Karnataka High Court
Sri R Hanumantharayappa vs Sri R Prakash on 1 October, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 24821 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 24827 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
WRIT PETITION NO. 24839 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
IN WP 24821 OF 2024
BETWEEN
DR. RENUKA PRASAD K. V.
S/O K. M. VENKATRAMANA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT AMARSHREE HOUSE
KANTHAMANAGALA, AJJAVARA VILLAGE
SULLIA TALUK -574239.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W
SRI. SHANKAR H S., ADVOCATE)
AND
RAJYA VOKKALIGARA SANGHA
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO 148
NADAPRABHU KEMEPEGOWDA BHAVAN
K R ROAD, VV PURAM
BENGALURU 560004
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
SOCIETIES REGISTERED UNDER
-2-
THE SOCIETES ACT, 1960.
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.M.R. RAJAGOPAL., SR. COUNSEL A/W
SRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CITY CIVIL
COURT, BANGALORE, CCH 6 IN O.S.NO.6341/2024 DATED
5.9.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY DIRECTING BOTH THE
PARTIES TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO TILL NEXT HEARING
DATE AND ETC.
IN WP 24827 OF 2024
BETWEEN
1. SRI R HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
S/O RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
SGM GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS,
NO.35/301, SRIRANGA PADUKA,
NEAR BESCOM, BYATARANAPURA,
BENGALURU-560026.
2. SRI ASHOK H N
S/O NARASAPPA H.G.,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO.21, AMMA, MIG,
IST CROSS, IST BLOCK,
KHB COLONY,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560079.
3. SRI B. KENCHAPPAGOWDARU
S/O BYRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
-3-
R/AT NO.1/2, MOUNTAIN STREET,
IST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560041
4. SRI L SRINIVAS
S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1636, 18TH MAIN,
30TH CROSS,
BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560070
5. SRI C M MAREGOWDA
S/O MARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.919M 5TH MAIN,
2ND CROSS, M.C.LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560040
6. SRI B.V. RAJASHEKAR GOWDA
S/O VENKATARAMANA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT BENDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562129
7. SRI K.S. SURESH
S/O SONNAPPA T,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO.100, KODIHALLI,
HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562129
8. SRI. VENKATERAMEGOWDA
S/O PUTTASWAMY GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO.17, FLAT NO.5,
-4-
IST MAIN ROAD, I CROSS,
KALIDASA LAYOUT, SRINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560050.
9. SRI D HANUMANTHAIAH
S/O LATE C K DODDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT NO.434, 13A CROSS,
ITI EMPLOYEES LAYOUT,
MPM LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI,
BENGALURU-560072
10 . DR V. NARAYANASWAMY VENKATAPPA
S/O MR. VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
NO.50, 6TH MAIN, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU-560055.
11 . SRI C J GANGADHAR
S/O GUNDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO.50, HARSHA GAGANA
KHB 3RD STAGE, KUVEMPU NAGARA,
MYSURU-570023.
12 . SRI ASHOK S D JAYARAM
S/O LATE S D JAYARAM,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1295, 2ND CROSS,
NEHRU NAGAR,
MANDYA-571401.
13 . SRI N BALAKRISHNA
S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NELLIGERE VILLAGE,
BELLURU HOBLI,
-5-
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571418
14 . SRI B P MANJEGOWDA
S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT BAGURU VILLAGE AND POST,
BAGURU HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573116
15 . SRI J RAJU
S/O JAYARAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO.21272,
PRESTIGE JINDAL CITY,
JINDAL NAGAR,
TUMKUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560073.
16 . SRI. ELUVALLI N RAMESH
S/O ANGADI NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT ELAVALLI VILLAGE,
DODDAMARAHALLI POST,
NANDI HOBLI,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND
DISTRICT-562101
17 . S K DHARMESH SIRIBYLE
S/O S.R. KOLLURAIAH GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
SIRIBYLE HARDWARE,
SIRIBYLE COMPLEX, AZAD ROAD,
THEERTHA HALLI TALUK,
SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577432
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W
-6-
SRI. SHANKAR H S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . SRI C N BALAKRISHNA
S/O NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
PRESIDENT,
RAJYA VOKKALIGARA SANGHA (R),
R/AT CHOLENAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573116
2 . SRI C DEVARAJU
S/O CHANNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
GENERAL SECRETARY,
RAJYA VOKKALIGA SANGHA (R)
R/AT NO.308-A, TEJASHWINI
12TH CROSS, LOOP ROAD,
IDEAL HOME TOWNSHIP,
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560098
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRABHULING K NAVADGI., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. P. ANAND., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. VIVEK SUBBA REDDY., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. P. ANAND., ADVOCATE FOR R2 )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE
THE DOWNLOADED COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE
CITY CIVIL COURT, BANGALORE, CCH-6 IN
O.S.NO.6296/2024 DTD 05.09.2024 BY DIRECTING
BOTH THE PARTIES MAINTAIN STATUS QUO TILL NEXT
HEARING DATE, WITHOUT DISPOSAL OF THE INTERIM
APPLICATION BEARING I.A.NO.1 VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.
-7-
IN WP 24839 OF 2024
BETWEEN
1. SRI. R. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
SON OF RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
SGM GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS,
NO.35/301, SRIRANGA PADUKA,
NEAR BESCOM BYATARANAPURA,
BENGALURU-560026.
2. SRI. ASHOK H N
SON OF NARASAPPA H G
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 2 1, "AMMA", MIG,
1ST CROSS, 1ST BLOCK,
KHB COLONY,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560079.
3. SRI. B. KENCHAPPAGOWDARU
SON OF BYRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 1/2, MOUNTAIN STREET,
1ST BLOCK JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560041.
4. SRI. L. SRINIVAS
SON OF LATE LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 1636, 18TH MAIN,
30TH CROSS,
BANASHANKARI, 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560070.
5. SRI. C. M. MAREGOWDA
SON OF MARIYAPPA,
-8-
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.919, 5TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
M C LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560040.
6. SRI. B. V. RAJASHEKAR GOWDA
SON OF VENKATARAMANA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT BENDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
SULIBELE HOBLI,
HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562129.
7. SRI. K. S. SURESH
SON OF SONNAPPA T
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 100, KODIHALLI,
HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562129.
8. SRI. VENKATERAMEGOWDA
SON OF PUTTASWAMY GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 17, FLAT NO. 5, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
I CROSS, KALIDASA LAYOUT,
SRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560050.
9. SRI. D. HANUMANTHAIAH
SON OF LATE C K DODDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 434, 13A CROSS,
ITI EMPLOYEES LAYOUT,
MPM LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI,
BENGALURU-560072.
10 . DR. V. NARAYANASWAMY VENKATAPPA
S/O MR. VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
-9-
NO. 50, 6TH MAIN, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU-560055.
11 . SRI. C. J. GANGADHAR
SON OF GUNDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 50, HARSHA GAGANA,
KHB 3RD STAGE,
KUVEMPU NAGARA,
MYSURU-570023.
12 . SRI. ASHOK SD JAYARAM
SON OF LATE S D JAYARAM,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 1295, 2ND CROSS,
NEHRU NAGAR, MANDYA-571401.
13 . SRI. N. BALAKRISHNA
SON OF LATE NINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NELLIGERE VILLAGE,
BELLURU HOBLI,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571418.
14 . SRI. B. P. MANJEGOWDA
SON OF LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT BAGURU VILLAGE AND POST,
BAGAURU HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573116.
15 . SRI. J. RAJU
SON OF JAYARAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 21272, PRESTIGE JINDAL CITY,
-10-
JINDAL NAGAR, TUMKUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560073.
16 . SRI. ELUVALLI N. RAMESH
SON OF ANGADI NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT ELAVALLI VILLAGE,
DODDAMARAHALLI POST,
NANDI HOBLI,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562101
17 . S. K. DHARMESH SIRIBYLE
SON OF S. R. KOLLURAIH GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
SIRIBYLE HARDWARE, SIRIBYLE COMPLEX,
AZAR ROAD, THEERTHA HALLI TALUK,
SHIMOGA DIST-577432.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI., SR. COUNSEL A/W
SRI. SHANKAR H S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . SRI. R. PRAKASH
S/O RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
VICE PRESIDENT,
RAJYA VOKKALIGA SANGHA (R),
NO.339, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE,
RANGANATHAPURA,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
KAMAKSHIPALYA,
BENGALURU-560079.
2 . SRI. RAGHAVENDRA,
S/O RAMEGOWDA
-11-
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
VICE PRESIDENT,
RAJYA VOKKALIGA SANGHA(R),
R/AT NO.26, MR MANSION,
(OPP. KALAGRAMA)
OUTER RING ROAD, MALLATHAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560056.
3 . SRI. M. S. UMAPATHY,
S/O SRINIVASAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
TREASURER,
RAJYA VOKKALIGA SANGHA(R)
NO 7 GOWRAMMA NILAYA,
23RD CROSS, 15TH MAIN ROAD,
3RD SECTOR HSR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU 560102.
......RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL A/W
SRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CITY CIVIL COURT BANGALORE
CCH6 IN OS NO. 6299/2024 DTD 5.09.2024 BY DIRECTING
BOTH THE PARTIES TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO TILL NEXT
HEARING DATE WITHOUT DISPOSAS OF THE INTERIM
APPLICATION BEARING IA NO. 1 VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 26.09.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-12-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
COMMON CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS)
Although these writ petitions arise out of three
separate original suits, nevertheless, the parties are
common and in all the three suits similar interim orders
were passed by the Trial Court and the petitioners herein
are aggrieved of the said interim order dated
05.09.2024, passed in all the three suits. The Trial Court
has directed the parties to maintain status quo as on the
date of the order, till the next date of hearing.
Therefore, these writ petitions were clubbed, heard
together and are being disposed of by this common
order.
2. A brief background in which the writ petitions
are filed is that the parties herein are members of Rajya
Vokkaligara Sangha (hereinafter referred to as the
'respondent-Society' for short), a Society registered
-13-
under the Mysuru Societies Act, 1904. The Mysuru
Societies Act, 1904 being replaced by the Karnataka
Societies Registration Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to
as the Act, 1960 for short), it is not disputed that the
Society is now governed by the Act, 1960. Some of the
members of the Governing Council decided to remove
the present set of office bearers by invoking clause
7(3)(Aa) read with clause 16(3) of the Bye-laws and
accordingly, issued notice to the Secretary and the
President of the Society on 18.07.2024. The Secretary of
the Society gave a reply on 22.07.2024 declining to call
for meeting to discuss the subject in terms of meeting
notice dated 18.07.2024. The members who had issued
the meeting notice dated 18.07.2024, sought to invoke
clause 16(3) of the Bye-laws and called for a meeting on
30.08.2024, to take forward the proposal of removing
the office bearers. Show cause notice is said to be
issued to the office bearers on 30.08.2024. On
-14-
30.08.2024 the members who had proposed and called
for the meeting, took a decision to hold a meeting on
09.09.2024, to discuss and take a decision for removal of
the office bearers.
3. The President and General Secretary of the
Society filed a suit in O.S.No.6296/2024 seeking a
declaration that the meeting held on 30.08.2024 and the
notice dated 30.08.2024 are illegal and without authority
of law, besides seeking permanent injunction restraining
the defendants from convening the meeting on
09.09.2024. A declaration was also sought that the
reply dated 22.07.2024 given by the Secretary to the
defendants is valid and binding on the defendants. The
two Vice Presidents and the Treasurer also filed similar
suits in O.S.No.6299/2024. After hearing the plaintiffs
and some of the defendants, the Trial Court adjourned
the matters for orders, but also directed both the parties
to maintain status quo as on the date of the order, till
-15-
the next date of hearing. Suit summons and notice on
interlocutory applications were issued to defendants
No.6, 7, 16 and 17, adjourning the matter to
23.09.2024.
4. In another suit in O.S.No.6341/2024, one of the
members of the Executive Committee, being aggrieved
of an order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Secretary of
the Society removing the said member from the
Executive Committee, sought for a declaration that the
said order is null and void. Permanent injunction was
also sought to restrain the Society from interfering with
the right of the plaintiff to participate in the meetings of
the Executive Committee. In the said suit also, similar
orders were passed by the Trial Court directing both the
parties to maintain status quo till the next date of
hearing i.e., 23.09.2024.
5. The main contention of the petitioners before
this Court is that since the meeting was scheduled to be
-16-
held on 09.09.2024, by passing the impugned order, the
Trial Court has virtually granted the main relief, thereby
preventing the meeting which was scheduled to be held
on 09.09.2024.
6. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli
and learned Senior Counsel Sri D.R.Ravishankar have
made submissions on behalf of the writ petitioners. It
was submitted that the office bearers of the Society
could not have filed the suits before the Civil Court
seeking declaration in respect of the meeting notice. It
was pointed out that earlier too, such suits were filed in
O.S.No.3590/2023. This Court in MFAs No.4319/2023
and connected matters, by order dated 07.07.2023 has
decided similar issues, having regard to the provisions
contained in the Bye-laws. It was pointed out that this
Court came to a conclusion, having regard to the
relevant clause in the Bye-laws viz., clauses 7(3)(Aa)
and 16(3) that it was mandatory to issue individual
-17-
notices to the particular office bearer, who was sought to
be removed from office. There, it was found that such
notices were not issued and therefore, it was a clear
violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the
appeals were allowed while setting aside the order
passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.1 filed under Order
39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. However, this Court also issued
directions to the requisitionists to give notice to the
Executive Committee including the office bearers and this
Court fixed a date for discussion of the notice. In the
light of the decision of this Court, that it was mandatory
to issue individual notices, it was pointed out by the
learned Senior Counsels that since the President and
Secretary of the society failed to call for a meeting,
subsequently, individual notices were issued to each of
the office bearers and since a clear 10 days notice was
required to be given, date was fixed as on 09.09.2024
for consideration and discussion of the meeting notice. In
-18-
that view of the matter, it is submitted that the members
who issued the meeting notice had followed the
procedure as contemplated in the bye-laws and in terms
of the directions issued by this Court.
7. It is was further submitted that having regard to
the procedures contemplated in clause 7(3)(Aa) and
16(3), the Secretary of the society and the office bearers
were required to call for the meeting to discuss the issue.
There is no option available to reject the request for
convening the meeting. Even otherwise, clause 16(3)
provides that if the Secretary fails to call for the special
meeting, the members who issued notice are permitted
to proceed to convene the meeting, discuss the issue and
proceed to take a decision.
8. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli
and learned Senior Counsel Sri D.R.Ravishankar
submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of
Bhanu Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Kumar and Another
-19-
(2005) 1 SCC 787, has held that if an issue is decided
against a party, such party would be estopped from
raising the same in a latter proceedings. The distinction
between the "issue estoppel" and "res judicata" were
also discussed in the said decision. Various other
decisions from the English Courts regarding 'cause of
action estoppel' were also discussed, where it was held
that it prevents a party to an action from asserting or
denying as against the other party, the existence of the
particular cause of action, the non-existence or existence
of which is determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction in previous litigation between the same
parties. The Apex Court noticed that in Barber Vs.
Staffordshire County Council, it was held that a cause
of action estoppel arises where, in two different
proceeding, identical issues are raised, in which event,
the latter proceeding between the same parties shall be
dealt with similarly as was done in the previous
-20-
proceedings. In such an event, the bar is absolute in
relation to all points decided, save and except allegation
of fraud and collusion. It was therefore submitted that
the respondents could not have filed one more suit
before the civil court seeking declaration in respect of an
issue which was already decided by this Court.
9. It was further argued, having regard to the
contentions of the respondents viz., that there is no
provision in the Bye-laws or the statute governing the
society to move a motion of no confidence against all the
office bearers, that in various judgments, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that even in absence of any
provision for moving motion of no confidence, such
motion could be moved as per procedure prescribed for
the election. It was pointed out that a learned Single
Judge of the High Court of Gujarat, in the case of
Bhavanbhai Bharabhai Barwad Vs. State of Gujarat
and Others, 2016 SCC OnLine Guj. 10227, had
-21-
noticed this position declared by the Apex Court in the
case of Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary Vs. Gujarat
Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited And
Others (2015) 8 SCC 1. It was also held that motion
of no confidence being a democratic act must be allowed
to go on unhindered like any other democratic process.
The movers of the motion have democratic right to move
the motion. The elected person against whom it is
addressed is bound to face it. The process must be
allowed uninterrupted, unless fraught with procedural
wrangle in terms of want of statutory fulfillment or
democratic fairness. The motion of no confidence must
be allowed a free passage to culminate into established
democratic form. The court should always be disinclined
to stay the motion of no confidence or the agenda notice
issued in accordance with law. It was also pointed out
that in Babubhai Muljibhai Patel Vs. Nandlal
Khodidas Barot And Others (1974) 2 SCC 706, it
-22-
was held that while it is necessary in the case of censure
motion to set out the ground or charge on which it is
based, a motion of no confidence need not set out a
ground or charge. Following the same principles, in
Pratap Chandra Mehta Vs. State Bar Council of M.P.
And Ors. reported in 2011 AIR SCW 4817, it was held
that a vote of censure presupposes that the persons
censured have been guilty of some impropriety or lapse
by act or omission and it is because of that lapse or
impropriety that they are being censured. It may,
therefore, become necessary to specify the impropriety
or lapse while moving a vote of censure. No such
consideration arises when a motion of no confidence is
moved. Although a ground may be mentioned when
passing a motion of no confidence, the existence of a
ground is not a pre-requisite of a motion of no
confidence. There is no legal bar to the passing of a
motion of no confidence against an authority in the
-23-
absence of any charge of impropriety or lapse on the
part of that authority. The essential connotation of a no
confidence motion is that the party against whom such
motion is passed has ceased to enjoy the confidence of
the requisite majority of members. It was therefore
submitted that the respondents cannot contend that
since there were no tenable grounds made out in the
meeting notice dated 18.07.2024, the meeting need not
be convened. At any rate, it should be left to the
discretion of the members of the Governing Council to
consider the request made by some of its members to
remove the office bearers.
10. Per contra, learned Senior Counsels Sri
M.R.Rajagopal, Sri Vivek Subba Reddy and Sri Prabhuling
K.Navadgi, seek to oppose the submissions made on
behalf of the petitioners. Sri M.R.Rajagopal, learned
Senior Counsel, vehemently contended, having regard to
the judgment cited on behalf of the petitioners in
-24-
Vipulbhai M.Chaudhary Vs. Gujarat Cooperative
Milk Marketing Federation Limited And Others
(2015) 8 SCC 1, which was the basis of the judgment of
the High Court of Gujarat in Bhavanbhai (supra), that
the concept of functioning on democratic principles
should be reflected in the respective Acts or Rules or
Bye-laws. It has been held in the said decision that if a
procedure is prescribed in any Act or Rule or Bye-law
regarding election of an office bearer and for removal
thereof, by way of a motion of no confidence, the same
procedure has to be followed. In case there is no
express provision under the Act or Rules or Bye-laws for
removal of an office bearer, such office bearer is liable to
be removed in the event of loss of confidence by
following the same procedure by which he was elected to
office. However, it is contended that there is no express
provision for a motion of no confidence to remove all the
office bearers. It was pointed that clause 7(3)(Aa)
-25-
provides for removal of an office bearer, subject to valid
reasons. Even otherwise, Section 25 of the Act, 1960,
enables the majority members of the Governing body to
move the Registrar of Societies, by way of an
application, to hold an enquiry into the constitution,
working and financial condition of a registered Society.
Further, Section 26 enables the Registrar, having
received a report under Section 25 and on examination
of the report, if he finds any member of the governing
body, any office bearer or staff of the Society guilty of
misfeasance or breach of trust in relation to the Society,
he may call upon such member/office bearer/staff to give
explanation, afford reasonable opportunity to such
person and may proceed to make an order for repayment
of the money or property or any part thereof along with
interest or to contribute such sum to the assets of the
Society by way of compensation. It was also pointed out
from Section 27-A(1)(c) that on receipt of a report by
-26-
the Registrar or otherwise, on an enquiry held by the
State Government, considers it necessary in public
interest to do so, may appoint an Administrator to the
Society. It was therefore contended that since there is a
provision for removal, the same has to be followed and
the petitioners should not be permitted to circumvent the
said procedure.
11. Learned Senior Counsel Sri M.R.Rajagopal,
submitted that the motion of no confidence sought to be
moved by the petitioners is apparently not for any
reasons attributable to the incumbent office bearers, but
as spelt out in the notice, it is based on an allegation
that the election of the office bearers was not held in
accordance with law. If that is the reason, the recourse
available to the disgruntled petitioners is to have raised
an election dispute. If there is no provision for raising an
election dispute in the statute, then for the same reasons
a suit could have been instituted. At any rate, motion of
-27-
no confidence on that reason cannot be permitted. It
was submitted that if today the petitioners herein allege
that the election of the office bearers held on 04.07.2024
is vitiated due to procedural lapses, then after every
successive elections the losing candidates will resort to
such illegal methods of calling for a motion of no
confidence. All the learned Senior Counsels representing
the respondents have vehemently canvassed this aspect
of the matter that within a period of two weeks from the
date of election and the appointment of office bearers,
the respondents have sought to move a motion of no
confidence, which is not provided for.
12. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Prabhuling
K.Navadgi, has raised another issue viz., whether it
would be permissible to fall back on the general
principles such as democratic process and values in
matters governing registered Societies. In this regard,
attention of this Court was drawn to Zoroastrian
-28-
Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. And Another Vs.
District Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Urban)
and Others (2005) 5 SCC 632, wherein it was held as
follows:
"38. It is true that our Constitution has set
goals for ourselves and one such goal is the
doing away with discrimination based on
religion or sex. But that goal has to be
achieved by legislative intervention and not
by the court coining a theory that whatever
is not consistent with the scheme or a
provision of the Constitution, be it under
Part III or Part IV thereof, could be declared
to be opposed to public policy by the court.
Normally, as stated by this Court in Gherulal
Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya [1959 Supp (2)
SCR 406 : AIR 1959 SC 781] the doctrine of
public policy is governed by precedents, its
principles have been crystallised under the
different heads and though it was
permissible to expound and apply them to
different situations it could be applied only to
clear and undeniable cases of harm to the
-29-
public. Although, theoretically it was
permissible to evolve a new head of public
policy in exceptional circumstances, such a
course would be inadvisable in the interest
of stability of society."
[Emphasis supplied]
13. Learned Senior Counsel would therefore
submit that the concept of democratic process cannot be
called as an aid in this context, having regard to the
facts of case and in such a situation where the action on
the part of the petitioners in moving a motion of no
confidence would be detrimental to the interest and
stability of the Society.
14. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Vivek Subba Reddy,
pointed out from the facts of the case that one of the
writ petitioners and one of the members of the
Governing Council who is a signatory to the meeting
notice dated 18.07.2024 was in fact elected as Assistant
Secretary in the election held on 04.07.2024. In that
-30-
view of the matter, it was submitted that the meeting
notice is vitiated, since one of the office bearers is a
signatory to the notice seeking motion of no confidence,
which seeks to remove all the office bearers. It was also
pointed out that the writ petitioner in
W.P.No.24821/2024 has been removed from the
Governing Council by order dated 29.08.2024 and
therefore, the meeting notice dated 18.07.2024 cannot
be acted upon.
15. Heard the learned Senior Counsels for the
petitioners, learned Senior Counsels for the respondents
and perused the petition papers.
16. This is not the first time that two rival groups of
the Governing Council of the respondent-Society have
knocked on the doors of the civil court and this Court
regarding the same issue. In M.F.A.No.4319/2023 and
connected matters, this Court by order dated 07.07.2023
-31-
has dealt with the relevant provisions of the bye-laws
viz., clause 7(3)(Aa) and clause 16(3). The contentions
sought to be raised by the respondents who are the
present office bearers, were however, not raised or
considered in the said case. This Court only considered
as to whether the notice for motion of no confidence was
in compliance of the procedures contemplated in clause
7(3)(Aa) and 16(3). It was held that after receipt of the
notice, the Governing Council was required to issue
notice to each and every office bearer who was sought to
be removed from office. It was held that such meeting
notice containing the reasons was not issued to each of
the office bearers. Therefore, this Court held that there
was violation of principles of natural justice and
therefore, while allowing the appeals, directed the
requisitionists to give notice to the executive committee
and each of the office bearers and thereafter, discuss the
issue in a meeting. The date for consideration of motion
-32-
of no confidence was fixed by this Court. However,
subsequently, after the meeting was held in terms of the
directions issued by this Court and a decision was taken
in the meeting, nevertheless, the then office bearers
once again filed a suit in O.S.No.4695/2023 calling in
question the decision taken in the meeting held on
17.07.2023. The Trial Court declined to issue an order of
temporary injunction in respect of the said meeting and
the decision taken on 17.07.2023. That interim order
was once again challenged before this Court in MFA
No.5412/2023 and connected matters. This Court by
order dated 13.10.2023 upheld the decision of the Trial
Court and dismissed the appeals.
17. The term of the office bearers having come to
an end, subsequently, elections were held to the post of
the office bearers on 04.07.2024. The elected members
of the Governing Council took charge as office bearers on
04.07.2024. On 18.07.2024, the instant meeting notice
-33-
was issued by the petitioners herein to remove the office
bearers. There is no palpable reasons assigned in the
meeting notice, imputing any allegation touching upon
the integrity of the office bearers. That is the reason why
the petitioners are arguing that there is no need to
impute any allegations against the office bearers for their
removal, since the petitioners are seeking to move a
motion of no confidence and not a motion of censure.
The petitioners are seeking to take shelter under various
decisions such as Bhanumati Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh (2010) 12 SCC 1; Vipulbhai (supra); Pratap
Chandra Mehta (supra); it is noticeable that a
contention was raised by the then office bearers of the
society who were removed by a vote of no confidence on
17.07.2023, that without discussing the reasons stated
in the meeting notice, a decision was taken by the
members of the Governing Council. This Court held that
when the resolution indicates that the issue was
-34-
discussed and decision was taken, it would suffice for the
purpose and compliance of clause 7(3) of the bye-laws.
This Court on both the earlier occasions, in the two sets
of Miscellaneous First Appeals have considered the issue
based on a plain reading and going by the letter of the
words employed in the relevant clauses of the bye-law.
The end result is clearly visible. It is therefore obvious
that if this interpretation is given and the spirit of the
provisions governing the removal of an office bearer is
not given its true meaning, then such meaningless
motion of no confidence will continue unabated.
18. The respondent-society, which belongs to the
dominant Vokkaliga community in the State was founded
and registered in the year 1906. It has a grand
existence of more than a century. The society has
established medical colleges and many educational
institutions. It has also established hospitals and hostels
for students across the State. The provisions of the Bye-
-35-
Law which was incorporated in the year 1906, thereafter,
for nearly a century, may not have found any reason to
be revisited. But, from what has transpired in the last
few years, we have seen several such litigations in the
matter of elections and removal of the office bearers in
the respondent-society and it now presents sufficient
reasons to amend the provisions of the Bye-Law, more
particularly, regarding the removal of the office bearers
and for provision of motion of no confidence. It should
be left to the wisdom of the general body of the society
to consider such amendments.
19. However, having regard to the undisputed fact
that motion of no confidence is sought to be moved by
the petitioners herein within two weeks of the election of
the office bearers, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the seemingly different law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Zoroastrian Cooperative
Housing Society Ltd., (supra) may have to be invoked
-36-
in the present context. It has been held that though it
is permissible to expound and apply the doctrine of
public policy to different situation, nevertheless, it could
only be applied to clear and undeniable cases of harm to
the public. The question therefore is whether, in the
present context, motion of no confidence should be
permitted, on the ground that the society should be
governed by democratic principles, though there is no
express provision for such motion in the Bye-laws of the
society? Surely, it would not be in the interest of the
society and its members to topple duly elected office
bearers, within a span of two weeks of their election. It
is also equally trite that the educated and knowledgeable
members of the Governing Council should consciously
take a decision, without forgetting that they have
volunteered to work selflessly, to achieve the objectives
of the respondent-society. They should be reminded
that they are trustees, administering the society for a
-37-
certain period and they have to pass on the legacy to the
future generation, without causing the slightest of harm
to the society or diminishing its assets.
20. This Court is also of the considered opinion
that invocation of the concept of democratic principles
and values to express no confidence in the elected body
would be pitted against the legitimate claim of the
elected body that such action, if allowed, would be
contrary to established procedure that a duly elected
body should be permitted to govern. It would also
enable the losing candidates to circumvent the common
law available for challenging the election process or
declaration of results. This Court is therefore required to
walk the tight rope, between rule of law and justice. The
fact that the call for meeting to consider motion of no
confidence is issued barely two weeks after the elected
body was put in place, weighs heavily on the mind of this
Court. Voluntary organizations which have philanthropy
-38-
at the heart of their philosophy and service at the core of
their existence should shun dirty politics.
21. This Court therefore deems it necessary to
carefully examine the two provisions of the Bye-law of
the respondent-Society which have been invoked by the
parties. Clause 7(3)(Aa) and clause 16 in the original,
reads as follows:
7. ¸ÀAWÀzÀ PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ¸À«Äw, EzÀgÀ gÀZÀ£É :
1. (C). xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
2. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
3. (C). xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
3 (D) ªÉÄð£ÀAvÉ DAiÉÄÌAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀ AiÀiÁªÉÇçâ
¥ÀzÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÁgÀtPÁÌV PÁAiÀÄðPÁj
¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ §zÀ.Á¬Ä¸À®Ä EaѹzÀÝ°è PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ
D ¥ÀzÁ¢üPÁjUÉ D §UÉÎ ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ D
¥ÀzÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §zÀ.Á¬Ä¸À®Ä PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ
¤ÃrgÀĪÀ PÁgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄÓ ZÀað¸À®Ä MAzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀªÀ£ÀÄß
(CAvÀºÀ ¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¤ÃrzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ 7 ¢ªÀ¸ÀUÀ½AzÀ PÀrªÉÄ
CªÀ¢ E®èzÉ) ¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. ZÀað¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ, PÁAiÀÄðPÁj
¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ D ¥ÀzÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß §zÀ.Á¬Ä¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
¸ÀÆPÀÛªÉAzÀÄ §ºÀĪÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ wêÀiÁð¤¹zÀ°è, DvÀ£À£ÀÄß
§zÀ.Á¬Ä¸§ºÀÄzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀvÀà¥ÀjuÁªÀĪÁV GAmÁzÀ SÁ°
¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ ¨ÉÃgÉÆçâ PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀ¸Àå£À£ÀÄß
¥ÀzÁ¢üPÁjAiÀiÁV Dj¸À®Ä 7 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï ¤Ãr ¸À¨sÉ
PÀgÉzÀÄ Dj¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
-39-
16. ¸À¨sÉ ¸ÉÃj¸À®Ä w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ
1. PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ¸À¨sÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀÄjvÀÄ
w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß K¼ÀÄ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄAZÉ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÉ
vÀ®Ä¥ÀĪÀ ºÁUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ PÉÆqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ vÀÄvÀÄð ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ° è
K¼ÀÄ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ ¤§ðAzsÀ«®è.
2. vÀÄvÀÄð ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðªÀ£ÀÄß ¤zsÀðj¸ÀĪÀ C¢üPÁgÀ CzsÀåPÀëjUÉ
EgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
3. PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðAiÀĪÀjUÉ §gÀºÀzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÀ¤µÀ× ¥ÀPÀë 9 d£À
¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹ «±ÉõÀ ¸À¨sÉ ¸ÉÃj¸À®Ä w½¹zÀgÉ
CAxÀ PÁUÀzÀ ¸ÉÃjzÀ 10 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÉƼÀUÁV PÁAiÀÄðPÁj 66
¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄ D «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ZÀað¹ wêÀiÁð¤¸À®Ä
ªÀiÁvÀæ ¸ÉÃgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. D CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ
¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀgÉAiÀÄ®Ä G¥ÉÃQë¹zÁÝzÀgÉ w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ PÉÆlÖ
¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ vÁªÉà PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀAWÀzÀ DªÀgÀtzÀ°è
PÀgÉzÀÄ wêÀiÁð£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ. D wêÀiÁð£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ
¤§AzsÀ£ÉUÀ½UÉ «gÉÆÃzsÀªÁVgÀPÀÆqÀzÀÄ.
22. A plain translation would read as follows:
7(3)(Aa) - If the Executive Committee decides
to replace any of the office bearers for any
reason, the Executive Committee shall give
notice to such office bearer and the Executive
Committee, for the purpose of discussing the
reason stated in the notice, shall stipulate a date
(which shall not be less than 7 days from the
date of notice). After discussion, if the Executive
Committee comes to a conclusion, by majority
-40-
opinion that such office bearer should be
replaced, such office bearer can be replaced. As
a consequence of such decision to replace an
office bearer, the Executive Committee, shall, for
the purpose of choosing another member to fill
the vacancy, issue notice of seven days and
proceed to fill up the vacancy.
16. Notice for meeting.
(1) For ordinary meeting of the Executive
Committee, seven clear days notice shall
be issued to the members of the Executive
Committee. However, for emergency
meetings, such stipulation of seven days
notice is not necessary.
(2) The President of the Society shall have the
power to decide emergent circumstances.
(3) If a minimum of nine members seek to
convene special meeting, and notice in
writing is given to the Secretary, the
Executive Committee shall within ten days
from the date of receipt of such request, call
for a meeting, only for the purpose of
discussing the subject matter of such notice.
-41-
If the Executive Committee fails to call for
such meeting, the members who gave notice
may themselves call for a meeting of the
Executive Committee in the premises of the
Society and take a decision. However, such
decision shall not be in contravention of the
Bye-laws of the Society.
23. A plain reading of clause 7(3)(Aa) would mean
that if the Executive Committee is of the opinion that an
office bearer is required to be replaced, notice of not less
than seven days should be given to such office bearer,
along with reasons. Having regard to the law laid down
by the Apex Court, cited by the learned Counsels, this is
not a provision permitting motion of no confidence
against the office bearers. It would also mean that if
such action is to be taken against an office bearer,
furnishing reasons would become inevitable and
therefore it would be akin to a censure motion.
-42-
Therefore, clause 7(3)(Aa) cannot be invoked for the
purpose of motion of no confidence.
24. However, as declared by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, even if there is no specific provision for motion of
no confidence, such motion would be valid and
permissible. Therefore, since the respondent-Society is
functioning on democratic principles, motion of no
confidence should be permitted. In the considered
opinion of this Court, such an action can be taken by the
petitioners by proceeding under clause 16(3) of the Bye-
laws. Further, since it has been declared that in the
absence of specific provision for motion of no confidence,
the same procedure followed for election is required to
be followed in the matter of no confidence, therefore,
subsequent to the convening of meeting in terms of
clause 16(3), the Executive Committee shall also decide
on the Officer to preside over the meeting, in terms of
clause 7(3)(a).
-43-
25. On a cumulative reading of the above two
paragraphs, the procedure that is required to be followed
is that a minimum of nine members can issue notice to
the Secretary of the Society, clearly seeking for motion
of no confidence against the office bearers. No reason is
required to be assigned. No sooner the Secretary
receives the notice, the Secretary shall convene a
meeting of the Executive Committee within a period of
ten days. A neutral person such as the Assistant
Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who normally
conducts the elections, may be requested to preside over
the meeting. The motion of no confidence shall be put to
vote, either by show of hands or through ballot papers
and the result can be declared by the Presiding Officer.
If the Secretary fails to convene the meeting, the
members who issued the notice, may proceed to fix a
date for meeting, inform all the members of the
-44-
Executive Committee regarding the date for meeting and
proceed accordingly.
26. However, as stated earlier, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the members of the Executive
Committee, such as the petitioners, who were
unsuccessful in the previous elections, should not be
permitted to seek motion of no confidence, within such
short term as found in the present case. Such an action
will be contrary to democratic principles and will not
serve the interest of the Society and its members. For
that purpose, it would be advisable that a clause should
be added in the Bye-laws preventing motion of no
confidence against the office bearers for a period of one
year immediately after the previous elections. The term
of the office bearers is 30 months. Therefore, such
restrictions would be reasonable and acceptable.
27. The petitioners should ponder over the
suggestion made by this Court. Despite such
-45-
observations, if the petitioners still insist that they should
be permitted to move a no confidence motion, then it
would be appropriate that the general body of the
respondent-Society should witness such proceedings and
take appropriate decisions.
28. Further, since the meeting date set by the
petitioners has spent itself, albeit by virtue of the interim
orders passed by the Trial Court, and since a procedure
is contemplated by this order, the petitioners will have to
proceed afresh.
29. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petitions are partly allowed.
(ii) The petitioners or members of the Executive Committee of the respondent-Society are free to issue a fresh notice, in terms stated -46- hereinabove, if they seek vote of no confidence against the sitting office bearers.
(iii) If the petitioners or other members seek to move for no confidence, immediately after the disposal of these writ petitions, then as a special measure, notice shall be given by the Secretary to the general body of the respondent-Society to witness the proceedings of the meeting and take appropriate decisions bearing in mind such conduct of its members governing the Society. The discussion in the meeting and voting shall however be restricted only to the members of the Executive Committee of the respondent-Society. -47-
(iv) It would be advisable that appropriate amendments are brought to the Bye- laws preventing motion of no confidence for a period of one year from the date of the previous elections to the Executive Committee.
30. Pending IAs., if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS) JUDGE JT/DL CT: JL