka High Court
Sri. H V Manjunath vs State Of Karnataka on 17 March, 2023
-1-
WP No. 22706 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 22706 OF 2022 (GM-KSR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. H V MANJUNATH
S/O LATE VELUSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
THE PRESIDENT
THE RECREATION PLANTERS CLUB
SITUATED AT MADRE HOSAHALLI,
DUNDAHALLI POST, KODLIPETE HOBLI,
SOMAVARAPET TLAUK
KODAGU DISTRICT 571235
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHARATH P.H., ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally signed SRI. SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE)
by R DEEPA
Location: High
Court of AND:
Karnataka
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU 560 001
2. DEPUTY REGISTRAR
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
KODAGU DISTRICT
MADIKERE 571201
-2-
WP No. 22706 of 2022
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KODAGU DISTRICT
MADIKERI 571201
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 20.02.2014
ISSUED BY THE R-3 IN NO. SAMANYA (1)/RE.CLUB/10/2014
AS PER ANNX-A AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED
COMMUNICATION DATED 21.09.2021 IN NO.
DRI/SNAGAGALA NONDANI/NOC/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE R-
2 AS PER ANNX-B; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs:
(a) Quash the impugned communication dated 20.02.2014 issued by the respondent No.3 in No. Samanya (1)/Re.Club/10/2014 as per Annexure-A;
(b) Quash the impugned communication dated 21.09.2021 in No.DRI/Snagagala Nondani/NOC/ 2020-21 issued by the Respondent No.2 as per Annexure-B;
(c) Quash the impugned order dated 11.11.2021 in No.Samanya (1)/Re.Club/34/2021 passed by the respondent No.3, as per Annexure-C;
-3-WP No. 22706 of 2022
(d) Quash the impugned order dated 17.10.2022 in No. DRI/Sangagala Nondani/ /NOC/2020-21 passed by the 2nd respondent as per annexure-D;
(e) To declare that insisting the 2nd respondent to take NOC from 3rd respondent for deciding the application for registration of petitioner club is without jurisdiction and honest in law.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:
The petitioner is the President of Planters Club situated at Madre Hosahalli, Dundahalli Post, Kodlipete Hobli, Somavarapet Taluk, Kodagu District, submitted an application to respondent No.2 to register the Club under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. Respondent No.2 sent a communication dated 21.09.2021, to respondent No.3 for issuance of NOC so as to register the petitioner's Planters Club. Respondent No.2 has not proceeded with the application filed by the petitioner for registration of Club and non-issuance of NOC by the respondent No.3, the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P.No.22441/2021, with a prayer to recall the letter dated 20.02.2014, and direction to the -4- WP No. 22706 of 2022 respondent to register the petitioner's Club and issue NOC and licence. This Court vide order dated 16.06.2022, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Superintendent of Police to submit the verification report or NOC as requested by respondent No.2 to consider the application filed by the petitioner for registration of the Club as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 2 months. Pursuant to the said direction, respondent No.3 issued the impugned order dated 10.11.2021, vide Annexure-C and has given a verification report refusing to grant NOC to register the petitioner's Club on the ground that there are criminal cases which are registered against the petitioner under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act and therefore NOC cannot be issued. Relying upon the verification report, respondent No.2 rejected the application filed by the petitioner for registration of the petitioner's Club vide Annexure-D. Hence, the petitioner aggrieved by the same, has filed this writ petition.-5-
WP No. 22706 of 2022
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Prathima Honnapura for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 has committed an error in refusing to register the Society on the ground that criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. He submits that the order passed by respondent No.2 in refusing to register the Club is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence on these grounds he prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the petitioner has got an alternative remedy available under Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act of 1960'). She further submits that the petitioner without exhausting the alternative remedy, has filed this writ petition. Hence the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. -6- WP No. 22706 of 2022
6. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. The petitioner submitted an application for registration of the Club on 18.09.2021. The respondent No.2 did not consider the said application. Thereafter the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.22441/2021 seeking for a mandamus to direct respondent No.3 therein to recall the letter dated 20.02.2014. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.06.2022, directing the respondent No.3 therein, i.e., respondent No.3 herein, to take note of Annexure-F dated 21.09.2021, and submit the verification report or NOC as requested by respondent No.4 so as to consider petitioner's application for registration of petitioner's Club as expeditiously as possible and not later than 2 months. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, respondent No.3 objected for issuing NOC on the ground that criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. Respondent No.2 being -7- WP No. 22706 of 2022 not satisfied that the requirements of the Act and Rules have been complied with by the petitioner, refused to register the Club under Section 8 of the Act of 1960, vide order dated 17.10.2022, vide Annexure-D. If the Registrar refuses to register the Society, an appeal lie to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal as per Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act of 1960. The petitioner without exhausting the alternative and efficacious remedy available under Section 8(3) of the Act of 1960, has filed the writ petition. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable.
8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of AIR 2022 SC 4408 - THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS vs. GREATSHIP (INDIA) LIMITED in Civil Appeal No.4956/2022 held that when alternate remedy is available, the Court should refrain itself from exercising the jurisdiction. In paragraph 8, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
-8-WP No. 22706 of 2022
" ... This Court has consistently taken the view that when there is an alternate remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under constitutional provisions."
It is further observed in paragraph 9 as under:
"... The High Court ought to have relegated, the writ petitioner - assessee to avail the statutory remedy of appeal and thereafter to avail other remedies provided under statute."
9. As observed above, the petitioner has got an alternative remedy. This Court refrain from exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. In view of the same, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Writ petition is disposed of.
However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum.-9-
WP No. 22706 of 2022
This Court has not made any
adjudication on the merits in issue. All the
contentions of the parties are kept open.
SD/-
JUDGE RD