Karnataka High Court
Sri Rajaguru Brhanmathadeeshwar vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2024
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5164
WP No. 104277 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 104277 OF 2014 (GM-KSR)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAJAGURU BRHANMATHADEESHWAR
SRI YOGIRAJENDRA MAHASWAMIGALU
SUKSHETRA GANGIBHAVI
AGE: 82 YEARS, OCC: MATHADEESHARU,
R/O. GANGIBHAVI SUKSHETRA,
TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S
UTTARADHIKARI
SRI SIDDALINGASWAMIGALU
S/O. PANCHAKSHARAYYA GALIMATH @
SHRI RAJAGURU SHIVAYOGI SIDDALINGASWAMIGALU,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: DHARMA BHODANE &
AGRICULTURAL, R/O. GANGIBHAVI SUKSHETRA
MUTT, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI P.G. CHIKKANARGUND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
SOCIETIES & SANGH,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2024.03.15
ZILLA ADALIT BHAVAN,
15:18:32 +0530
'A' BLOCK, 3RD FLOOR,
RIGHT SIDE, DIST: HAVERI-581110.
2. CHANNAPPA S/O. SHANKARAPPA BINDLI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & SOCIAL SERVICE,
R/O. YATTANAHALLI, POST: HOSUR,
TQ: SHIGGAON-581205, DIST: HAVERI.
3. SOMASHEKHAR S/O. PARAPPA SURAGONDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOSUR, TQ: SHIGGAON-581205,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5164
WP No. 104277 of 2014
DIST: HAVERI.
4. BASAVARAJ S/O. SHEKAPPA BARADUR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS &
AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YATTANAHALLI,
POST: HOSUR, TQ: SHIGGAON-581205,
DIST: HAVERI.
5. PRAKASH FAKIRAPPA DAVAGI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. A.M. KOPPA, TQ: SHIGGAONV,
DIST: HAVERI.
6. SHIVANAGOUDA CHANABANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YATTINHALLI, TQ: SHIGGAON-581205,
DIST: HAVERI.
7. NILKANTA GOUDA VEERANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YATNALLI, TQ: SHIGGAON-581205,
DIST: HAVERI.
8. SOMAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA ADARGUNCHI,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YATTANAHALLI, AMKOPPA,
POST: HOSUR, TQ: SHIGGAON-581205,
DIST: HAVERI.
9. MALLANAGOUDRA
SHIVASHANKARGOUDRA PATIL,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. A.M. KOPPA, TQ: SHIGGAON-581205,
DIST: HAVERI.
10. VEERANAGOUDRA ULAVANAGOUDRA PATIL,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOSUR, TQ: SHIGGAON-581205,
DIST: HAVERI.
11. JEEVANNA B. KULKARNI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOSUR, TQ: SHIGGAON-581205,
DIST: HAVERI.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5164
WP No. 104277 of 2014
12. JINNAPPA MAHADEVAPPA DHARWAD,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOSUR, TQ: SHIGGAON-581205,
DIST: HAVERI.
13. ARUN S/O. BASAPPA INDUR,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YATTANAHALLI, POST: HOSUR,
TQ: SHIGGAON-581205, DIST: HAVERI.
14. ARJUN S/O. GADIGEPPA SURAGONDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOSUR, TQ: SHIGGAON-581205,
DIST: HAVERI.
15. NAGAPPA BASAPPA KULKARNI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOSUR, TQ: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI.
16. HARAJAPPA DEVALAPPA LAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YATTINAHALLI,
TQ: SHIGGAON-581205,
DIST: HAVERI.
17. DUNDAPPA GADIGEPPA HITTALAMANI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. A.M. KOPPA, TQ: SHIGGAON-581205,
DIST: HAVERI.
18. NAGARAJ SHANKRAPPA SURGONDA,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YATTINAHALLI, TQ: SHIGGAON-581205,
DIST: HAVERI.
19. NIJAGUNI SHIVARUDRAPPA INDUR,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YATTINAHALLI, TQ: SHIGGAON-581205,
DIST: HAVERI.
20. VEERAPPA MAHADEVAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5164
WP No. 104277 of 2014
R/O. YATTINAHALLI, TQ: SHIGGAON-581205,
DIST: HAVERI.
21. MANJUNATH SOMAPPA KADAKBHAVI,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. A.M. KOPPA, TQ: SHIGGAON-581205,
DIST: HAVERI.
22. GOPAL LAKSHMAN LAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YATTINAHALLI,
TQ: SHIGGAON-581205,
DIST: HAVERI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KIRTILATHA PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADV. FOR
R2-R11 & R13-R22;
R12 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
ENDORSMENT DATED 13-02-2014 WITH PÀ¸
æ A
À :f£ÉÆúÁ/EvÀgÉ(¸ÀAWÀ)-
421/2013-14 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF HAVERI, AS
PER ANNEXURE-M AND ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04-
02-2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 ON 05-02-2014 AS PER ANNEXURE-L.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5164
WP No. 104277 of 2014
ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs.
i. Quashing the endorsement dated 13-02-2014 with PÀ¸ æ AÀ :f£ÉÆúÁ/EvÀgÉ(¸ÀAWÀ)-421/2013-14 issued by the District Registrar of Haveri, as per Annexure-M. ii. Issue writ of mandamus to directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 04-02-2014 filed by the petitioner and acknowledged by the respondent no.1 on 05-02- 2014 as per Annexure-L. iii. Pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Sri P.G.Chikkanaragund, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that land measuring 5-Acres situated on western side of Sy.No.224/1A totally measuring 12- Acres 32-Guntas of Yattinahalli village of Shiggaon taluk, belonged to petitioner. It was submitted that a Trust by name 'Gangibhavi Sukshetra' was registered under provision of The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 as per registration extract at Annexure-B dated 03.03.1994 and registration certificate dated 05.03.1994 at Annexure-B1. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 104277 of 2014 It was submitted that said land, in Sri Ramalingeshwar temple, a Well and Zinc plate shed etc, were constructed and annual fair was being conducted. It was submitted that Mutt was receiving donations from shops etc., fairgoers and devotees. From said funds Trust was conducting Annadasoha etc., However, respondents no.2 to 22 sought to register a Society by filing an application as per Annexure-E.
3. It was submitted, though petitioner filed objection against registration of society as per Annexure- D, on ground that annual fair was being conducted by registered Trust and proposed society was with sole intention of obstructing or interfering with conduct of annual fair/Jatra. It is submitted, without proper consideration of objections, respondent no.1 proceeded to register society as per Annexure-H on 06.01.2014. It was submitted that petitioner was aggrieved by same and sought for its cancellation by filing representation to respondent no.1 as per Annexure-L dated 04.02.2014. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 104277 of 2014 Without proper consideration, respondent no.1 had issued endorsement as per Annexure-M and rejected it. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner was before this Court.
4. It was submitted that said respondent no.1 himself had in communication addressed to one Shashidhar Mahadevappa Hallikeri on 03.09.2018, stated that Sri Ramalingeshwar Seva Samiti, Gangibavi had not submitted audit reports after registration till date. But, in impugned endorsement it was stated that only in case of non submission of annual audit report for five years, action for cancellation of registration could be taken. It is further submitted that action of members of society in interfering with holding Annual Fair, interference with collection of donations and alms by petitioner were illegal activities, which ought to have been taken note of by respondent. Therefore, impugned endorsement was liable to be quashed.
5. On other hand, learned HCGP for respondent submitted that in representation at Annexure-L, petitioner -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 104277 of 2014 had not made out any cause for taking action either under Sections 13 or Section 25 and 27 of Act and therefore, endorsement issued was justified.
6. Sri Mrutyunjay Tata Bhangi, learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 11, 13 to 22 sought to oppose writ petition. It was submitted that writ petition as against endorsement was not maintainable as petitioner was very well aware of registration of society at Annexure-H, which was not questioned.
7. It was further submitted that society was registered on 06.01.2014 and therefore, at time of issuance of letter dated 03.09.2014, even one year had not lapsed. Therefore, there was no occasion for filing even first annual audit report. It was submitted that illegal acts alleged would not constitute any of causes on which respondent no.1 could take cognizance of under Sections 25 and 27 of The Societies Registration Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for brevity). -9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 104277 of 2014
8. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition papers.
9. From above, it is seen that main grievance of petitioner is that there is no proper consideration of petitioner's representation at Annexure-L by respondent no.1, while issuing impugned endorsement at Annexure-M. A perusal of representation at Annexure-L would not indicate petitioner's cause for cancellation of registration of society was on ground that it had failed to submit audited reports for continuous period for 5 years, as representation was submitted less than month after its registration. Even correspondence sought to be relied upon was issued hardly seven months after registration and therefore, parameters for cancellation of registration under Section 13 of Act would not be met.
10. Other ground namely interference with petitioner conducting Annual Fair at his land bearing Sy.no.224/1A, would also not fall within scope of enquiry by respondent no.1, as it would not fall within
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5164 WP No. 104277 of 2014 'constitution', 'working' or 'financial condition' of registered society.
11. Therefore, petitioner has not made out even prima-facie cause for exercise of suo-moto power of enquiry by respondent no.1. Writ Petition suffers from yet another substantive defect. While petitioner's grievance is against registration of society registered under Annexure- H, said society though registered is not arrayed as party respondent to petition, which would be fatal.
12. Hence, for above stated reasons, writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34