Karnataka High Court
Appasab Patil S/O Late Basawantrao ... vs The State Of Karnataka Ors on 12 February, 2015
Author: L Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12H DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION NOs.84895-899 OF 2011 (GM-KSR)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NOS. 80541-548/2012
WRIT PETITION NO. 84894/2011
WRIT PETITION NO. 84893/2011
WRIT PETITION NO. 84827/2011
WRIT PETITION NOS. 80365-379/2012
WRIT PETITION NOS. 80923-925/2012
WRIT PETITION NO. 80051/2012
WRIT PETITION NO. 80090/2012
WRIT PETITION NO. 80158/2012
WRIT PETITION NO. 80967/2012
WRIT PETITION NO. 7888/2012
WRIT PETITION NOS. 7994-8049 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION NOS.84895-899 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
1. APPASAB PATIL
S/O LATE BASWANTRAO PATIL,
AGE: 68 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND SOCIAL WORKER,
R/O RADDEWADI TQ. JEWARGI,
DIST. GULBARGA.
2. SHAMBU REDDY
S/O BHAGANNA MADRI,
AGE: 65 YEARS,
OCC: SOCIAL WORKER AND
2
AGRICULTURE,
R/O KODLE TQ. SEDAM,
DIST. GULBARGA.
3. SAHEBREDDY
S/O SHIVASHARNAPPA,
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
YADGIR,
TQ. & DIST. YADGIR.
4. RATNAKAR S/O BASAPPA KUPENDRA
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: ADVOCATE & NOTARY,
R/O H.NO.4-601-11C,
4TH CORSS, M.B. NAGAR,
GULBARGA.
5. DR. RAJESHWARI
D/O SIDDANGOUDA,
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE PRACTICE
R/O WADAGERA,
TQ. SHAHAPUR,
DIST. YADGIR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI P. VILASKUMAR MARTHAND RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
BANGALORE.
2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCITIES, & DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES,
GULBARGA.
3
3. HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATION
SOCIETY THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT,
AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,
NEAR STATION IB,
GULBARGA - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SHRI ASHOK S. KINAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 31.10.2011, 02.11.2011,
31.10.2011, 26.10.2011 AND 02.10.2011 RESPECTIVELY, IN
RESPECT OF RESOLUTION DATED 24.10.2011 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.3 WHICH ARE AT ANNEXURES - K AND K1 TO
K4 RESPECTIVELY.
WRIT PETITION NOS.80541-548 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SHIVASHARANAPPA S/O SANGANGOUDA
AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O LIG-3, OPP. KEB TRANSFORM
MSK MILL ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR
GULBARGA
2. SRI. ANANTAPPA S/O HANMANTHAPPA HUMLI
AGE: 72 YEARS,
OCC. RETD. GOVT. SERVANT
R/O PLOT NO.46, NGO COLONY,
OKALY CAMP, SEDAM ROAD
GULBARGA
3. SMT. USHA W/O SOMASHEKHAR PATIL
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEWIFE
4
R/O H.NO.1-79, "SIDDA RATNA"
DHANVANTRI COLONY, KUSNOOR ROAD
GULBARGA - 585 105.
4. DR. SOMASHEKHAR S/O SIDRAMAPPA PATIL
AGE: 65 YEARS,
OCC. PROFESSOR
R/O H.NO.1-79, "SIDDA RATNA"
DHANVANTRI COLONY, KUSNOOR ROAD
GULBARGA - 585 105.
5. SRI. HANMANTHRAYA S. PATIL
AGE: 70 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURUE
R/O ALOOR (B)
P.O. SUNTANOOR
TQ. ALAND, DIST. GULBARGA
6. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR H. PATIL
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURUE
R/O ALOOR
P.O. SUNTANOOR
TQ. ALAND, DIST. GULBARGA
7. SANTOSH S/O SURESH PATIL
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURUE
R/O H.NO.1-79, "SIDDA-RATNA"
R/O DHANAVANTRI COLONY
KUSNOOR ROAD, GULBARGA - 585 105
8. SMT. MOHITA PATIL W/O SANJEEV MUDDHA
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURUE
R/O H.NO.1-79, "SIDDA-RATNA"
R/O DHANAVANTRI COLONY
KUSNOOR ROAD, GULBARGA - 585 105
...PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI PRABHAKAR B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
5
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE.
2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCITIES, & DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES,
GULBARGA.
3. HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATION
SOCIETY, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT,
AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,
NEAR STATION IB,
GULBARGA -
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SHRI B.V. JALDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE PETITIONERS NO.1
TO 8 DATED 28.10.2011 WHICH IS ANNEXURE-1 TO 8.
WRIT PETITION NO. 84894 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
DR. SIDDANAGOUDA
S/O MALLIKARJUNGOUDA,
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: PROF. OF SURGERY
OF MRMC GULBARGA, R/O GULBARGA
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI P. VILAS KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
6
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
BANGALORE.
2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCITIES, & DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES,
GULBARGA.
3. HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATION
SOCIETY, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT,
AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,
NEAR STATION IB,
GULBARGA -
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SHRI B.V. JALDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT
OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE PETITIONER DATED 28.10.2011
WHICH IS ANNEXURE-K.
WRIT PETITION NO. 84893 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
DR. VEERANNA
S/O MALLAPPA,AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: HOD, MEDICINE,
AT MRMC GULBARGA,
R/O VITHAL NAGAR, GULBARGA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI P. VILAS KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
7
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
BANGALORE.
2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCITIES, & DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES,
GULBARGA.
3. HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATION
SOCIETY, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT,
AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,
NEAR STATION IB,
GULBARGA -
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SHRI B.V. JALDE & ASHOK S. KINAGI, ADVOCATES FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT
OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE PETITIONER DATED 28.10.2011
WHICH IS ANNEXURE-K.
WRIT PETITION NO. 84827 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
SHIVANNA S/O SHARNAPPA HIRAPUR
AGE: 69 YEARS,
OCC: RETD. JOINT DIRECTOR,
INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE,
R/O MIG. 11 ANAND NAGAR,
RAJAPUR GULBARGA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.B. RAO, ADVOCATE)
8
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE SECRETARY,
TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
BANGALORE.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES,
OF KARNATAKA STATE,
BANGALORE.
3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR
OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
GULBARGA
4. THE PRESIDENT,
HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATION
SOCIETY, AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,
GULBARGA - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SHRI ASHOK S. KINAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT
OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN
THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CALLING FOR THE RECORDS OR
PROCEEDINGS DATED 24.10.2011 OF THE RESPONDENT
SOCIETY AND AFTER GOING INTO LEGALITY AND VALIDITY
THEREOF, QUASH AND OR SET ASIDE IMPUGNED LATTER
DATED 28.11.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
9
WRIT PETITION NOS. 80365-379 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVALINGAPPA
S/O SHANTAPPA KALASHETTY
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS
AT & POST DEVAL GHANAGAPUR
TQ. AFZALPUR
DIST. GULBARGA
2. ANAVERAPPA S/O SHANTAPPA KALSHETTY
AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS
AT POST. DEVAL GHANAGAPUR
TQ. AFZALPUR
DIST. GULBARGA
3. SIDRAMAPPA
S/O SHANTAPPA KALSHETTY
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O DEVAL GHANAGAPUR
TQ. & DIST. GULBARGA
4. BASAVARAJ
S/O MAHALANGAPPA PATIL
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O VENKAT BENNUR
TQ. & DIST. GULBARGA
5. MALLIKARJUN
S/O NIJALINGAPPA SHIVAGOL
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRI,
R/O HEBBAL, TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. GULBARGA
10
6. NAGESH
S/O BASAVARAJ SHIVAGOL
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: CONTRACTOR
R/O HEBBAL
TQ. CHITTAPUR
DIST. GULBARGA
7. SHANKAR S/O NINGAPPA DEVATAGE
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI
R/O HEBBAL
TQ. CHITTAPUR
DIST. GULBARGA
8. SUNITA REVANSIDDAPA AMBULGI
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O H.NO.8-1304/14, GANDHI NAGAR
HUMNABAD ROAD
GULBARGA
9. AKSHATA SAJJAN
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O H.NO.1-1495/6-14
OPP. APPA HOUSE
GADUTAI COLONY
GULBARGA
10. JAYSHREE SAJJAN
AGE: 56 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI
R/O H.NO.1-1495/G-14
OPP. APPA HOUSE
GADUTAI COLONY
GULBARGA
11
11. SHIVASHANKAR GACHINMATH
S/O CHANNABASAYYA SWAMY
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
R/O SHIVA NILAYA
H.NO. 1-1495/103/27
GODUTAI NAGAR
GULBARGA
12. MD. KHADIR ALI
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O H.NO.4-570/6, LOWER LANE
DARGA ROAD
SANTRASWADI
GULBARGA
13. HEENA KOUSAR
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS
PLOT NO. 6 NEW JWEARGI ROAD
BESIDE SHAMS FUNCTION HALL
GULBARGA
14. NETRA SAJJAN
AGE: 23 YEARS,
OCC: DOCTOR, R/O H.NO.1-495/G-14
OPP. APPA HOUSE, GODUTAI NAGAR
GULBARGA
15. REVANTKUMAR
S/O MALLAPPA SAJJAN,
AGE: 21 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O H.NO.1-495/G-14,
OPP. APPA NAGAR,
GULBARGA.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI P. VILAS KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
12
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCITIES,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE.
2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES,
& DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES,
GULBARGA.
3. HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATION SOCIETY
THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT,
AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,
NEAR STATION IB,
GULBARGA - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SHRI B.V. JALDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE PETITIONERS 1 TO
15 DATED 26.10.2011, 28.10.2011 AND 02.11.2011 WHICH ARE
AT ANNEXURE- K, K-1 TO K-14.
WRIT PETITION NOS.80923-925 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. RAJESHWARI
W/O CHANNABASAPPA PATIL
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: LEGAL PRACTITIONER,
& AGRICULTURE, R/O H.NO.10-105/48,
SHARAN NAGAR,
OPP. N.V. SCHOOL, GULBARGA
13
2. SANGAMESH
S/O CHANNABASAPPA PATIL
AGE: 21 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
R/O H.NO.10-105/48,
SHARAN NAGAR,
OPP. N.V. SCHOOL, GULBARGA
3. S/O CHANNABASAPPA PATIL
AGE: 19 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
R/O H.NO.10-105/48,
SHARAN NAGAR,
OPP. N.V. SCHOOL, GULBARGA
...PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI P. VILAS KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE.
2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCITIES, & DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES,
GULBARGA.
3. HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATION
SOCIETY, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT,
AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,
NEAR STATION IB,
GULBARGA -
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SHRI B.V. JALDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
14
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE PETITIONERS
DATED 28.10.2011 WHICH ARE AT ANNEXURE-D, E AND F
RESPECTIVELY.
WRIT PETITION NO. 80051 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
SHIVARAJ S/O GURUSHANTAPPA PATIL
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: PROFESSOR,
R/O H.NO.104,
MAHANT JYOTI,
G.D.A. LAYOUT,
GOKUL NAGAR,
GULBARGA - 585 103.
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.B. RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. DEPT.
OF CO-OPERATION, VIDHAN SOUDHA,
BANGALORE.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES,
BANGALORE.
3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR
OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
GULBARGA.
15
4. THE PRESIDENT
H.K.E. SOCIETY,
GULBARGA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 to R3;
SHRI B.V. JALDE, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT
OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN
THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS, CALLING FOR THE
RECORDS OR PROCEEDINGS DATED 24.10.2011 OF THE
RESPONDENT SOCIETY AND AFTER GOING INTO LEGALITY AND
VALIDITY THEREOF, QUASH AND OR SET ASIDE IMPUGNED
LETTER DATED 26.10.2011 VIDE ANNEXURES- C AND L.
WRIT PETITION NO. 80090 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
ANNARAO S/O BASALINGAPPA PUNEKAR
AGE: 69 YEAS,
OCC: RETIRED S.P.
R/O H.NO. 171, SHANTI NAGAR,
M.S.L.K. MILL, ROAD,
GULBARGA - 585 103.
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.B. RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. DEPT.
OF CO-OPERATION,
BANGALORE.
16
2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR
OF SOCIETIES AND
DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CS.
GULBARGA.
3. THE PRESIDENT
HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATION
SOCIETY,
AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,
GULBARGA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SHRI B.V. JALDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT
OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN
THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS, CALLING FOR THE
RECORDS OR PROCEEDINGS DATED 24.10.2011 OF THE
RESPONDENT SOCIETY AND AFTER GOING INTO LEGALITY AND
VALIDITY THEREOF, QUASH AND OR SET ASIDE IMPUGNED
LETTER DATED 26.10.2011 VIDE ANNEXURES-1.
WRIT PETITION NO. 80158 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
VASUDEV
S/O K. BHIM RAO ALIAS K.B. VASU
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC: ASST. EDITOR,
JAGVANI KANNADA DAILY,
AND GENERAL SECRETARY,
DIST. BAHUJAN SAMAJ PARTY,
R/O L.I.G - 5, ANAND NAGAR,
RAJAPUR ROAD,
GULBARGA -585 105.
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.B. RAO, ADVOCATE)
17
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE
GOVT. DEPARTMENT
OF CO-OPERATION,
BANGALORE.
2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR
OF SOCIETIES
GULBARGA - 585 102.
3. THE PRESIDENT
HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATION
SOCIETY,
AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,
GULBARGA - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SHRI B.V. JALDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT
OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN
THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS, CALLING FOR THE
RECORDS OR PROCEEDINGS DATED 24.10.2011 OF THE
RESPONDENT SOCIETY AND AFTER GOING INTO LEGALITY AND
VALIDITY THEREOF, QUASH AND OR SET ASIDE IMPUGNED
LETTER DATED 31.10.2011 ANNEXURE- C INCLUDING THE
PROCEEDINGS OF 24.10.2011 OF RESPONDENT NO.3 AND
ANNEXURE-J.
18
WRIT PETITION NO. 80967 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
KAILASHNATH PATIL
S/O VEERENDRA PATIL,
AGE: 61 YEAES,
OCC: SOCIAL WORK & EX.MLA
R/O CHINCHOLI,
TQ. CHINCHOLI,
DIST. GULBARGA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI P. VILASKUMAR , ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
BANGALORE.
2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCITIES, & DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES,
GULBARGA.
3. HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATION
SOCIETY THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT,
AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,
NEAR STATION IB,
GULBARGA - 585 102.
4. SHRI P.S. SHANKAR
RETURNING OFFICER,
HKE SOCIETY,
GULBARGA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SHRI B.V. JALDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)
19
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT
OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE PETITIONER DATED 28.10.2011
IN RESPECT OF RESOLUTION DATED 24.10.2011 IS AT
ANNEXURE-J.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7888 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
SRI. LINGANAGOWDA S. DESAI
S/O LATE SHIVAMANAPPA DESAI,
AGE: 70 YEARS,
R/O HADANOOR VILLAGE,
SORAPUR TALUK,
YADGIR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAVI B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE,
SOCIETIES, M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001,
REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATION
SOCIETY, AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,
NEW STATION IB,
GULBARGA - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI B.V. JALDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
20
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
AMENDED BYE - LAW 7(B)(II) OF AMENDED BYE-LAW OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT HKE SOCIETY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C.
WRIT PETITION NOS. 7994-8049 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. SRI YANKA REDDY
S/O SAHEB REDDY,
AGED 38 YEARS,
R/OF HATTIKUNI TALUK,
YADAGIRI DISTRICT
2. SRI. G.S. RAHAMAT SAHEB
S/O SHAIK MOHAMMED SAHEB
AGED 52 YEARS,
H.NO.4-463, SANTRASWADI,
GULBARGA TOWN AND DISTRICT
3. SRI. ARUN KUMAR
S/O NEELKANTA NAGOOR,
AGED 36 YEARS,
PLOT NO.15, OPP. CO-OPERATIVE
TRAINING CENTRE, PRAGATHI COLONY,
GULBARGA
4. SMT. ANURADHA
W/O BASAVARAJ,
AGED 28 YEARS,
R/O HATTIKUNI,
YADAGIRI TALUK AND DISTRICT
GULBARGA
5. SRI. VISHWANATH
S/O SIDHIKANT,
AGED 39 YEARS,
21
R/OF MAHAGAON,
GULBARGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
6. SMT. NIKITA
W/O VISHWANATH TADKAL
R/OF MEHAGAON,
GULBARGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
7. SRI. SHARANABASAPPA
S/O SAIBANNA DHANNI,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
KHB COLONY, OLD JEWARGI ROAD,
GULBARGA
8. SRI. AYUB KHAN
S/O LADLESAB, H.NO.11-1041/50/56/BI
IQBAL COLONY, M.S.K. MILL ROAD,
GULBARGA TOWN AND DISTRICT
9. SRI. SHRIKANT
S/O SHVIASHARNAPPA MALLABADKAR,
AGED 38 YEARS,
R/AT PLOT NO.94, SRI GANESH NAGAR,
RING ROAD, GULBARGA TOWN
AND DISTRICT
10. SRI. RAVINDRA
S/O ANNEPPA AGSAR,
AGED 38 YEARS,
H.NO.11/A. G.D.A LAYOUT,
SADAM ROAD, GULBARGA
TOWN AND DISTRICT
11. SRI. SHVIAPUTRAPPA
S/O SHIVASHARNAPPA MALLABADKAR,
AGED 38 YEARS,
PLOT NO.94, SRI GANESH NAGAR,
RING ROAD, GULBARGA.
22
12. SRI. AYYANGOUDA
S/O DODAPPAGOUDA,
AGED 58 YEARS,
R/OF YELHERI,
YADGIRI TALUK AND DISTRICT
13. SRI. SHARANA GOWDA
AGED 58 YEARS,
S/O DODDAPPA GOWDA,
R/OF YELHERI,
YADGIRI TALUK AND DISTRICT
14. SRI. BASAVARAJ
S/O SIDDANAGOUDA,
AGED 52 YEARS,
R/OF MUSTOOR, KOILOOR POST,
YADGIRI TALUK AND DISTRICT
15. SMT. JAGDEVI
W/O BASAVARAJ BILJUNDI,
AGED 44 YEARS,
NO. 8-1302/D, NEAR GUNJ BUS
STAND, GULBARGA TOWN AND
DISTRICT
16. SRI. MALLAN GOWDA
S/OMAHADEVAPPA GOWDA,
AGED 48 YEARS,
R/O TANGADIGI, IBRAHIMPUR POST,
SHAHAPUR TALUK,
YADAGIRI DISTRICT
17. SRI. LINGA REDDY
S/O SIDRAMAPPA BANDALLI
R/OF R/O TANGADIGI, IBRAHIMPUR POST,
SHAHAPUR TALUK, YADAGIRI DISTRICT
18. DR. JAGANNATH REDDY
S/O LINGA REDDY,
23
AGED 38 YEARS,
R/OF WADAGERA, SHAHAPURA
TALUK, YADAGIRI DISTRICT
19. SRI. RAVI KUMAR
S/O AYYANGOUDA,
AGED 35 YEARS,
R/OF YELHERI,
YADAGIRI TALUK AND DISTRICT
20. KUMARI SHAILAJA
D/O HANUMANTHA REDDYKAVLOOR,
AGED 23 YEARS,
STATION ROAD,
YADAGIRI TOWN AND DISTRICT
21. SRI. SIDDARAMA REDDY
S/O MOHAN REDDY,
AGED 20 YEARS,
R/OF ARIKKERA (B)
YADAGIRI TALUK AND DISTRICT
22. SMT.NIMBEMMA
W/O MOHAN REDDY HADIMANI,
AGED 44 YEARS,
R/OF ARIKERI (B)
YADAGIRI TALUK AND DISTRICT
23. SMT. BASAMMA
W/O AYYANNGOUDA,
AGED 52 YEARS,
R/OF YELHERI,
YADAGIRI TALUK AND DISTRICT
24. SRI. RAHUL S/O MALLA REDDY
AGED 22 YEARS, HOUSE NO.5-1-275,
BASAVESHWARNAGAR,
YADAGIRI TOWN AND DISTRICT
24
25. KUMARI RAJESHWARI
D/O MALLA REDDY
AGED 22 YEARS,
HOUSE NO.5-1-275,
BASAVESHWARNAGAR,
YADAGIRI TOWN AND DISTRICT
26. SRI. VENKATA REDDY
S/O BHEEMA REDDY
AGED 25 YEARS,
R/OF ARIKERA (B)
YADGIRI TALUK AND DISTRICT
27. SRI.BASAVARAJ
S/O SIDDANAGOUDA KANDALLI,
AGED 52 YEARS,
R/OF HEDIGIMADRI,
YADAGIRI TALUK AND DISTRICT
28. SRI. S.MALLANNA
S/O SHESHAPPA ANOOR,
AGED 68 YEARS,
GOGI MOHALLA,
YADAGIRI TOWN AND DISTRICT
29. SRI. DEVENDRA
S/OMALLANNA ANOOR
AGED 35 YEARS,
GOGI MOHALLA,
YADAGIRI TOWN AND DISTRICT
30. SMT. SHEELA
D/O S.MALLANNA ANOOR,
AGED 30 YEARS,
GOGI MOHALLA,
YADAGIRI TOWN AND DISTRICT
31. SRI PRABHAKAR
S/O S MALLANNA ANOOR
25
AGED 44 YEARS
R/OF GOGI MOHALLA
YADAGIRI TOWN & DISTRICT
32. SRI SURESH
S/O BASAVARAJAGOUDA
AGED 28 YEARS, R/OF KYATNAL
YADAGIRI TALUK & DISTRICT
33. SRI LINGA REDDY
S/O SIDRAMAPPA BADALLI
R/OF R/O TANGADIGI, IBRAHIMPUR POST
SHAHAPUR TALUK
YADAGIRI DISTRICT
34. SMT SHRUTHI
W/O RAGHAVENDRA REDDY MALIPATIL
AGED 24 YEARS
R/OF HEDIGIMADRI
YADAGIRI TALUK & DISTRICT
35. SRI SURESH
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA AKKAM
AGED 26 YEARS
R/OF KODLA, SEDAM TALUK
GULBARGA DISTRICT
36. SRI BASSANGOUDA
S/O SHANTHAGOUDA
AGED 32 YEARS
R/OF CHANMANALLI
BANDALLI POST,
YADGIRI TALUK & DISTRICT
37. SMT LAKSHMI
W/O BASSANGOUDA POLICE PATIL
AGED 24 YEARS, R/OF CHAMANALLI,
26
BANDALLI POST
YADGIRI TALUK & DISTRICT
38. SRI BASAVARAJ
S/O SIDDANAGOUDA
AGED 36 YEARS
R/OF CHAMANALLI, BANDALLI POST
YADGIRI TALUK & DISTRICT
39. SMT SHARANAMMA
W/O SIDDANAGOUDA
AGED 40 YEARS
R/O CHAMNALLI, BANDALLI POST,
YADGIRI TALUK AND DISTRICT
40. KUMARI PRATIBHA
D/O SHIVA REDDY
AGED 24 YEARS
HOUSE NO.5-140-3,
HOSUR ROAD,
YADAGIRI TOWN & DISTRICT
41. SRI PARVATH REDDY
S/O GURANGOUDA
AGED 30 YEARS
R/OF HADNOOR , SHORAPUR TALUK
YADAGIRI DISTRICT
42. SRI MOHAN REDDY
S/O GURANGOUDA NAVADGI
AGED 37 YEARS
R/OF HADNOOR, SHORAPUR TALUK
YADGIRI DISTRICT
43. SMT SRIDEVI
W/O MOHAN REDDY NAVADGI
AGED 27 YEARS, R/OF HADNOOR,
27
SHORAPUR TALUK
YADAGIRI DISTRICT
44. SRI MALLANGOUDA
S/O SHIVAPPA GOUDA SASNOOR
AGED 34 YEARS
R/OF HADNOOR, SHORAPUR TALUK
YADAGIRI DISTRICT
45. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O SIDDANAGOUDA BONAL
AGED 51 YEARS
R/OF HADNOOR, SHORAPUR TALUK
YADAGIRI DISTRICT
46. SMT SRIDEVI
W/O CHANDRASHEKAR BONAL
AGED 45 YEARS
R/OF HADNOOR, SHORAPUR TALUK
YADAGIRI DISTRICT
47. SRI RAMANAGOUDA P DESAI
S/O PARWATHAPPA GOUDA DESAI
AGED 52 YEARS
R/OF HADNOOR, SHORAPUR TALUK
YADAGIRI DISTRICT
48. SRI RUDRAGOUDA
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O NAGAPPA RABBANALLI
R/OF HADNOOR, SHORAPUR TALUK
YADAGIRI DISTRICT
49. SMT SHANTHAMMA
W/O RUDRAGOUDA RABBANALLI
AGED 44 EYARS
R/OF HADNOOR, SHORAPUR TALUK
YADAGIRI DISTRICT
28
50. SRI BASAVARAJ
S/O SAHEB GOWDA
AGED 35 YEARS
R/OF HADNOOR, SHORAPUR TALUK
YADAGIRI DISTRICT
51. SMT NEELAMMA
W/O BASAWARAJ YALAGI
AGED 30 YEARS
R/OF HADNOOR, SHORAPUR TALU
YADAGIRI DISTRICT
52. SMT CHANNAMMA
W/O PARVATH REDDY NAVADGI
AGED 28 YEARS
R/OF HADNOOR, SHORAPUR TALUK
YADAGIRI DISTRICT
53. SRI SHARAN GOWDA
S/O MAHADEVAPPA GOUDA
AGED 36 YEARS
R/OF TANGADGI, IBRAHIMPUR POST
SHAHAPUR TALUK,
YADAGIRI DISTRICT
54. SRI SHARANA GOUDA
S/O SHANKUKHAPPA GOUDA VANIKYAL
AGED 44 YEARS
R/OF HADNOOR, SHORAPUR TALUK
YADAGIRI DISTRICT
55. SRI MALLANGOUDA
S/O SHANMUKHAPPA GOUDA VANIKYAL
AGED 34 YEARS
R/OF HADNOOR, SHORAPUR TALUK
YADAGIRI DISTRICT
29
56. SRI SUBHASH
S/O SHIVAPUTRAPPA SARADGI,
AGED 36 YEARS
LIG- 108, BADEPUT 1ST PHASE,
GULBARGA TOWN & DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE,
SOCIETIES, M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001,
REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE SECRETARY
DEP. OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
M.S BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES- AND REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES,
GULBARGA DISTRICT,
GULBARGA - 585 102
4. HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATION
SOCIETY, AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,
NEW STATION IB,
GULBARGA - 585 102.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
30
5. THE RETURNING OFFICER
ELECTIONS TO HYDERABAD- KARNATAKA
EDUCATION SOCIETY, DR. P.S. SHANKAR,
M.R. MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS,
GULBARGA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SHRI B.V. JALDE, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT
TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO ACT ON THE
REPRESENTATION DATED 28.02.2012 AT ANNEXURE-T, MADE
BY THE PETITIONERS BY INITIATING APPROPRIATE ACTION
AGAINST THE FOURTH RESPONDENT SOCIETY TO COMPLY WITH
THE ORDERS OF THIS HON'BLE COURT PASSED IN WRIT
PETITION NO.48208/2011 AND OTHER CONNECTED WRIT
PETITIONS AND TO ISSUE LIST OF VOTERS COMPRISING OLD
MEMBERS (COMPRISING 927 OLD MEMBERS) TO THE ELECTION
DATED 18.03.2012.
IN THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD,
RESERVED FOR JUDGEMENT, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The common prayer made by the petitioners in these petitions is for a direction to the second respondent-Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Registrar of Societies, Gulbarga to induct the petitioners as Members of the third 31 respondent-Hyderabad-Karnataka Education Society (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society' for short). Prayer is also made to quash the endorsement issued on various dates in respect of the resolution dated 24th October 2011 passed by the third respondent-Society.
2. Commonness in all these petitions are that the petitioners are the residents of Hyderabad-Karnataka region, which comprises of four districts, viz. Gulbarga, Bidar, Raichur and now Yadagiri. They have made application to the Society for membership pursuant to the Notification issued on 8th October 2010 and the third respondent-Society has rejected their applications by returning the Demand Drafts sent along with it. The said notification of the third respondent-Society was issued as per their undertaking given to the Court in Writ Petition No.19466 of 2010, which by its order dated 5th October 2010 came to be disposed of, considering the said undertaking of the third respondent, and further directing the third respondent to issue a paper publication inviting applications for membership to the Hyderabad-Karnataka Education Society. It was also made 32 clear that the Notification would specifically indicate that the format of the Application would be displayed on Notice Boards of all the institutions being run and managed by the Society. The Society issued notification only as a formality and none of the petitioners have been taken as its members. The rejection of their membership is because of the resolution made by way of amendment to the bye-laws by incorporating Rule 7(B)(ii).
3. The petitioners claim that they are the residents of Hyderabad-Karnataka region and are agriculturists, social- workers, advocates, professors, doctors, and etc. They are interested in becoming members of the Society to serve the said region as well as the State. It is also stated in the petition that keeping the said object the Society was registered in the year 1957. The memorandum dated 19th March 1958 came-up with an intention of developing higher education in professional courses in Hyderabad-Karnataka region and was desirous of forming a Society for the said purpose. There was no higher education facility in the field of Engineering and Medicine, etc. The petitioners state that the then Divisional Commissioner, 33 Gulbarga Division along with District Commissioners of two Districts viz. Raichur and Bidar, formed an association along with council of members comprising 25 in number, of which four members are Divisional Commissioner and District Commissioners and the remaining 21 comprised of Legislators, Members of Parliament and elite members from the three Districts of erstwhile Hyderabad-Karnataka. Clause (iv) of the bye-laws of the Association permits, any member, who contributes Rs.1,000/- or more to the Society, would be a Patron of the Society; and any person who contributes not less than Rs.500/- and not more than Rs.1,000/- as a life member of the society. Further, any member who contributes not less than Rs.25/- per annum shall be an ordinary member of the Society. As per this Clause, each and every person could become a member of the Society by paying the said amount. In course of time, more particularly in the year 1980-81, the newly elected governing council, brought an amendment to bye-laws through Resolution No.5 to bye-law 7(B)(ii) that "the Governing Council shall scrutinize all applications and to admit the applicant as a Member, if he/she is supported by not less than 2/3rd majority of 34 the Governing Council Members present. If the applicant is not admitted then the amount of admission fee shall be refunded to him. Reasons for rejection of application need not be given. The decision of the Government Council is final. The refusal shall be communicated to the applicant concerned within 15 days from the date of the decision." The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that by virtue of said amendment to the bye-law, the elected governing council is acting contrary to the interest, aims and objects to which the founders formed the Society. When the petitioners were not permitted to become the members by virtue of the said amendment, they approached this court in Writ Petition No.19466 of 2010 and the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the petition by its order dated 05th October 2010 directed the third respondent to issue notification along with the format of application to invite applications to get membership to the Society. After the disposal of the said petition, a notification though was issued, but by operating amended bye-law 7(B)(ii), rejected the applications of these petitioners without assigning any reasons and the rejection was also in the blank printed format and only 35 the names of the petitioners and date were filled-in and issued to the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the action of the Society in rejecting the applications of the petitioners is contrary to the direction issued by this Court in Writ petition No.19466 of 2010 as well as its bye-laws.
4. It is also submitted that the resolution was passed in the Special General Body Meeting conducted on 30th March 1981 and the same was forwarded to the District Registrar of Societies, Gulbarga, and in turn the Registrar, by its order dated 31st March 1981 by exercising his power under Section 10(2) of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, ordered to register all the 41 amendments made through resolution by Special General Body Meeting on 30th March 1981 with effect from 31st March 1981. Hence, it is submitted that this Resolution of making amendment to bye-laws by a Special General Body Meeting on 30th March 1981 is contrary to Section 10(2) of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short. To buttress this submission, the learned counsel 36 relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of HEBBAR SREE VAISHNAVA SABHA, BANGALORE v. G.S. YOGNARASIMHA AND OTHERS reported in the case of 2009(4) Kar.L.J 11 wherein it is held that "Until and unless the members let known as to the proposed amdendment, it may not be proper for him to exercise his proxy vote. Thus, both the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 mandate that the Special General Body Meeting should contain a written or printed report and proposed amendment apart from the date, time and place of the meeting. Therefore, we are unable to appreciate and accept the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that there is no mandatory requirement for inclusion of the report of the proposed amendment." On these grounds the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted to set aside the order of the second respondent and also prayed for a direction to the Society to issue application forms to the petitioners with prior intimation to the Governing Council and provide membership to them.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Society submitted to dismiss the petition on the following counts, 37 viz. on maintainability, on delay and laches and on the ground of locus standi. He also submitted to dismiss the petition on the ground of jurisdiction. With regard to the submission to dismiss these petitions on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the petitioners, it is submitted that the amendment was brought to bye-laws by its Special General Body Meeting as back as on 30th March 1981 as also its acceptance on 31st March 1981, should have been challenged by the petitioners if they are so aggrieved, at the earliest point of time or within a reasonable time. It is submitted that the amendment made to the bye-laws is only in the form of contract between the Members of the Society. When a contract is entered into between the Members by way of an understanding through a Special General Body Meeting, the same shall not be the subject matter of this Court and if at all the petitioners are aggrieved, they have to approach the Civil Court.
6. With regard to the locus standi of the petitioners, it is submitted that the petitioners are strangers and are unrelated to the Society or its administration; and hence they do not have 38 any locus standi to challenge the amendment made to bye-law of the Society. The amendment to bye-law is purely an internal administration of the Society for which the majority members of the society have agreed, and the same has been accepted and registered by the Registrar of co-operative Societies. Hence, on the said ground the petitions are to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the bye-laws and/or the amendment made to bye-laws cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of this submission, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of SRI PANCHALINGA PANCHAPPA PATTANASHETTI AND OTHERS v. THE COMMISIONER FOR CANE DEVELOPMENT AND DIRECTOR OF SUGAR AND OTHERS reported in 2004(4) KCCR 2489 wherein it has been held that "the amendment to bye-law is neither a law nor a statute for the purpose of Article 13 of the Constitution of India and the bye-law is only a term of contract between the members of the Society. He also relied upon the judgment in the case of GURAPPA v. SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CONSUMERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED AND OTHERS reported in 1983(1) KAR.L.J 106 wherein it is held that 39 "a bye-law of a co-operative society is not 'law' within Article 13 of the Constitution and the bye-law comparable to the Articles of Association of a company or a friendly society is only a term of contract between a member and the society." Hence, it is submitted that a writ petition challenging bye-law is not maintainable. On similar lines, the learned counsel also relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CHANDER MOHAN KHANNA v. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING AND OTHERS reported in 1981(4) SCC 578; and in the case of SMT. DAMYANTI NARANGA v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHES reported in AIR 1971 SC 966.
7. Lastly, it is submitted that the contention of the petitioners that they have not been heard before rejecting of their applications is only an illusion of the petitioners. Since the petitioners are not members and are only strangers, they need not be heard before rejecting their applications and on this ground also petitions are to be dismissed.
40
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Before going to the merits of the case, the objections raised by the third respondent, especially on the ground of maintainability, is required to be dealt with. Amendment was brought to the bye- laws of the third respondent-Society on 30th March 1981 and the same was registered on 31st March 1981. It is the case of the third respondent that there is an inordinate delay of more than three decades in approaching this Court and hence on the ground of delay and laches these petitions are to be dismissed. The petitioners, basically, are not the members of the Society and are approaching the Society to get membership. It is their case that since the Hyderabad-Karnataka region felt lack of facilities for higher education in professional courses, the then Divisional Commissioner of Gulbarga Division and the District Commissioners of two Districts viz. Raichur and Bidar made an effort to register an Association to improve this field of education. Till then, there was no Society existing in this region to improve the education in the field of higher education to professional courses. If original bye-law is looked into, it is the Divisional Commissioner and the District Commissioners of two 41 Districts viz. Raichur and Bidar have constituted a Managing Council and the remaining 21 members comprised of elite persons like Legislators, Members of Parliament, Doctors, Lawyers, Professors, etc. The Divisional Commissioner and the District Commissioners, by using their good offices, have collected money and material appealing to the public to donate generously for the said cause by issuing pamphlets. The pamphlets were printed in local language as also in Marathi and Urdu including English languages and distributed locally for the purpose of establishing the Society. The Chairman of the Council-Divisional Commissioner instructed the Government departments to collect additional revenue, tax from each cultivator of all the three districts and in response to the same, the cultivators of the region paid additional revenue to help the governing council to proceed further. It is stated in the petitions that an amount in the tune of Rs.99,58,784/- was collected in the year 1957 itself. Presidents of the Marketing Committees, Senior Marketing Officers, Regional Transport Officers and other Government Officials were requested to collect funds vide proceedings of the Divisional Commissioner Gulbarga dated 27th 42 December 1957. Resolution dated 3rd August 1958 was passed to authorize the Chairman-Divisional Commissioner to open an account in his name. The governing body, to manage the affairs of the Engineering College, constituted Candidates Selection Committee, Purchase Committee and Staff Selection Committee. It is further to be stated that the District Committee, Gulbarga collected one thousand tonnes of cement for the construction of Engineering College, giving a rebate of Rs.20/- per tonne; and the Government of India through Government of Mysore was requested to waive levy of excise duty and baggage charges on one thousand tonnes of cement. Though these things are pleaded in the petition, the same are not countered by the respondent by filing objections. The Society opened an Engineering College and a Medical College for which even the Government of India and the Government of Mysore have contributed. These submissions have been made by the petitioners in order to emphasise that the Society came into existence at the instance of the Divisional Commissioner, the District Commissioners and the general public. The bye-law, provide and permit that all the persons of this region can 43 become members of the Society. In view of the same, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are also entitled and eligible to become the members of the governing council, but clandestinely the elected members of the Society, on 30th March 1981, brought amendment to the bye- laws to prevent the general public becoming Members with an intention to protect their own interest. Since the date of amendment to bye-laws, these petitioners are making attempt by approaching the Government and the third respondent, to become members of the Society. As stated earlier, a writ petition was also filed before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to give membership to the petitioners. This effort shows that an attempt has been made by the petitioners to get membership. When a claim of this nature is made, the persons who approach this Court, cannot be shunted out on the ground of limitation. No doubt, it is very clear from the pleadings of the petitioners that there is a huge gap between the date of amendment to the bye-laws and the date of filing the petitions, but, limitation is not applicable to the petitioners to file writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is a 44 well-established principle that a statute cannot regulate the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of SMT. SUDAMA DEVI v. COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS reported in (1983)2 SCC 1 held that "there is no period of limitation prescribed by any law for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is in fact doubtful whether any such period of limitation can be prescribed by law. In any event one thing is clear and beyond doubt that no such period of limitation can be laid down under Rules made by the High Court or by practice. In every case it would have to be decided on the facts and circumstances whether the petitioner is guilty of laches and that would have to be done without taking into account any specific period as a period of limitation. There may be cases where even short delay may be fatal, while there may be cases where even a long delay may not be evidence of laches on the part of the petitioner." As it is held in the above said judgment, the delay and laches has to be screened depending upon case to case. Even under Article 226 of the Constitution the delay of merely a few days may be 45 fatal to the cases and an inordinate delay of decades together also may be cases for condonation.
9. The second ground taken by the Society with regard to maintainability is that the bye-laws are the contract between the Members of the Society and are not open to challenge. No doubt, it is true that the members of the Society can amend the bye-laws of the Society and can delete or bring-in new amendments to the bye-laws by holding a Special General Body meeting. The said objection is not applicable to the present case for the reason that amendment has been made to the bye-laws of the third respondent-Society on 30th March 1981 by conferring power on the governing council to decide the fate of the applications seeking membership depending upon the voting of two-third majority of members. The said amendment was made by the Special General Body Meeting on 30th March 1981 which itself is not an end and the same should be in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is useful to refer to Section 10(2) of the Act which reads thus:
"10. Change of name, rules and regulations.-
46
(1) xxx xxx xxx (2) Every amendment made under sub-section (1) shall, within thirty days be filed with the Registrar. If the Registrar is satisfied that the amendment made under sub-section (1) is in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the rules made thereunder, he shall register it. Such amendment shall have effect from the date of resolution passed under sub-
section (1)."
10. The said amendment to the bye-law could be brought by a Resolution passed in a Special General Body meeting, and for conducting such Meeting, written or printed notice shall have to be communicated to all the members of the society twenty- one days prior to the date of meeting. The provision itself has fixed the mandatory proceedings for the purpose of issuance of notice in writing or in a printed form and it is to be delivered by registered post twenty-one days prior to such Special General Body meeting and if the same is examined, in the proceedings made by the third respondent, I find that there is no discussion made in the proceedings as to whether twenty-one days' prior notice has been given to all the members and what was the total number of members present in the meeting and the presence of 47 proxy members for the said purpose. Proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act further provides that the resolution passed has to be forwarded within thirty days to the Registrar and the bye-laws are to be accepted on satisfaction by the District Registrar of Societies. It also says that after the Registrar satisfying himself that the amendment made is in accordance with the provisions of the Act, then only he has to accord sanction to the amendment to be brought in to the bye- laws. In the present case, the order of second respondent is examined and no reference is made in that regard and it is not clear as to whether he had applied his mind with regard to he satisfying in bringing amendment to the bye-laws. The words employed in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act are to be understood in an objective manner. The Registrar has to verify and assign reasons in his order as to whether he had been satisfied with the formalities and requirements provided under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act and the same has been complied by the third respondent-Society. Resolution was passed on 30th March 1981 in principle, the approval has been accorded and are accepted under sub-Section (2) of Section 10 48 of the Act on the very next day i.e. on 31st March 1981. It is not forthcoming as to whether the Registrar has applied his mind in that regard. The words employed therein raises doubt as to whether Registrar has exercised his power for the purpose of satisfaction under sub-Section 2 of Section 10 of the Act or not? Since the District Registrar has not discharged his statutory duty and amendment to the bye-laws have not been accepted and adopted as per the provisions of the Act, the same suffers and are ultra vires to the provisions of the Act. On this ground when it is examined, it is found that the exercise made by the second and third respondents is bad in law. The submission made on behalf of the Society to the effect that it is for the Society to amend its bye-laws though is valid, but in the light of the discussion made above the same is not sustainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N BALAJI v. VIRENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS reported in 2004(8) SCC 312 at paragraph 12 of the judgment has held that "the exercise of the discretionary power can be interfered by the High Court only if the order passed is violative of some fundamental or basic principle of justice and fair play or suffers from any patent or flagrant error." The said 49 judgment squarely applies to the case on hand. Hence, it is to be held that the action of the third respondent is in violation of Section 10(2) of the Act.
11. In the case of GRIDCO LIMITED AND ANOTHER v.
SADANANDA DOLOI AND OTHERS reported in (2011)15 SCC 16, it is held that "Interference is permissible where action of authority is mala fide, arbitrary, irrational, disproportionate or unreasonable or perverse or irrational or in such outrageous defiance of logic that person taking decision can be said to have taken leave of his senses."
12. The next defence taken by the respondents is that the petitioners are strangers and do not have any locus standi. The respondents should not forget that it was only the strangers, who have formed the Society, with a staunch desire to develop an Education Society to impart higher education in professional courses in Hyderabad-Karnataka region. The members, as on that day, felt that the region lacks facilities for higher education in professional courses in the backward districts, and it is at that time such strangers decided to form a Society. When the third 50 respondent is also one such stranger, how can it raise such an objection when the other competent members make an application to get membership to the Society. The selfless action of the governing council members in 1958, has made the Society to reach to this height today, wherein it has got forty education institutions, of which thirty institutions are getting aid by Government of India and the Government of Karnataka. Apart from getting aid, the institutions are also getting concessions from the Government. Initially, land was given by the Government. Materials and funds were raised by the Government Officials of various departments as also Government of Mysore gave concessions and the Government of India waived levy of excise duty and baggage charges on one thousand tonnes of cement at Rs.20/- per tonne. When such is the position of the respondent at the initial stage, now it is untenable to take that stand. Clause (4) in the original bye-law provides for membership to all the persons irrespective of caste, colour and creed and the attempt made by the elected members in the year 1981 to empower the governing council to decide the fate of the applicants to get membership by voting of two-third 51 majority can be termed only as an ulterior motive. No doubt, making amendment to its bye-laws is for the Society, but while so amending they should have looked back at the founders who laid foundation for the Society and on which foundation today this castle has come-up. Hence, the submissions of the learned counsel for the third respondent-Society that the petitioners have no locus standi cannot be accepted and accordingly rejected.
13. The another objection raised by the Society is that bye-laws cannot be challenged in a writ jurisdiction. This similar contention was discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ZEE TELEFILMS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2005)4 SCC 649 wherein it has been discussed that though the societies are registered under Societies Registration Act, but its functions and control over the other limb is the deciding factor. In this regard, it is also useful to refer to judgement of the Madras High Court in the case of C. LAKSHMIAH REDDIAR v. THE SRI PERUMBADUR TALUK reported in AIR 1962 MAD 169. The facts in the said case are that the appellant's nomination 52 was rejected on the ground that he had not brought to the Society the quantity of fifty maunds of paddy for sale through the Society when the society was a private society and the proceedings relating to the internal administration of such a society will fall outside the special jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The dismissal order of the learned single Judge was challenged in Writ Appeal. By its order dated 3rd May 1961, the order of dismissal was confirmed. While dismissing the writ appeal, the Division Bench referred some of the judgments, which I am borrowing, as they are academically relevant to the case on hand. In the said judgement at paragraph 3 of the judgement, it is observed that the objection raised by the Advocate General was that a writ could not issue under Article 226 of the Constitution to any body, which was not a judicial or quasi judicial Tribunal statutorily entrusted with the right and duty to decide the disputes between parties. (REX v. ELECTRICITY COMMISSIONERS reported in 1924-1 KB 171). In R v. DISPUTED COMMISSION OF DENTAI TECH reported in 1953-1-AELR 327, Lord Goddard, Chief Justice, has observed that "the bodies to which in modern times the remedies of these 53 prerogative writs have been applied are all statutory bodies on whom Parliament has conferred statutory powers and duties the exercise of which may lead to the detriment of subjects." By referring to the said judgments, the Division Bench held that "the regulations are framed by the Society itself and have no statutory force. Clearly, thereon an order of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot issue to quash the proceedings of such a body."
14. The judgments referred to above are of the year 1961 and much water has flown since then. Enormous interpretations and plethora of judgments of the High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court are available today. The question of the Society as to whether it is the case to be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution or not, no more depends on it. The deciding factor is its activities and functions. In the instant case, the society was formed in the year 1958 to establish educational institutions for professional courses in Hyderabad-Karnataka region. The petitioners have placed materials and from that it is found that the funding, to establish these education institutions, 54 was contributed by the officials of Government Departments and general public. Even today, it is not clear from the third respondent as to whether the place where the institution is put up is a Government land or the land granted to it. When the Society was started, it was confined to three districts and now it is four districts, i.e. after the formation of a new District Yadgiri. Initially, there might have been only 2-3 institutions whereas today the society has grown up enormously and nearly forty Engineering and Medical institutions are established out of which thirty institutions are getting aid from the Government of India and the Government of Karnataka. The public function and the public obligation which ought to have been discharged by the Government or public authority for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, have been extended and now being carried out by the Society. When such being the case, making classification as to whether it is a State or an authority for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution, depends upon the nature of the Society and its capacity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. BASSI REDDY v. INTERNATIONAL CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND ANOTHER reported in (2003)4 SCC 55 225 at paragraph 28 of the judgement has held that "A writ under Article 226 can lie against a "person" if it is a statutory body or performs a public function or discharges a public or statutory duty (Praga Tools Corpn. V. C.A. Imanual, Sri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Trust V. V.R. Rudani SCC at p.698 and VST Industries Ltd. V. Workers' Union). ICRISAT has not been set up by a statute nor are its activities statutorily controlled. Although, it is not easy to define what a public function or public duty is, it can reasonably be said that such functions are similar to or closely related to those performable by the State in its sovereign capacity."
15. Discharging of function of the Society is a function performable by the State Government and also it is a public duty and public obligation carried out by the third respondent-Society. Under the Constitution of India, it is the duty of the State to provide education and now it is the fundamental right to get education. These two things are conjointly performed by the third respondent-Society. While performing these duties, it is also receiving aid from the public and also aid from Government 56 apart from receiving some concessions. When a society is functioning at this height, how can it not be amenable to this Court to find out whether its functions are being carried out in accordance with law and/or in the larger public interest? While answering whether it is a State or not, one thing is definite. This Court can interfere with the functioning of the society and cannot shut its door. "If it is not part of the State, the aggrieved person has a remedy under the Constitution by invoking power under Article 226. A violator who is a private body exercising public function would not go scot free merely because it is not part of the State under Article 12." (borrowed from page 6584 Vol.6 8th Edition-Commentary on the Constitution of India by Durga Das Basu.)
16. In this regard, it is necessary to refer to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BINNY LTD. AND ANOTHER v. V. SADASIVAN AND OTHERS reported in (2005)6 SCC 657 wherein at paragraph 11 of the judgement, it is observed thus:
57
"11. Judicial review is designed to prevent the cases of abuse of power and neglect of duty by public authorities. However, under our Constitution, Article 226 is couched in such a way that a writ of mandamus could be issued even against a private authority. However, such private authority must be discharging a public function and that the decision sought to be corrected or enforced must be in discharge of a public function. The role of the State expanded enormously and attempts have been made to create various agencies to perform the governmental functions. Several corporations and companies have also been formed by the government to run industries and to carry on trading activities. These have come to be known as Public Sector Undertakings. However, in the interpretation given to Article 12 of the Constitution, this Court took the view that many of these companies and corporations could come within the sweep of Article 12 of the Constitution. At the same time, there are private bodies also which may be discharging public functions. It is difficult to draw a line between the public functions and private functions when it is being discharged by a purely private authority. A body is performing a "public function" when it seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public or a section of the public and is accepted by the public or that section of the public as having authority to do so. Bodies therefore exercise public functions when they intervene or participate in social or economic affairs in the public interest. In a book on Judicial Review of Administrative Action (Fifth Edn.) by de Smith, Woolf & Jowell in Chapter 3 para 0.24, it is stated thus:58
"A body is performing a "public function" when it seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public or a section of the public and is accepted by the public or that section of the public as having authority to do so. Bodies therefore exercise public functions when they intervene or participate in social or economic affairs in the public interest. This may happen in a wide variety of ways. For instance, a body is performing a public function when it provides "public goods" or other collective services, such as health care, education and personal social services, from funds raised by taxation. A body may perform public functions in the form of adjudicatory services (such as those of the criminal and civil courts and tribunal system). They also do so if they regulate commercial and professional activities to ensure compliance with proper standards. For all these purposes, a range of legal and administrative techniques may be deployed, including: rule-making, adjudication (and other forms of dispute resolution); inspection; and licensing.
Public functions need not be the exclusive domain of the state. Charities, self-regulatory organizations and other nominally private institutions (such as universities, the Stock Exchange, Lloyd's of London, churches) may in reality also perform some types of public function. As Sir John 59 Donaldson M.R. urged, it is important for the courts to "recognise the realities of executive power" and not allow "their vision to be clouded by the subtlety and sometimes complexity of the way in which it can be exerted". Non-governmental bodies such as these are just as capable of abusing their powers as is government."
17. Article 226 of the Constitution of India vests extraordinary power to the Court. Exercising of discretionary power depends upon case to case and fact to fact. Whenever it is found that the activities in the public interest are required to be interfered with, and to exercise the said right in the interest of public at large, this Court can exercise its discretionary power. In the case of AIR INDIA LTD. v. COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. AND OTHERS reported in (2000)2 SCC 617 wherein at paragraph 7 of the judgement, it is observed thus:
"7. ...Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process the court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a 60 conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should intervene."
18. As it is held in the above said case, it is for this Court to decide whether it is appropriate to interfere or not. As long as this extraordinary discretionary power is available under the Constitution of India this court shall not shirk in discharging its duties. This does not mean that illegality is being committed by the third respondent-Society. What is to be conveyed is that the respondent cannot take a ground that this Court should not interfere even if some lapses are found. It is true that lapses could be found in the governing council of the Society or in administration of any other institution. But, what is required is, whether the lapses so committed or said to have occurred, are substantial in nature which are required to put to halt in the best interest of the Society and public at large. In the light of the reasons stated above and in the light of the judgments referred, I reject the contention taken by the Society that bye-laws could not be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 61
19. As discussed earlier, the third respondent gave an undertaking before this Court that it would issue a paper publication inviting applications for membership to the Hyderabad-Karnataka Education Society within one week. When such undertaking is given to the Court and the same has been believed and writ petition No.19466 of 2010 came to be disposed of, then the third respondent should have taken extraordinary care and responsibility in issuing notification. From the petition it is seen that in the year 1958 a notification was issued inviting applications for membership in three districts by issuing pamphlets in local language as also in Marathi, Urdu and English languages. When such great thing was done by the founders, the third respondent should have posed a question for itself, as to why it cannot issue such a notification. No doubt, notification was issued on 8th January 2010 and it has not placed any material before this Court as to how many applicants are given membership pursuant to the said Notification. It must also have stated that whether the Notification has been issued in wide publication in local language and also in Marathi, Urdu and English languages, since the portion of the region is dominated 62 by the border area of Maharashtra and Hyderabad. No materials have been placed before this Court in that regard. On receiving applications, the same were rejected by issuing an endorsement which is in a printed format just by writing the names and the date which is a stereo-type rejection. The third respondent- Society should have stated as to why these applications have been rejected and whether two-third majority voting is secured or not pursuant to the amended bye-law is not forthcoming.
20. In the light of foregoing reasons, order Annexure-B dated 31st March 1981 passed by the third respondent Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Registrar of Societies, Gulbarga in No.RS/HKE/80-81 is quashed. Consequently, the bye-laws of the third respondent-Society amended by Resolution dated 31st March 1981 are also quashed. The Respondent - Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society, is directed to issue notification as per the order dated 5.10.2010 in W P No.19466/20910 in Kannada, Urdu, Marathi and English languages calling for membership, giving wide publication specifying therein the format of the application. which has to be 63 displayed in all the educational institutions of the respondent society, office of the Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners and Tahsildars of the Hyderabad-Karnataka Districts. On receipt of the applications, the same shall be considered in accordance with bye-laws of the society. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies is directed to supervise the respondent-Society as to issuance of a public notification calling applications for membership to the Society and consideration of the same.
Election to the Executive Council of the society shall be held for the remaining 21 members. The official members such as, Divisional Commissioner (now Regional Commissioner) and Deputy Commissioners of Hyderabad-Karnataka Districts, shall continue as per the bye-law.
Petitions are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE lnn