Karnataka High Court
N.P. Krishnamurthy And Ors. vs N.R. Pandurangappa And Anr. on 1 August, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006 (5) AIR KAR R 533
Author: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 7-4-2006 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 54 of 2003 allowing the appeal purporting to be one filed Under Section 27(3) of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act').
2. Under the impugned order, the Tribunal has, while allowing the appeal which was in turn directed against the order dated 28-12-2002 passed in Case No. SOR. 55/2002-03 by the District Registrar, Chitradurga District who had declined to cancel the registration that had been given in favour of the society known as 'Sree Ranganatha Swamy Temple Committee', has set aside the impugned order holding that the order was bad to the extent it declined to allow the application for holding that the registration of the society was illegal.
3. The society it appears had been granted registration in terms of the order dated 21-5-2002 in Registration No. 55 of 2002 at the instance of several persons who claimed to be devotees of Sree Ranganatha Swamy Temple, Nandihalli Village, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District, including the writ petitioners.
4. The present respondent 1 who styles himself to be the Vahivatdar" of the temple was not happy with the grant of registration in favour of the society and it appears had moved the District Registrar to have the registration cancelled but nevertheless for such purpose had filed an application/appeal Under Section 8(2) of the Act before the District Registrar.
5. The District Registrar it appears had proceeded as though the application was one more Under Section 27 of the Act, held an enquiry and not being satisfied that the matter called for interference, rejected the application in terms of the order dated 28-12-2002. It was this order that was appealed against before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by filing an appeal Under Section 27(3) of the Act.
6. The Tribunal which examined the merits of the appeal being of the view that in view of certain pending civil litigation between the parties and in the context of which certain directions had also been issued by the High Court in a writ petition at the instance of the respondent 1, had also issued certain directions for filing an application in a pending suit between the parties and while the matter stood thus, the present petitioners could not have sought for registration under the name and style of 'Sree Ranganatha Swamy Temple Committee' and also being of the view that the object as indicated in SI. No. 2 of the objects being in the nature of religious activity, grant of registration was not proper and accordingly allowed the appeal and cancelled the registration.
7. It is aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal, the present writ petition.
8. Sri Chithappa, learned Counsel appears for the petitioners. The first respondent has entered appearance through Caveat by Sri Dharmesh, Advocate and Sri B. Veerappa, learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent 2. Though the matter is posted for preliminary hearing, it is taken up for disposal with consent of the Counsels appearing for parties and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, is disposed of as under.
9. Submission of Sri Chithappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal has committed an error in exercising jurisdiction Under Section 27(3) of the Act as the Tribunal could not have entertained an appeal of this nature, particularly, when the proceedings that had been initiated by the respondent 1 before the District Registrar was one Under Section 8 of the Act. Submission is that even the proceedings before the District Registrar itself was improper, in the sense that the first respondent could not have filed an appeal Under Section 8(2) of the Act seeking for cancellation of the registration granted in favour of the society; that the appeal is tenable only at the instance of the society which has been declined registration and not by any third person and in support of such submission, places reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Shankarananda Adikarnataka Aided Hostel Sangh and Anr. v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal and Anr. 1966(1) Mys. LJ. 536 (DB).
10. It is also the further submission of Sri Chithappa that the authorities below have committed a serious error in not even according an opportunity to the society whose registration was sought to be cancelled; that the society was never a party before the District Registrar or before the Tribunal and therefore the entire proceedings are vitiated in the absence of a necessary party against whom the order is being passed i.e., one of cancellation of registration of the society and therefore the order of the Tribunal is vitiated.
11. Sri Dharmesh, learned Counsel for respondent 1 submits that the nature of the activity as revealed from object No. 2 in the objects delineated by the society clearly indicated that it was one religious in nature and therefore being not one amongst the purposes for which the society could be registered and so the cancellation was justified; that though the Tribunal could not exercise appellate jurisdiction in a matter for cancellation Under Section 8 of the Act, the Tribunal having rightly entertained the appeal Under Section 27(3) of the Act, the order need not be interfered with.
12. Sri Veerappa, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that it was not proper for the authorities to have proceeded to act Under Section 27 of the Act even without issuing notice to the society concerned and to this extent there appears to be a lacuna in the order.
13. It is a fact that the society had been registered in terms of the order dated 21-5-2002 passed by the District Registrar. Once the society is registered, there is no scope for interference by invoking Section 8 of the Act for cancellation of such registration, but any person who finds any obnoxious activity on the part of the society can seek for an enquiry and appropriate orders for cancellation of registration under the provisions of Section 27 of the Act.
14. Though Sri Dharmesh, learned Counsel for respondent 1 would urge that the very grant of registration being illegal as the registration of this nature could not have been granted in favour of the society which has a religious activity as its purpose, it is not necessary for this Court to examine the merits of this contention as I find that for exercising powers Under Section 27 of the Act, it is inevitable that notice is issued to the society whose activities are to be enquired into and whose registration may be cancelled ultimately. In fact, it is against an order passed by the District Registrar in terms of his powers Under Section 27 of the Act, the appeal is provided to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Under Section 27(3) of the Act. If the proceedings before the District Registrar are to be treated as one Under Section 27 of the Act as has been done by the Tribunal, then the society should have been put on notice. But, unfortunately, in the present case, that having not been done so and the society being not a party, the order passed by the Tribunal can be contended to be one not binding on the society leading to not only multiplicity of proceedings but confusion and chaos.
15. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal in the exercise of its appellate power Under Section 27(3) of the Act to cancel the registration in favour of the society for the first time in an appeal even without a notice to the society is not sustainable in law. The order suffers from not merely procedural irregularity but even one of depriving an opportunity to the person to be affected and amounts to passing an order virtually behind the back of the society. It is for this reason I am interfering in this writ petition to set aside the order of the Tribunal even without going into the merits of the other contentions urged by the parties.
16. In the circumstances, the impugned order in Appeal No. 54 of 2003, dated 7-4-2006 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (copy at Annexure-F) is quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari.
17. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent 1 to take such action including filing of a fresh application Under Section 27 of the Act if the respondent 1 so deems fit for moving the Registrar for cancellation of registration in favour of the society and by impleading the society as party to the proceedings.
18. Writ petition is allowed. Rule issued and made absolute. Parties to bear their respective costs.
19. Sri Veerappa, learned Additional Government permitted to file memo of appearance within eight weeks.