Karnataka High Court
Smt P Uma Hemareddy vs Government Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2026
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:2094
WP No. 14124 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 14124 OF 2023 (GM-KSR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT P UMA HEMAREDDY
W/O SHRI K T HEMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO 1657/18, 10TH CROSS
ANAJANEYA LAYOUT,
DAVANGERE -577 004.
2. SHRI L V SUBRAMANYA
S/O LATE LAXMANA RAO V.,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO 2561, 'SRI CHAITANYA',
MCC 'A' BLOCK, 5TH MAIN,
DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
Digitally signed
by SUMA B N 3. SHRI M V RAVI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF S/O SHRI M VEERABHADRAPPA,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT 'BAKKESWARA' NO 851/6,
7TH CROSS, TARALABALU LAYOUT,
DAVANAGERE - 577 005.
4. SHRI U D LAKSHMINARAYANA
S/O LATE G DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO 3992/52, 'SRINIDHI'
10TH CROSS, ANJANEYA LAYOUT,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:2094
WP No. 14124 of 2023
HC-KAR
DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
5. SHRI K C SIDDAPPA
S/O LATE K M CHENNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO 1651/10A,
MARULUSIDDESHWARA NILAYA,
14TH CROSS, ANJANEYA LAYOUT,
DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ARUN B M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M S BUILDING,
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU -560001.
2. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
3. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
4. SHRI N PARASHURAMEGOWDA
S/O LATE MUDDEGOWDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT NO 4213, 'JALADARSHAN',
7TH CROSS, SIDDAVEERAPPA LAYOUT,
DAVANGERE -577 004.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:2094
WP No. 14124 of 2023
HC-KAR
5. SMT VINUTHA M P
D/O SHRI PARASHURAMANA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO 1759, VIKRANTH NILAYA,
5TH CROSS, SIDDAVEERAPPA LAYOUT,
DAVANGERE - 577 004.
6. SHRI SANTHOSH KUMAR S M
SON OF SHRI S.S. MATAPATHI,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 1040, SHANTHINIKETANA,
1ST STAGE, 2ND MAIN,
5TH CROSS,
SHIVAKUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,
DAVANAGERE -577005.
7. SMT SUDHA J B RAJU
WIFE OF SHRI J B RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 1962/1,
'VINAYAKA SADANA',
5TH CROSS, VINAYAKA LAYOUT,
DAVANAGERE 577 005.
8. SMT VANI M E
WIFE OF NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS,
MAJOR,
RESIDING AT NO 1040,
SHANTHINIKETANA,
1ST STAGE, 2ND MAIN,
5TH CROSS ROAD,
SHIVAKUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
9. SHRI VINAYAKAGOWDA J B
SON OF DR J B RAJU,
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:2094
WP No. 14124 of 2023
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 1962/1,
VINAYAKA SADANA,
5TH CROSS, VINAYAKA LAYOUT,
DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
10. SHRI SIDDARTHGOWDA J B
SON OF DR J B RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 1962/1,
VINAYAKA SADANA,
5TH CROSS, VINAYAKA LAYOUT,
DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
11. DR. VEENA V. MUDDEGOWDARA
WIFE OF NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS,
MAJOR
RESIDING AT NO 1759,
VIKRANTH NILAYA, 5TH CROSS,
SIDDAVEERAPPA LAYOUT,
DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
12. SHRI DYAMAPPA
SON OF SHRI VEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 4206/9
10TH CROSS ROAD,
SIDDAVEERAPPA LAYOUT,
DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
13. SHRI SANDEEP D.,
SON OF SHRI DYAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 4206/9
10TH CROSS ROAD,
SIDDAVEERAPPA LAYOUT,
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:2094
WP No. 14124 of 2023
HC-KAR
DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
14. SHRI MANJAPPA N.,
SON OF SHRI NINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NARASIPURA (MUKKAM)
HONNURU POST,
ANAGODA HOBLI,
DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577 004.
15. SHRI ARAVINDKUMAR K S
SON OF SHRI SHENKARAPPA K B
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 1637/22,
TARALABALU LAYOUT,
VIDYANAGARA MAIN ROAD,
DAVANAGERE - 577 005.
16. SHRI G RAMAPRABHU
SON OF SHRI T N MEENAKSHI,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 515/1 AND 2,
2ND STAGE, 3RD CROSS ROAD,
DR SHIVAKUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,
DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
17. SHRI. BASAVARAJ.M
SON OF SHRI. MRUTHYUNJAYAPPA.C
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 567/2,
SHRI. KOTTURESHWARA NILAYA,
3RD CROSS ROAD,
ANJANEYA LAYOUT,
DAVANAGARE-577 004.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:2094
WP No. 14124 of 2023
HC-KAR
18. SHRI. G.R. AMAR JINGADE
SON OF SHRI. G. RAMAPRABHU,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
C/O JINGADE RAMPRABHU RICE INDUSTRIES,
KASHIPURA CAMP POST,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577 213,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
19. SHRI. G.R. AJITH JINGADE
SON OF SHRI. C.T. SIDDESH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
C/O JINGADE RAMAPRABHU RICE INDUSTRIES,
KASHIPURA CAMP POST,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577213,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
20. SHRI. RAJESH.B
SON OF LATE BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 103,
J.J REGENCY, 2ND MAIN JROAD,
MARENAHALLI, K.G.S. LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU-560 040.
21. DR. PANKAJAKSHI.I.G
DAUGHTER OF SHRI. PARASHURAMANAGOWDA.N
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 1759,
VIKRANTH NILAYA, 5TH CROSS,
SIDDAVEERAPPA LAYOUT,
DAVANAGERE-577 004.
22. SMT. ASHA.C.S
DAUGHTER OF SHRI. C.M. SOMASHEKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:2094
WP No. 14124 of 2023
HC-KAR
RESIDING AT NO. 530/110,
BYRUSIDDESHWARA NILAYA,
2ND CROSS ROAD, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
MONESHWARA LAYOUT,
NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE-577 004.
23. SHRI. D.M. LINGANAGOWDA
SON OF LATE SIDDANAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 3308/1D,
14TH CROSS, ROAD, M.C.C B-BLOCK,
KUVEMPU NAGAR,
DAVANAGERE-577 004.
24. DR. M. VINAY
SON OF SHRI. PARASHURAMANAGOWDA.N
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 1759,
VIKRANTH NILAYA, 5TH CROSS,
SIDDAVEERAPPA LAYOUT,
DAVANAGERE-577 004.
25. SMT. VIDYA SORATOORA
WIFE OF SHRI. RAJEEVA SORATOORA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 3683/147,
7TH CROSS ROAD,
ANJANEYA LAYOUT,
DAVANAGERE-577 004.
26. SHRI. D. RUDRAMUNI
SON OF NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT MARULASIDDESHWARA NILAYA,
5TH CROSS ROAD,
ANJANEYA LAYOUT,
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:2094
WP No. 14124 of 2023
HC-KAR
DAVANAGERE-577 004.
27. SNT. ASHA M. RAVI
WIFE OF SHRI.M.V. RAVI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 851/6,
BAKKESHWARA, 7TH CROSS ROAD,
TARALABALU LAYOUT,
DAVANAGERE - 577 005.
28. SHRI. ANADRAO
SON OF SHRI. MAHADEVA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 2561,
'SRI CHAITANYA',
DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
29. SMT. GAYATHRI SUBRAMANYA
WIFE OF SHRI.L.V. SUBRAMANYA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 2561, 'SRI CHAITANYA',
5TH MAIN ROAD, M.C.C. A BLOCK,
DAVANAGHERE - 577 004.
30. SMT. SUMA NARAYANA
WIFE OF SHRI. U.D. LAKSHMINARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
RESIDING AT NO.3992/52,
SHRINIDHI, 10TH CROSS ROAD,
ANJANEYA LAYOUT.
DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
31. SHRI NAGENDRA. L
SON OF SHRI. U.D. LAKHSMINARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 3992/52,
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:2094
WP No. 14124 of 2023
HC-KAR
`SRINIDHI', 10TH CROSS ROAD,
ANJANEYA LAYOUT,
DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
32. SMT. PUSHPAVATHI.B.K
WIFE OF SHRI.K.C. SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 1651/10,
A.MARALUSIDDESHWARA NILAYA,
14TH CROSS ROAD,
ANJANEYA LAYOUT,
DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
33. SHRI. K. T. HEMAREDDY
SON OF SHRI.K. THIMMAPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1657/16
10TH CROSS ROAD,
ANJANEYA LAYOUT.
DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
34. SHRI .RAHUL M.H.
SON OF SHIR.K.T HEMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 1657/16,
10TH CROSS ROAD,
ANJANEYA LAYOUT.
DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
35. NUTAN EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION (R)
LIC COLONY, NUTANA COLLEGE ROAD,
DAVANAGERE- 577 004
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2094
WP No. 14124 of 2023
HC-KAR
SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. DEEPAK S. SHETTY.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R5, R8 & R35;
SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S.B. TOTAD, ADVOCATE FOR R12 TO R14 & R16 TO
R26;
SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R15
R4, R7, R9, R10, R11, R27, R28, R29, R32, R33, R34-
SERVED & UNREPRESENTED
V/O DATED 10.10.2023, NOTICE TO R30 & R31 IS DISPENSED
WITH
V/O DATED 13.12.2023, NOTICE TO R6 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE (i)
ORDER DATED 02.06.2023 PASSED BY THE R3, VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTIALLY (ii) NOTIFICATION
DATED 20.06.2023, VIDE ANNEXURE-A1.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners claiming to be the members of respondent No.35 -Nutan Educational Association, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as `Society'), are before this Court seeking following reliefs:
"a) Issue a writ of Certiorari and thereby, quash the (i) order dated 02.06.2023 passed by the 3rd Respondent, vide Annexure-A and consequentially,
(b) Notification dated 20.06.2023, vide Annexure-
'A1'."
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2094 WP No. 14124 of 2023 HC-KAR
2. Brief facts leading upto the filing of the present petition are:
(a) That upon a notice dated 09.02.2015 issued by the District Registrar- Davanagere District, the then Governing Council of the Society convened a Special General Body Meeting on 14.03.2015. That as on 14.03.2015 there were only 23 members of the society. One Sri.S.S.Mathapathi was the Secretary of the Society. It is alleged that though the Special General Body meeting was held on 14.03.2015, the said Secretary Sri.S.S.Mathapathi had not called for Governing Council meeting for five months despite repeated requests. This constrained the petitioners and respondent No.7 to address a letter dated
03.08.2015 calling for the meeting of Working Committee on 16.08.2015.
(b) In the said meeting, said Sri.S.S.Mathapathi and respondent No.3 were removed from the post of Secretary and President of the society respectively and petitioner No.1 and respondent No.7 were duly elected as President and Secretary of the society respectively and they had taken charge on 24.08.2015.
(c) That on 24.08.2015 the said Sri.S.S.Mathapathi has managed to get a letter styled as "Intimation letter"
from the District Registrar who had passed the order of preventing holding of meeting. This constrained the
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2094 WP No. 14124 of 2023 HC-KAR petitioners and respondent No.7 to approach this Court by filing writ petition in W.P.No.43545/2015. An interim order dated 16.10.2015 was passed by this Court staying operation of the said intimation letter dated 24.08.2015. During the pendency of the said writ petition, District Registrar had proceeded to appoint an Administrator by Government Order dated 02.12.2025. This Court by Order dated 16.11.2016 quashed all the orders passed by the District Registrar and directed restoration of position as it existed earlier to 02.12.2015. Administrator consequently handed over the charge on 02.12.2016 to the Governing Council consisting of the petitioners and others.
(d) Thereafter, respondent No.7 who was the Secretary of the respondent-Society had issued a notice dated 02.12.2016 calling for General body meeting to be held on 25.12.2016 which again was interfered with by the Registrar constraining the petitioner to approach this Court yet again by filing writ petition in W.P.No.65571/2016. An interim order was passed staying operation of the said endorsement dated 14.12.2016 issued by the District Registrar.
(e) Petitioners had filed an application seeking direction to convene the General Body meeting of the society with 23 members as on 14.03.2015 in the presence of a retired District Judge as an observer with necessary police protection. Respondents 12 to 26 and 6 others totalling 21 persons claiming to have been inducted as
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2094 WP No. 14124 of 2023 HC-KAR members filed an application seeking their impleadment in the said petition. This Court by order dated 26.07.2019 disposed of the said petition directing preparation of the voters list based on the genuineness of the membership.
(f) Pursuant to the said order respondent No.2 appointed respondent No.3 as the Election Officer. In the first sitting that was held on 04.09.2019, some of the petitioners appeared before the respondent No.3 and submitted their objection with regard to induction of 21 additional members. Despite furnishing of detailed representation/objections without considering the same, respondent No.3 passed order dated 12.09.2019 treating the said 21 persons to be the members duly inducted which constrained the petitioner to file an application in already disposed of petition in W.P.No.65571/2016 and sought for stay of the order dated 26.07.2019.
(g) Some of the petitioners had also filed a review petition in R.P.No.498/2019. This Court by interim order dated 13.12.2019 had directed respondent No.4 - Sri.S.S.Mathapathi not to take any decision touching upon the financial aspects and properties of the society until further orders. Thereafter, by order dated 27.01.2020, this Court disposed of the review petition permitting the petitioners to challenge the action of respondents 3 to 5 in a writ petition and continued the interim order with certain observations.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2094 WP No. 14124 of 2023 HC-KAR
(h) Consequently petitioners filed a writ petition in W.P.No.4048/2020 which was allowed by order dated 14.09.2021 setting aside the order dated 12.09.2019 passed by respondent No.3 and all consequential proceedings. A review petition was filed in R.P.No.309/2021, which was also disposed of on 25.08.2022 with certain directions. Respondent Nos.4 and 5, representing the society had submitted representation on 19.11.2022 with certain documents. Petitioners filed detailed statement of objections and rejoinder. Petitioner also filed synopsis on 10.04.2023. Respondent had also filed written arguments.
3. In the meanwhile some of the members, out of 21 members and also out of subsequently inducted members, had passed away which has also been brought to the notice of the Respondent No.3-Registrar. However, he passed order dated 02.06.2023 as per Annexure-A, holding that there are 36 members of the society including 15 persons, namely respondent Nos.12 to 26, whose membership the petitioners had challenged. In furtherance to said order, respondent No.3 issued notification dated 02.06.2023 calling for objections for finalisation of the names. It is this order dated 02.06.2023 as per Annexure-A and consequent issue of notification dated
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2094 WP No. 14124 of 2023 HC-KAR 20.06.2023 as per Annexure- A1 which is put in question in this writ petition by the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners taking this Court extensively through the pleadings and the documents annexed to the petition at the outset submits that there is no possibility of any nature whatsoever justifying induction of respondent Nos.12 to 26 and others as additional 21 members of the society for the following reasons:
(i) That when a intimation/notice dated 09.02.2015 came to be issued at the instance of the State Government by the respondent No.3-Registrar, directing the petitioners to hold a General Body meeting and in furtherance to which a notice dated 20.02.2015 was issued by the respondent-society intimating the date of General Body meeting to be held on 14.03.2015, induction of 21 persons as members in the interregnum was not permissible.
(ii) In a meeting that was held on 14.03.2015 as called for only 16 members were present, 7 were absent, of which petitioners and two others are shown to be the only members who were the office bearers of the respondent-society.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2094 WP No. 14124 of 2023 HC-KAR
(iii) If at all said 21 members were inducted as claimed on 12.03.2015, their existence/presence would have been mentioned in the meeting that was held on 14.03.2015, which is conspicuously absent. He further submits that in terms of the bye-laws of the society, a person desiring to become a member is required to pay subscription fee of Rs.1,000/- and his membership is subject to ratification by the Governing Council.
(iv)That till filing of the impleading application in the pending proceedings as noted above there was no whisper of said 21 members being inducted into society.
5. Upon dispute raised by the petitioners with regard to validity otherwise of the induction of 21 members into the society, respondents 12 to 26 came out with fabrication and manipulation of records in that, minutes of the proceedings of the society has been produced. The original of which has not seen the light of the day till date.
6. That a complaint was filed by respondents 12 to 26 before the jurisdictional police alleging petitioners having barged into the office of the society, breaking open the lock and unauthorisedly taking away the files and records. The said
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2094 WP No. 14124 of 2023 HC-KAR complaint was filed on 24.08.2015 which resulted in filing of `B' report by the jurisdictional police. However the very same respondents 12 to 26 by their communication dated 19.10.2015 had purportedly furnished certain records for consideration of the District Registrar, which included "Edinadu Aadiltha Mandali Nadavalli"- Notebook of the Administration which had reference to the minutes book with details such as the page numbers purportedly produced by the then Secretary of the society.
7. Thus referring to aforesaid circumstances learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the fabrication and manipulation of records by the respondents is writ large and which aspect of the matter has not been taken note of by the respondent No.3-Registrar while passing the order at Annexure- A. He submits that the petitioners have raised serious concern with regard to the interference by the District Registrar and the validity or otherwise of the induction of 21 persons-respondents 12 and 26 as the members of society, by repeatedly approaching this Court right from the year 2015 till date and this Court has shown its indulgence not only by way of interim orders but also with the consistent directions to the District
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2094 WP No. 14124 of 2023 HC-KAR Registrar to determine the genuineness of the membership and to prepare the voters list. Therefore, he contends the present petition is maintainable. He relies upon the following judgments of the Apex Court in justification of its contention regarding maintainability of the petition:
"(i) BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI AND OTHERS Vs. SURJEET SINGH AND OTHERS reported in 1980 (4) SCC 211
(ii) HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES AND OTHERS reported in 2000 (1) SCC 566
(iii) D.DWARAKANATH REDDY Vs. CHAITANYA BHARATHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND OTHERS) reported in 2007 (6) SCC 130
(iv) G.KRISHNAMOORTHY AND OTHERS Vs. SNDP YOGAM AND OTHERS reported in - 2003 (9) SCC 437
(v) MAHARASHTRA CHESS ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in 2020 (13) SCC 285"
Hence seeks for allowing of the petition.
8. Sri.Ashok Harnahalli, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondents 12 to 26 at the outset submits that induction of 21 persons as members of the society has nothing to do with the intimation dated 09.02.2015 and consequent holding of the Special General Body meeting on 14.03.2015. Both are different and distinct aspects. Referring to the bye-law No.3 of the society he submits that any person desirous of becoming a
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2094 WP No. 14124 of 2023 HC-KAR member can make an application to the Secretary and the Executive Committee is authorized to accept and induct such person as a member. He further submits in the light of the specific provisions provided under the bye-laws, respondents 12 to 26 have thus become the members pursuant to the resolution passed by the Executive Committee in furtherance to bye-law No.3. On the question of maintainability of the petition, he relies upon the judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Amiya Vilas Swami and others Vs Shankha Brita Das and others reported in (2007) (9) KAR 0073 and the order dated 06.12.2012 passed in W.P.No.64520/2011 passed in Sri.Jagadguru, Basavaraj Pattadarya Mahaswamigalu and another Vs State of Karnataka and others. Referring to the said judgments, he submits that any proceedings which is conducted by the Registrar in furtherance to the provisions of Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act may have to be read only as an enquiry report and not beyond, as the statute itself does not provide for any remedy to the aggrieved person with regard to validity or otherwise of the induction of the members as the same do not fall within the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2094 WP No. 14124 of 2023 HC-KAR the Act. Therefore, he submits the effective remedy, if any, to the aggrieved person would be to approach the Civil Court seeking comprehensive relief of declaration with regard to the status of their membership or otherwise as the case may be and the same cannot be gone into in writ proceedings.
9.. Sri.Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.35 -society submits that there is a Committee which was duly constituted on 12.09.2019 of which respondent Nos.4, 5, 8 are the office bearers. There were certain suits filed alleging misappropriation of funds which resulted in amicable resolution of disputes amongst the parties. The orders passed by this Court on earlier occasion directing the Registrar to hold enquiry and to prepare the electoral rolls was only to ensure smooth functioning of the society and to pursue the enquiry which was ordered by this Court vide order dated 16.11.2016 in W.P.Nos.43545/2015 and 45000-45004/2015 and 45005/2015. He submits in any event, dispute with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the membership cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution. Aggrieved parties, if
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2094 WP No. 14124 of 2023 HC-KAR any, may have to take recourse to the remedies by constituting a suit before a competent Court of civil jurisdiction.
10. Heard and perused the records.
11. From the narration of facts and submissions of learned counsel recorded as above, it is clear that dispute is primarily with respect to validity or otherwise of induction of 21 additional members of which respondents 12 to 26 are the parties before this Court. Serious allegations are made by the petitioners of manipulation and fabrication of records more particularly of the book containing minutes of proceedings produced at Annexure-P9 at page 241 which is relied upon by respondents 12 to 26. Learned counsel for petitioners as noted above vehemently urged that the respondent No.3-Registrar has not adverted to questions of dispute raised by the petitioners for his consideration. He submits that requirement of payment of Rs.1,000/- as per bye-law to become a member has been glossed over by the Registrar, so also induction of 21 members on 12.03.2015 that too after fixing the date for General Body meeting at the instance of the respondent-state.
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2094 WP No. 14124 of 2023 HC-KAR
12. On a query by this Court regarding maintainability of the petition in the light of dispute being private in nature, learned counsel relying upon the Judgments cited above vehemently contended that the matter of this nature has to be viewed taking into consideration the chequered history through which the proceedings have gone on. He submitted the repeated orders passed by this Court in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners as noted above cannot be lost sight of. That it is only pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, respondent No.3 -Registrar has proceeded to pass the impugned order which is therefore amenable for judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, is his submission. This Court is not persuaded by the said submissions in the light of the provisions of Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 which reads as under:
25. Enquiry by the Registrar, etc.- (1) The Registrar may on his own motion and shall on the application of the majority of the members of the governing body or of not less than one-
third of the members of the society, hold an enquiry or direct some person authorised by him by order in writing in accordance with the rules made in this behalf to hold an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a registered society.
(2) The Registrar or the person authorised by him under sub- section (1) shall have the following powers, namely,--
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2094 WP No. 14124 of 2023 HC-KAR
(a) he shall, at all reasonable times, have free access to the books, accounts, documents, securities, cash and other properties belonging to or in the custody of the society and may summon any person in possession or responsible for the custody of any such books, accounts, documents securities, cash or other properties to produce the same at any place at the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof;
(b) he may summon any person who, he has reason to believe, has knowledge of any of the affairs of the society to appear before him at any place at the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof and may examine such person on oath;
(c) (i) he may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any rule or regulation prescribing the period of notice for a general meeting of the society, require the governing body of the society to call a general meeting at such time and place at the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof and to determine such matters as may be directed by him. If the governing body of the society refuses or fails to call a meeting, he shall have power to call it himself;
(ii) any meeting called under sub-clause (i) shall have all the powers of a general meeting called under the rules or regulations of the society and its proceedings shall be regulated by such rules or regulations;
(iii) when an enquiry is made under this section, the Registrar shall communicate the result of the enquiry to the society concerned.
13. When admittedly dispute is purely with regard to induction of 21 additional members, that too, according to the petitioners tainted with manipulation and fabrication of records, same requires a detailed trial and determination of dispute by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot delve upon such convoluted and disputed questions of fact. Besides, as rightly pointed out by
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2094 WP No. 14124 of 2023 HC-KAR learned Senior counsel appearing for respondents 12 to 26 and learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent-society and in the light of the scope of Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, result of the enquiry though conducted pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, can only be read and treated as a report of enquiry and not beyond. Having said that, respondents 12 to 26 also cannot rely upon Annexure-A1 to contend that their induction/admission as having been approved and accepted by the respondent No.3- Registrar either. The findings and conclusion arrived at by the respondent No.3-Registrar accepting 21 persons as the members of society therefore cannot be sustained. The notification at Annexure-A1, which stems from the finding of the impugned order at Annexure-A also cannot be sustained to the extent of the membership of respondents 12 to 26, who have been admittedly inducted as members on 12.03.2015.
14. It is made clear validity or otherwise of the membership of respondents 12 to 26 is required to be adjudicated in the light of the allegations and the counter-
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2094 WP No. 14124 of 2023 HC-KAR allegations made by the parties in a properly constituted civil suit, if so advised.
15. This Court in the case of Amiya Vilas Swami and others reported in (2008) 3 KAR LJ 16 at paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 15 has held as under:
"8. The defendants 11 to 17 appeared before the Trial Court and they filed an application in I.A. No. 5 under Order 7, Rule 11(d) inter alia alleging that, the suit is not maintainable as the same is barred by law. It is alleged that 6th plaintiff is a Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and there is a separate mechanism provided for adjudication of all the disputes alleged in the plaint including the allegations made against defendants 11 to 17. It is further stated that, in view of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act, the suit is not maintainable as the same has to be inquired and decided only under the provisions of the Act more particularly under Section 25 of the Act.
9. The Trial Court after hearing both the sides found that Section 25 of the Registration Act provides a complete mechanism to enquire all the matters referred to in the plaint and also adjudicate the same and further held that, the dispute can be enquired by the Registrar under Section 25 of the Act and same cannot be inquired by the Civil Court. On this finding, the Trial Court rejected the plaint.
10. This order is assailed in this appeal. On behalf of the appellants Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that, Section 25 does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit. There is no mechanism provided for adjudication of the disputes referred to in the suit nor the provisions of the Act, provide for adequate remedy to adjudicate the issues arisen in the suit. There is no provision provides for a mechanism for adjudication of the dispute one in the nature alleged in the suit nor it gives finality to the dispute. In the absence of the provisions under the Act, the Civil Court's jurisdiction is not ousted by implication.
11. As regards to the finding of the Trial Court that, by implication the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded under
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2094 WP No. 14124 of 2023 HC-KAR Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he referred to the provisions of the Act namely, Section 5 of the Act and submitted that Section 5 relates to mode of forming a Society, a Society could be formed by any 7 or more persons above the age of 18 years associated by any persons specified in Section 3, subscribing their names to the Memorandum of Association. The forming of an Association is contractual matters between the parties who formed association. Forming of association is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution and it is not a statutory right, nor it is regulated under any statute nor it is controlled by any statute.
14. He relied on Section 25(2), Clause (c) and submitted that, in case of holding of general body, if the Registrar finds that a general body meeting of the Society is required to be held, he can direct the Society to hold a general body meeting or on failure to convene the meeting he may convene the general body meeting. Referring to this provision, he submitted that except for directing the society to hold a general body meeting or holding a meeting by himself on failure of the society, the Registrar has no other power. He further submitted that, Section 26 of the Act provided for an enquiry by the Registrar and to pass orders. The order passed under this Section is appealable before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. He further submitted that, under the said section, power is conferred on the Registrar to adjudicate and decide and remedy is provided to the aggrieved party to file an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
15. Similarly, he also referred to Section 27 of the Act and submitted that, in the matter of cancellation of registration, the power is conferred on the Registrar to hold an enquiry and to pass an order. The order passed by the Registrar under the said provision is again appealable under the provision of Section 27(3) before the Appellate Tribunal within 60 days from the date of communication of the order."
16. The aforesaid order has been followed by another Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated 06.12.2012 passed in W.P.No.64520/2011 disposed of the petition, reserving liberty to the parties to work out their remedy before
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2094 WP No. 14124 of 2023 HC-KAR the competent Civil Court with regard to the disputed questions of fact.
For the reasons stated above, following ORDER
(a) Writ petition is partly allowed.
(b) Annexure-A shall be read and treated only as an enquiry report and not beyond, inasmuch as same cannot be construed as determination of disputes between the parties conferring or creating any rights.
(c) Annexure-A1 which is purportedly a final voters list issued pursuant to Annexure-A is hereby quashed.
(d) Aggrieved parties are at liberty to avail such remedy as may be available by approaching the competent Court of civil jurisdiction.
At this juncture, learned counsel for petitioners submit that the interim order granted by this Court in W.P.Nos.65571- 65572/2016 and connected matters on 13.12.2019 at page 285 may be continued for a period of two or three weeks enabling
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2094 WP No. 14124 of 2023 HC-KAR the petitioners to avail alternate remedy, to which learned Senior counsel appearing for the society vehemently objects.
The interim order granted by this Court on 13.12.2019 is two fold. Firstly it pertains to the financial aspect, secondly it is with regard to the immovable properties belonging to the society. This Court under the circumstances, deems it appropriate to grant interim order only in respect of immovable properties. Accordingly respondent No.35 -Society is directed to maintain status quo with regard to title of the immovable properties for a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
SD/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15