Karnataka High Court
Babu Adhithya.G vs Registrar Of Societies on 23 October, 2013
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.No.37530/2013 &
W.P.No.37695-696/2013 (CS-EL/M)
BETWEEN
1. BABU ADHITHYA.G
S/O LATE P GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT NO D/3,
BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT,
NAGASHETTYHALLI
BANGALORE 560 094
2. R RAGHU
S/O C RAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEAS
R/AT NO 49, 2ND CROSS NARALAPPA LAYOUT,
V NAGENAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
GUDDADAHALLI
BANGALORE 560 032
3. VINOD KUMAR B
S/O LATE BALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO 17 3RD CROSS
5TH MAIN S R NAGAR,
BANGALKORE 560 027. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri.B K MANJUNATH, ADV.)
AND
1. REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES
CENTRAL ZONE
NO 146 8TH CROSS
3RD MAIN, MARGOSA ROAD,
2
MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE 560 003
2. KARNATAKA RAJYA TIGALARA
(VAHNIKULA KSHATRIYARAYA ) SANGHA
NO 151/1 LALBAGH SIDDAPURAM
BANGALORE 560 011
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
3. ASHWATHAIAH
THE RETURNING OFFICER
KARNATAKA RAJYA TIGALARA
(VAHNIKULA KSHATRIYARA ) SANGHA
NO 151/1 LALBAGH SIDDAPURA
JAYANAGAR I BLOCK
BANGALORE 560 011
4. M KRISHNAPPA
S/O MUNISWAMPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO 207, 35/1 I MAIN ROAD
J P NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 078
5. GOWRI SHANKAR
S/O LATE SHAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEAS
R/AT NO 29 SUNKAL FARM
8TH MAIN WILSON GARDEN
BANGALORE 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS
(Sri K.A.ARIGA, AGA FOR R1,
Sri M.J.ALVA, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2
AND 3 TO PROCEED WITH THE ELECTION TO THE COMMITTEE OF
MANAGEMENT OF THE R2 SOCIETY FROM THE STAGE IT WAS
INTERFERED BY THE INJUNCTION ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT
GRANTED IN OS 5391/12 VIDE ANNX-D AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
1. Petitioners are the members of the 2nd respondent- Society. Election process to the Managing Committee of the 2nd respondent-Society was initiated by issuing calendar of events on 27.06.2012. As per the calendar of events, the last date for filing nominations was 21.07.2012. The date of election was 29.07.2012 and the results were to be declared on the same day. Petitioners being the eligible candidates for contesting the elections filed their nomination papers. So also, the other interested candidates had filed their nominations.
2. Respondents 4 & 5 herein, who are the members of the 2nd respondent-Society filed O.S.No.5391/2012 before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, seeking a declaration that the calendar of events published was null and void and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the Society from acting on the basis of the new bye-laws dated 17.06.2007.
3. The grievance of the plaintiffs appeared to be that the new bye-laws dated 17.06.2007 having not been approved, 4 the calendar of events published to conduct elections even before the new bye-laws were approved was illegal. An ex- parte order of temporary injunction was granted in the suit restraining the 3rd respondent - Returning Officer from proceeding with the elections.
4. Subsequently, petitioners herein got themselves impleaded as defendants and filed application for vacating the order of temporary injunction. They also filed another application seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to conduct the elections from the stage where it was stopped. Both the applications were resisted by respondents 4 & 5 herein. After hearing all the parties, the Civil Court vacated the interim order of injunction and issued a direction to the 3rd respondent to proceed with the election process from the stage it was interfered with. This order is passed on 22.09.2012 as per Annexure-D.
5. Despite the vacation of the interim injunction and a positive direction being issued, the elections were not conducted. The 3rd respondent herein gave a representation dated 03.10.2012 addressed to the 2nd respondent-Secretary 5 of the Society requesting him to co-operate in conducting the election. This letter is produced at Annexure-E.
6. According to the petitioners, 2nd respondent did not co- operate with the 3rd respondent for conducting the elections. This made the petitioners herein to file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC against the 2nd respondent for disobedience of the direction issued by the Civil Court. It is also relevant to notice here that the 3rd respondent submitted a statement before the Civil Court requesting the Court to take action against the 2nd respondent for violating the order dated 22.09.2012 in not co-operating with the 3rd respondent for conducting the elections. This statement submitted is also produced along with the writ petition at Annexure-F.
7. At this stage, a memo was filed in the suit by the plaintiffs therein - respondents 4 & 5 on 08.04.2013 approaching the Court to dismiss the suit as not pressed. This memo was resisted by the petitioners. The Civil Court allowed the memo and permitted the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit vide its order dated 23.07.2013. As no elections were held based on the calendar of events already published and 6 the respondents continued to dodge over the matter, petitioners have approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus against the 2nd & 3rd respondents to proceed with the elections to the Committee of Management of the 2nd respondent-Society from the stage it was interfered by the Civil Court while granting an ex-parte order of temporary injunction.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. Respondents 4 & 5 who were plaintiffs before the Civil Court and who had obtained interim injunction stalling the election process have remained unrepresented despite service of notice.
9. The only point that arises for consideration is, "whether the process of election which was initiated by the 3rd respondent - Returning Officer by issuing calendar of events dated 27.06.2012 has to be directed to be continued and the elections be held in terms of the said calendar of events or the respondents should be permitted to conduct elections at their whims and fancies at any time they choose by issuing fresh calendar of events?"
7
10. It is evident from the facts of the case that respondents 4 & 5 filed a suit and obtained an ex-parte order of temporary injunction restraining respondents 2 & 3 from proceeding with the elections. While vacating the order of injunction, on an application filed by the present petitioners, the Civil Court by passing a detailed order has observed that there was no justification for interfering with the election process and the election process once commenced should continue. There cannot be any two opinions about this approach. Indeed once election process is initiated, the Courts should be circumspect and slow in interfering with the election process.
11. The fact that the new bye-laws dated 17.06.2007 had not been approved at the time when the calendar of events was published cannot be regarded as a ground at this stage to clothe the respondents with the discretion to defer elections and initiate fresh process at their choice. The process of election has been initiated by issuing the calendar of events as back as on 27.06.2012. Once the process is interfered by a judicial intervention and the interim order 8 granted is subsequently vacated making it clear that the elections shall be held by continuing the process from the stage it was stopped, the respondents were duty bound to continue the elections from the stage at which it was stalled.
12. The dismissal of the suit as withdrawn will not absolve the obligation cast on the 2nd & 3rd respondents to complete the election process. If any illegality is committed in the said process of conducting the elections or in issuing the calendar of events, it will be the subject matter of dispute to be raised at a subsequent point of time. Petitioners had filed their nominations pursuant to the calendar of events published. They have every right to seek a direction that the election process commenced should be directed to be completed. The respondents have no right to stall the election process or to take a decision to issue fresh calendar of events.
13. The contention of the Counsel for the 2nd respondent that as the calendar of events was published when the new bye-laws had not been approved, the election process commenced was itself illegal cannot be entertained at this stage. If that was the contention of respondents 4 & 5, they 9 should have prosecuted the suit and invited a verdict from the Court. They have not done so. On the contrary, they have withdrawn the suit. Therefore, the only consequence that follows is that the process of election at which it was stopped has to be continued. This view finds support from the various judgments of the Apex Court including the decision in the case of S.T.MUTHUSAMI VS K.NATARAJAN - AIR 1988 SC
616. In case there is any illegality committed in the initiation of the process and the conduct of election, the members will be at liberty to raise appropriate dispute.
14. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. A direction is issued to respondents 2 & 3 to continue the process of election from the stage it was interfered in terms of the calendar of events published vide Annexure-A on 26.07.2012. The 3rd respondent is directed to complete the election process within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the 2nd respondent is directed to co-operate with the same.
Sd/-
JUDGE KK