Karnataka High Court
Prakashacherya Kadlasker vs The Deputy Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 30 October, 2012
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.Manohar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 30 T H DAY OF OCTOBER 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. MANOHAR
WA 6134/2011 (GM-KSR)
BETWEEN:
PRAKASHACHERYA KADLASKER
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O SURESHRCERYA KADLASKER,
TRUSTEE AND ARCHAKA,
SRI. KALIKA DEVI TEMPLE, JAMKHANDI,
BAGALKOT,
... APPELLANT
(By Sri. : P V GUNJAL, ADV.)
AND
1. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES AND DIST: REGISTRAR,
BAGALKOT,
2
2. THE KALIKA DEVASTAN HAGU VISHWAKARMA
SAMAJ ABHIVRUDDHI SOUNSTE,
KALIKA DEVASTHAN, JAMKHANDI,
BY SECRETARY, MR. CHETAN P BADEGER
3. VIJAYAKUMAR M VISHWABRAHMAN
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE,
MAITRI GALLI, JAMKHANDI,
BAGALKOT,
4. KALLAPPA CHANNAPPA BADEGER
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
SHASTRIGALLI, JAMKHANDI,
BAGALKOT,
5. CHETAN P BADEGER
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE
BADEGER GALLI, JAMKHANDI,
BAGALKOT,
6. NARAYAN SHANKERAPPA PATTAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER
MAIGUR ROAD, JAMKHANDI,
BAGALKOT,
7. SUNIL CHANDRASHEKAR AKRASALI
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: GOLDSMITH
MAITRI GALLI, JAMKHANDI,
BAGALKOT,
8. LAXMAN PARAPPA BADEGER
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER
KADAPATTI CROSS, JAMKHANDI,
BAGALKOT,
9. ANIL MURLIDHAR PATTAR
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: GOLDSMITH
3
RAMDEV GALLI, JAMKHANDI,
BAGALKOT,
10. SRIRAM IRAPPA BADEGER
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: CARPENTER
KADAPATTI CROSS, JAMKHANDI,
BAGALKOT,
11. BHIMRAO RAMCHANDRA POTDAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: GOLDSMITH
NEAR VITTAL MABDIR, JAMKHANDI,
BAGALKOT,
12. ASHOK KALLAPPA BADEGER
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: CARPENTER
MOTIBA GALLI, JAMKHANDI,
BAGALKOT,
13. VIRENDRA SADANAND KOULAGIKAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
HONNUR , JAMKHANDI,
BAGALKOT.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri./Smt : GA FOR R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S.4 OF THE HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED:10/03/2011, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WP. NO.65689/2006 AND THE CERTIFICATE
OF REGISTRATION DATED:08/09/2009, BEARING
NO.DRBKG/217/09-10 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1
BE CANCELLED.
4
This Appeal coming on for final hearing this
day, K.L.Manjunath, J, delivered the following
judgment:
JUDGMENT
The legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.65689/2009, dated 10.3.2011, is called in question in this appeal.
2. The appellant was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge. The writ petition was filed to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the registration certificate granted to the second respondent by the first respondent on 8/9/2009 as per annexure-F and to further declare that the first respondent had no jurisdiction to register the second respondent, in view of the fact that the trust is already in existence under the provision of Bombay Public Trust Act. The learned Single Judge 5 having heard the counsel for the parties, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court for his redressal. Challenging the same the present appeal is filed.
3. It is the case of the appellant that he is a trustee cum Arachaka of Sree Kalika Devi temple, Jamakhandi, which is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. Respondent Nos.3 to 13 having formed as self-styled society in the name of the second respondent, obtained registration from the District Registrar of Society under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. According to him, the respondents 3 to 12 have no rights to get their society registered by giving address of the temple of which the appellant is a trustee and therefore, he filed a writ petition to quash the registration certificate granted by the first respondent.
6
4. The learned Single Judge has directed the appellant to approach the Civil Court because there exists disputed questions of fact. It is the case of Sri.P.V.Gunjal, learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the writ petition without considering that the appellant is a trustee-cum- Archaka of the Temple, which has been registered under the provision of Bombay Public Trust Act. When such trust is in existence, respondents 3 to 13 could not have formed another society for the improvement of the temple and that under the guise of registration, respondent Nos.3 to 13 are trying to interfere with the rights of the appellant from performing pooja and improving the temple. Therefore, he requests the court to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the respondent. 7
5. Per Contra, Sri.V.P.Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that respondents No.3 to 13 being deities of the Kalika Devi temple which is their family deity and which is also a deity of a community k nown as Vishwakarma are entitled to form an association of their choices to improve the Temple and render the social service. It is also his case that the object of the second respondent is to uplift the members of their community and to improve the existing temple. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable.
6. Having heard the counsel for the parties, the short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether this Court can entertain a writ petition in order to find out genuiness of two institutions.
8
7. Admittedly, the appellant being a Archaka claiming to be a trustee under the provision of Bombay Public Trust Act, trying to contend that the respondents have no right to form an association by giving the address of the temple. The respondents are contending that they being the deities of the temple in order to improve the existing temple and to serve the society at large, particularly the community of Vishwakarma are entitled to register their society, which will not come in the way of the appellant to discharge his duties. Whether they had right to form an association, whether the formation of such association would take away the rights of the appellant cannot be adjudicated in the writ proceedings as they are all disputed questions of fact.
9
8. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
9. It is open for the appellant to institute a suit in this regard.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Vmb