Karnataka High Court
Sri. Mallappa Pudakalkatti S/O. ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 November, 2021
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.103712/2021 (GM-RES)
C/W.
WRIT PETITION NO.104100/2021
IN W.P. NO.103712/2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MALLAPPA PUDAKALKATTI,
S/O. BALAPPA PUDAKALKATTI,
AGE 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
AND GENERAL BODY MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA), R/O. MADANBHAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD.
2. SRI. LINGARAJ SIRDESAI S/O.
SIDDARAJ SIRDESAI,
AGE 61 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA), R/O. SHRI KADASIDDESHWAR KRUPA,
NARAYANPUR, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
DHARWAD - 580003.
3. SRI. PALAX KATTISHETTAR,
S/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA KATTISHETTAR,
AGE 78 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
:2: WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021
R/O. 'TOTAMMA', C.B.NAGAR,
DHARWAD - 580001.
4. SRI. RAYAPPA PUDAKALKATTI,
S/O. BALAPPA PUDAKALKATTI,
AGE 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER
OF DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA), R/O. MADANBHAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD - 580011.
5. SRI. SUBHAS C. SAMATSHETTI,
S/O. C. SAMATSHETTI,
AGE 70 YEARS,
OCC; RETIRED AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. ADARSH NAGAR, SANKESHWAR - 591313
6. SRI. ULAVIBASAPPA ANGADI,
S/O. BALAPPA ANGADI,
AGE 64 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED AND
GENERAL BODY MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA),
R/O. # 126/2, SHIVALLI PLOT,
RAJNAGAR, 3RD CROSS,
DHARWAD - 580006
7. SMT. PREMALATA ANGADI,
W/O. ULAVIBASAPPA ANGADI,
AGE 56 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND GENERAL BODY
MEMBER OF DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. 126/2, SHIVALLI PLOT,
RAJNAGAR, 3RD CROSS, DHARWAD - 580006.
8. SMT. SAROJINI MOKASHI,
W/O. VIJENDRA MOKASHI,
AGE 63 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND GENERAL BODY
MEMBER OF DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
:3: WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. STATION ROAD, MALAMADDI,
DHARWAD - 580007.
9. SRI. CHANNAPPA MATTI,
S/O. SHIVAMURTHEPPA MATTI,
AGE 76 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED AND GENERAL BODY
MEMBER OF DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. SAVADATTI MAIN ROAD,
M.J.NAGAR, DHARWAD - 580006.
10. SMT. SHASHIKALA MATTI,
W/O. CHANNAPPA MATTI,
AGE 63 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED AND
GENERAL BODY MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. SAVADATTI MAIN ROAD,
M.J.NAGAR, DHARWAD - 580006.
11. SRI. MOHAN SAVANUR,
S/O. PRABHU SAVANUR,
AGE 62 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED AND
GENERAL BODY MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. DEVGIRI, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
12. SRI. SHANTAVEERAPPA KOTTESHATTAR,
S/O. FAKKEERAPPA KOTTESHATTAR,
AGE 62 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED AND GENERAL
BODY MEMBER OF DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI
PRACHAR SABHA (KARNATAKA),
R/O. SAINT ROHINS NAGAR,
ANGOL, BELAGAVI - 590008.
13. SRI. BABU S. GOPALAPPANAVAR,
S/O. S. GOLAPPANAVAR,
AGE 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND
GENERAL BODY MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
:4: WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. KASTURIMATA ROAD,
NEAR RURAL POLICE STATION,
BAGALKOT - 587101.
....PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.V.SHESHACHALA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GANGADHAR J.M. FOR PETITIONERS)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THE DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY,
2. DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
THANIKACHALAM ROAD, THYAGARAYANAGAR,
CHENNAI - 5600017.
3. THE PRESIDENT,
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA,
THANIKACHALAM ROAD, THYAGARAYANAGAR,
CHENNAI - 600017,
4. DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
U.B.HILL, DHARWAD - 580001.
5. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR,
DHARWAD DISTRICT,
DHARWAD - 580001.
6. THE SPECIAL SECRETARY,
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA,
U.B.HILL, DHARWAD - 580001.
...RESPONDENTS
(SMT. VIDYAWATI K., AAG ALONG WITH
:5: WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021
SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R5;
SRI. M.B.NARAGUND SENIOR COUNSEL AND
ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR
SRI. M.B.HIREMATH AND
SRI. SANTOSH MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R4 & R6;
SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER, DATED 23.05.2020 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3
BEARING NO.PRESIDENT/PROC/001/ 2020-21/027.
IN W.P. NO.104100/2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SIDDARTHA SHARMA,
S/O. S.S.SHARMA,
AGE ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCC: EXECUTIVE MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR
SABHA (KARNATAKA)
R/O. 2ND CROSS, AKKAMMA BLK,
SADASHIVA NAGAR, BENGALURU.
2. MEHABOOBALI HALAGI,
S/O. MAHMAD HUSEN,
AGE 54 YEARS,
OCC: GENERAL BODY MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR
SABHA (KARNATAKA)
R/O. MALATESH NAGAR,
GUTTAL, HAVERI - 581108.
3. SRI. CHANNABASAPPA MALLAPPA KODIHALLI,
S/O. MALLAPPA KODIHALLI,
AGE 54 YEARS,
OCC: GENERAL BODY MEMBER OF
:6: WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR
SABHA (KARNATAKA), R/O. HALERITTI,
YALAGACH, HAVERI - 581213,
4. SRI. SAVITRI B,
W/O. B. BAKKAPPA,
AGE 66 YEARS,
OCC: GENERAL BODY MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA) R/O. # 1862/2A,
LAXMI NARASHIMA KRUPA,
4TH MAIN, VINOBA NAGAR,
DAVANAGERE - 577006.
5. SRI. ABDULHAMID I. BELLARY,
S/O. IBRAHIMSAB BELLARY,
AGE 63 YEARS,
OCC: GENERAL BODY MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR
SABHA (KARNATAKA),
R/O. H.NO.44, SAMEER MANZIL,
SARVODAYA COLONY,
GADAG - 582101.
6. SRI. NAGESH YAKKUNDI,
S/O. REVAPPA YAKKUNDI,
AGE 44 YEARS, OCC: GENERAL BODY MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. 572 a/9, MAHANTESH CHAWL,
BAILHONGAL (RURAL)
BAILHONGAL - 591102.
7. SRI. KOTRAPPA BYALI,
S/O. BASAPPA BYALI,
AGE 77 YEARS, OCC: EXECUTIVE MEMBER
OF DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR
SABHA (KARNATAKA),
R/O. GUDNEPPAN MATH ROAD,
GAVISIDDESHWAR NAGAR,
KUKNOOR, KOPPAL - 583232.
8. SRI. SAMUD A. BAIG,
:7: WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021
S/O. ABDUL, AGE 53 YEARS,
OCC: GENERAL BODY MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. H.NO.3419/A,
HOSPETH GALLI, GOKAK RURAL,
BELAGAVI - 591307.
9. SRI. GURUVANGOUDA BUDAGATTI,
S/O. MALINGANAGOUDA BUDAGATTI,
AGE 60 YEARS, OCC: EXECUTIVE MEMBER
OF DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. 7669/21, NARAYANPUR ONI,
KAMALAPUR, DHARWAD - 580008.
10. SRI. SURESH KASHYAP,
S/O. SUBBA RAO,
AGE 77 YEARS, OCC: GENERAL BODY MEMBER
OF DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. 699, 17TH MAIN ROAD,
JNANABHARATI, 2ND BLOCK,
MARIYAPPAN PALYA,
BENGALURU SOUTH,
BENGALURU-560056.
11. SMT. SHARADA SHARMA,
W/O. S. SHARMA,
AGE 70 YEARS, OCC: GENERAL BODY MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. 19, VALLABHA NIKETHANA,
KUMARA PARK EAST,
NEAR GANDHI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU-560001.
12. SRI. D.N.BASAVARAJA,
S/O. NANJAPPA,
AGE 67 YEARS, OCC: GENERAL BODY
MEMBER OF DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
:8: WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021
R/O. SIDDALINGESHWAR NAGAR,
BOGADI, 2ND STAGE, MYSORE,
MYSORE - 570026.
13. SRI. B.P.SHIVA KUMAR,
S/O. LATE K.B. PARASHIVA MURTHY,
AGE 52 YEARS, OCC: GENERAL BODY MEMBER
OF DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA), R/O. 395/4,
VEENA SHAMANNA ROAD,
FORT MOHALLA,
MYSORE - 570004.
14. SRI. K.S.SHIVAMURTHY,
S/O. LATE SIDDAPPA,
AGE 54 YEARS,
OCC: GOVERNING BODY MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR
SABHA (KARNATAKA)
R/O. KETHOHALLI, MAYAGANAHALLI
POST, RAMANAGAR TALUK,
KASABA HOBLI,
RAMANAGAR - 562128.
15. SMT. MANGALA S.
W/O. GURUSWAMY N.,
AGE 61 YEARS, OCC: GENERAL BODY MEMBER
OF DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. MANJUNATH NILAYA, 1ST CROSS,
VINAYAKA NAGAR, NES BADAVANE,
MALAVALLI, MANDYA - 571430.
16. SRI. HIREMATH RUDRAYYA,
S/O. GANGADHAR HIREMATH,
AGE 49 YEARS, OCC: GENERAL BODY
MEMBER OF DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. KUNDAGOL.
....PETITIONERS
(SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE)
:9: WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THE DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
THANIKACHALAM ROAD,
THYAGARAYANAGAR,
CHENNAI-600017.
3. THE PRESIDENT,
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR
SABHA, THANIKACHALAM ROAD,
THYAGARAYANAGAR,
CHENNAI - 600017,
4. DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
U.B.HILL, DHARWAD - 580001.
5. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR,
DHARWAD DISTRICT,
DHARWAD 580001.
6. THE SPECIAL SECRETARY,
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA,
U.B.HILL, DHARWAD-580001.
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. VIDYAVATHI K., AAG FOR
SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R5;
SRI. M.B.NARAGUND, SENIOR COUNSEL AND
ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR
SRI. M.B.HIREMATH, SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA TATA BANGI,
AND SRI. SANTOSH MALIGAWAD, ADVOCATES FOR
R2 TO R4 & R6)
: 10 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER, DATED 23.05.2020 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3,
BEARING NO.PRESIDENT/PROC/001/ 2020-21/027 (ANNEXURE-Q).
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
IN WP No.103712/2021
1. The petitioners are before this Court, seeking for the following reliefs:
(i) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to set aside the impugned order, dated 23.05.2020 passed by the respondent No.3 bearing No.President/Proc/ 001/2020-21/027 (Annexure-Q).
(ii) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to set aside the impugned order, dated 23.05.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 bearing No.Karyalaya/4-2/2020-21/030 (Annexure-R).
(iii) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to set aside the impugned order, dated 08.06.2020 passed by the respondent No.3 bearing No.Karyalaya/4-2/2020-21/49 (Annexure-S).
(iv) Declare that enrollment of new members by the 2nd and 6th respondent is illegal, void ab initio (Annexure-T).
(v) Grant such other relief this Hon'ble Court deem it proper in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The petitioners claim to be members of the Dakshina Bharata Hindi Prachar Sabha (Karnataka), Dharwad. The : 11 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 grievance of the petitioners is that an administrator has been appointed by the Dakshina Bharata Hindi Prachar Sabha which is not permissible, and thereafter the administrator has taken several actions which is also not permissible. In the Petition, it is stated and contended that:
2.1. Dakshina Bharata Hindi Prachar Sabha (Central Sabha) was established in the year 1918 at Madras(presently known as Chennai) by Sri. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the father of our nation with the object of propagating the Hindi language in the southern states.
2.2. The said Central Sabha was initially registered under the Indian Act of 1860, 1816, in the year 1927 with its headquarters, in then Madras now Chennai.
: 12 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 2.3. Various provincial Hindi Prachar Sabhas had been established in the non-Hindi-speaking southern states like Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Karnataka.
2.4. The subject matter of the present proceeding being that of Karnataka where the Karnataka Provincial Hindi Prachar Sabha, Dharwad was registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (for short 'BPT Act') on 17.11.1970.
2.5. Upon the BPT Act being repealed, the Dakshina Bharata Hindi Prachar Sabha (Karnataka) Dharwad, came to be registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (for short 'KSR Act') on 27.07.2006 and it is this society that is carrying its activities within the State of Karnataka. 2.6. The petitioner's Sabha has four types of members i.e. namely (i) Samrakshakas, (ii) Poshakas, (iii) : 13 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 Ajeevana Sadasyas, (iv) Samanya Sadasyas and the overall functioning of the Karnataka Sabha is discharged by the Vyavasthapika Samiti (Governing Body) and the Karyakarini Samiti (Executive Body) and the said society has been functioning on that basis.
2.7. This being so, a request for conducting an election was received on 19.12.2019, an election officer was appointed, thereafter a General Body meeting was held on 18.12.2019, elections were conducted on 26.02.2019 for the period of 2020-2024. The Office bearers having been elected on 01.03.2020, their names were notified as such.
2.8. It is thereafter, that on 23.05.2020, the Central Sabha who had no superintendence power over the Karnataka Sabha had issued a show-cause notice : 14 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 alleging that there are various infirmities and violations of the bye-laws.
2.9. The Secretary of the Karnataka Sabha has replied to the same contending that there is no violation, despite which the President of the Central Sabha had directed the General Secretary to take over the administration of the Karnataka Provincial Sabha and has appointed a Special Secretary namely Sri. S.B.Hinchigeri, to the Karnataka Provisional Sabha until further orders vide the impugned order dated 23.05.2020 by allegedly exercising power under Rule 28 of the Central Sabha Constitution. 2.10. Subsequent thereto, the President of the Central Sabha constituted an Advisory Committee vide order dated 08.06.2020, to ensure the smooth functioning of the Dharwad Sabha. It is both the above orders, which are challenged by the petitioners herein.
: 15 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 2.11. In furtherance of the aforesaid two orders, the 2nd and 6th respondents i.e. the General Secretary and the Special Secretary have sought to enroll members in the Dharwad Sabha, which is not proper and correct as they have no right or authority to enroll such members and it in this back ground that the aforesaid three aspects have been challenged in WP No.103712/2021 seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. In W.P.No.104100/2021.
3. This petition has been filed by certain other members of the Dharwad Sabha on the very same basis as that in W.P.No.103712/2021 and similar reliefs are sought in this petition also, except for an additional prayer seeking for a declaration that the Central Sabha had no power to set aside the election conducted by the Dharwad Sabha as done vide order dated 23.05.2020.
: 16 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021
4. Initially, when the matter had come up on 13.09.2021, while issuing emergent notice, the operation of the orders dated 23.05.2020 and 08.06.2020 had been stayed.
5. On appearance, the respondents filed a vacate stay application, as also statement of objections to the writ petition in W.P.No.103712/2021.
6. In the vacate stay application, it is contended that;
6.1. The writ petition is not maintainable, the writ petition has been filed after a prolonged delay of 15 months from the date of the order in respect of cancellation of election and appointment of Special Officer, the delay by itself is a good ground for dismissal of the petition. 6.2. The election was declared void by the Central Sabha on the ground of fraud and mis-representation, inasmuch as the requirements of the bye-laws and : 17 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 constituent documents have been violated, hence it was within the purview of the Central Sabha in terms of the Para 28 of the bye-laws to take necessary action.
6.3. The Sabhas are not state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
6.4. There has been mis-representation of facts, the special officer has already taken charge on 23.05.2020 in the presence of the Office bearers who have been elected in the election on 26.02.2020. The said office bearers have handed over the charge to the Administrator/Special Officer, the petitioners who are the members cannot challenge the same as the elected members who had been superseded have not challenged the election being declared void, then the : 18 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 ordinary members also cannot challenge the order dated 23.05.2020 or 08.06.2020.
6.5. On account of interim order passed the operation and management of the Dharwad Sabha had come to a standstill and therefore, interim order needs to be vacated.
7. In the statement of objections filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 & 6 in W.P.No.103712/2021, averments and contentions as raised in the vacate stay application have been reiterated. Apart there from, it is further contended that:
7.1. the Central Sabha has the powers to take over the control over the Provincial Sabhas, exercise control and superintendence over the Provincial Sabhas, the Central Sabha was well within its right to appoint a Special Officer.
: 19 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 7.2. The registration of the Provincial Sabha under the KSR Act is only for the purpose of easy management/Administration.
7.3. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 having been recognized as Institution for National Importance and an Act having been passed in that regard, the Provincial Sabhas have to act in terms of the bye-laws provided.
7.4. The dispute between the parties regarding the control and affairs of the society in terms of the bye-laws thereof, the remedy is by filing of a civil suit and not by approaching a writ court. On this basis, it is contended that the petitions are liable to be dismissed.
8. Sri. M.V.Sheshachala, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri. Gangadhar J.M, appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.103712/2021 submitted that:
: 20 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 8.1. Bye-law No.28 of the Central Sabha is not applicable to the Dharwad Sabha which is registered under the provisions of KSR Act, subsequent to such registration it is the KSR Act and the constituent documents of the Dharwad Sabha which would be applicable to the Dharwad Sabha.
8.2. Any action that is required to be taken would have to be in terms of the KSR Act.
8.3. Any person if at all aggrieved, would have to approach the concerned authorities in terms of KSR Act. The said Act cannot be by-passed by the Central Sabha in the manner as done in the present case upon the registration of the Dharwad Sabha under the KSR Act, it is only KSR Act, which would be applicable to the Dharwad Sabha.
: 21 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 8.4. Once the Dharwad Sabha is registered under the KSR Act, the Central Sabha cannot claim to have any superintendence power over the Dharwad Sabha, in as much as the Dharwad Sabha has an independent existence under the KSR Act, even though earlier the Dharwad Sabha and the other Regional Sabhas have been established by the Central Sabha, with the registration under the KSR Act, the umbilical cord has been cut and thereafter the Dharwad Sabha has an independent existence from that of the Central Sabha.
8.5. In terms of Section 24 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, the Central Sabha cannot exercise any powers over the Karnataka Sabha. The Central Sabha had been registered under the Act of 1860, 1860 which has been repealed in terms of Section 31 of the KSR Act. Therefore, insofar as the Dharwad Sabha is concerned, the Central Sabha which is registered : 22 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 under the Act of 1860, as a society does not exist any longer, the Central Sabha exists only, if at all, in terms of the Act of 1964, whereunder the Dakshina Bharata Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras, has been declared as an Institution of National Eminence.
8.6. Subsequent thereto the only power and authority that could be exercised by the said Sabha is only regarding the grant of certification and nothing else.
Therefore, the Central Sabha cannot claim any administrative superintendence as sought to be done in the present case.
8.7. He refers to Section 25 and Section 26(A) of the KSR Act to contend that the KSR Act, is self-contained and it is only in terms of these provisions that any action on the basis of any complaints could have been instituted and not dehors these provisions.
: 23 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 8.8. He submits by referring to Entry 32 of List 2 of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution that the registration of any organization or association would be within the State's purview being a State subject and it is for this reason that upon the Constitution coming into force, the different States promulgated their own Act of 1860, whereunder the Central Act of 1860 has been repealed.
8.9. This Court would have to exercise the power of judicial review and under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court could issue direction, order or writs to any person or authority. 8.10. The fundamental rights of the petitioners herein being infringed upon by the arbitrary actions on the part of the respondents, this Court would be required to allow the writ petitions and pass orders in terms of : 24 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 the relief sought for. He relies on the following decisions 8.11. State of West Bengal and others Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal, and others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571 more particularly paragraph Nos.51, 57, 59, 68 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference.
51. The Constitution of India expressly confers the power of judicial review on this Court and the High Courts under Article 32 and 226 respectively. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the very soul of the Constitution - the very heart of it - the most important Article. By now, it is well settled that the power of judicial review, vested in the Supreme Court and the High Courts under the said Articles of the Constitution, is an integral part and essential feature of the Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure. Therefore, ordinarily, the power of the High Court and this Court to test the Constitutional validity of legislations can never be ousted or even abridged. Moreover, Article 13 of the Constitution not only declares the pre- constitution laws as void to the extent to which they are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, it also prohibits the State from making a law which either takes away totally or abrogates in part a fundamental right. Therefore, judicial review of laws is embedded in the Constitution by virtue of Article 13 read with Articles 32 and 226 of our Constitution.
: 25 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021
57. As regards the power of judicial review conferred on the High Court, undoubtedly they are, in a way, wider in scope. The High Courts are authorized under Article 226 of the Constitution, to issue directions, orders or writs to any person or authority, including any government to enforce fundamental rights and, "for any other purpose". It is manifest from the difference in the phraseology of Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution that there is a marked difference in the nature and purpose of the right conferred by these two Articles. Whereas the right guaranteed by Article 32 can be exercised only for the enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution, the right conferred by Article 226 can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but "for any other purpose" as well, i.e. for enforcement of any legal right conferred by a Statute etc.
59. In Dwarkanath's case (supra), this Court had said that Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it ex facie confers a wide power on the High Court to reach injustice wherever it is found. This Article enables the High Courts to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and extra-ordinary circumstances of the case. Therefore, what we have said above in regard to the exercise of jurisdiction by this (2004) 5 SCC 1 Court under Article 32, must apply equally in relation to the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution.
68. Thus, having examined the rival contentions in the context of the Constitutional Scheme, we conclude as follows:
(i) The fundamental rights, enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, are inherent and cannot be extinguished by any Constitutional or Statutory provision. Any law that abrogates or abridges such rights would be violative of the basic structure doctrine. The actual effect and impact of the law on the rights guaranteed under Part III has to be taken : 26 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 into account in determining whether or not it destroys the basic structure.
(ii) Article 21 of the Constitution in its broad perspective seeks to protect the persons of their lives and personal liberties except according to the procedure established by law. The said Article in its broad application not only takes within its fold enforcement of the rights of an accused but also the rights of the victim. The State has a duty to enforce the human rights of a citizen providing for fair and impartial investigation against any person accused of commission of a cognizable offence, which may include its own officers. In certain situations even a witness to the crime may seek for and shall be granted protection by the State.
(iii) In view of the constitutional scheme and the jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 32 and on the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution the power of judicial review being an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution, no Act of Parliament can exclude or curtail the powers of the Constitutional Courts with regard to the enforcement of fundamental rights. As a matter of fact, such a power is essential to give practicable content to the objectives of the Constitution embodied in Part III and other parts of the Constitution. Moreover, in a federal constitution, the distribution of legislative powers between the Parliament and the State Legislature involves limitation on legislative powers and, therefore, this requires an authority other than the Parliament to ascertain whether such limitations are transgressed.
Judicial review acts as the final arbiter not only to give effect to the distribution of legislative powers between the Parliament and the State Legislatures, it is also necessary to show any transgression by each entity. Therefore, to borrow the words of Lord Steyn, judicial review is justified by combination of "the principles of separation of powers, rule of law, the principle of constitutionality and the reach of judicial review".
: 27 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021
(iv) If the federal structure is violated by any legislative action, the Constitution takes care to protect the federal structure by ensuring that Courts act as guardians and interpreters of the Constitution and provide remedy under Articles 32 and 226, whenever there is an attempted violation. In the circumstances, any direction by the Supreme Court or the High Court in exercise of power under Article 32 or 226 to uphold the Constitution and maintain the rule of law cannot be termed as violating the federal structure.
(v) Restriction on the Parliament by the Constitution and restriction on the Executive by the Parliament under an enactment, do not amount to restriction on the power of the Judiciary under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution.
(vi) If in terms of Entry 2 of List II of The Seventh Schedule on the one hand and Entry 2A and Entry 80 of List I on the other, an investigation by another agency is permissible subject to grant of consent by the State concerned, there is no reason as to why, in an exceptional situation, court would be precluded from exercising the same power which the Union could exercise in terms of the provisions of the Statute. In our opinion, exercise of such power by the constitutional courts would not violate the doctrine of separation of powers. In fact, if in such a situation the court fails to grant relief, it would be failing in its constitutional duty.
(vii) When the Special Police Act itself provides that subject to the consent by the State, the CBI can take up investigation in relation to the crime which was otherwise within the jurisdiction of the State Police, the court can also exercise its constitutional power of judicial review and direct the CBI to take up the investigation within the jurisdiction of the State. The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be taken away, curtailed or diluted by Section 6 of the Special Police Act. Irrespective of there being any statutory provision : 28 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 acting as a restriction on the powers of the Courts, the restriction imposed by Section 6 of the Special Police Act on the powers of the Union, cannot be read as restriction on the powers of the Constitutional Courts. Therefore, exercise of power of judicial review by the High Court, in our opinion, would not amount to infringement of either the doctrine of separation of power or the federal structure.
8.12. Once the Pranteeya Sabha has been registered under the provisions of the KSR Act, it is the provisions of the KSR Act, which would apply and the Central Sabha cannot exercise any superintendence power. In this regard, he relies upon the following decisions:
8.13. Calcutta Municipal Corporation Vs. Pawan K. Saraf, reported (1999) 2 SCC 400 more particularly, paragraph No.10 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
10. When the statute says that certificate shall supersede the report it means that the report would stand annulled or obliterated. The word "supersede"
in law, means "obliterate, set aside, annul, replace, make void or inefficacious or useless, repeal", (vide Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edn.). Once the Certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory reaches the court the Report of the Public Analyst : 29 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 stands displaced and what may remain is only a fossil of it.
8.14. State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Singhara Singh and others, reported in AIR 1964 SC 358, more particularly paragraph No.8, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
8. The rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor is well recognized and is founded on sound principle. Its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted. A magistrate, therefore, cannot in the course of investigation record a confession except in the manner laid down in Section 164. The power to record the confession had obviously been given so that the confession might be proved by the record of it made in the manner laid down. If proof of the confession by other means was permissible, the whole provision of s. 164 including the safeguards contained in it for the protection of accused persons would be rendered nugatory. The section, therefore, by conferring on magistrates the power to record statements or confessions, by necessary implication, prohibited a magistrate from giving oral evidence of the statements or confessions made to him.
8.15. A Krishnamurthy and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & others reported in ILR 1979 KAR.
: 30 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 1944, more particularly paragraph No.20, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
20. It has to be seen, therefore, whether the impugned order is unsustainable in view of this violation of the procedural requirements of the statutory provisions referred to above. In this context it is necessary to examine whether the provision-
Section 25(2)(c) (iii) of the Act and Rule 8(5) of the Rules-are mandatory or merely directory. In this connection the following observations of the learned Author S.A. de Smith in Judicial Review of Administrative Act (iii) Edition at page 122 may be noted:
"The law relating to the effect of failure to comply with procedural requirements resembles an inextricable tangle of loose ends. Although it would be futile to attempt to unravel or cut all the knots, it is possible to state the main principles of interpretation that the courts have followed and to illustrate their application in a few settings.
When Parliament prescribes the manner or form in which a duty is to be performed or a power exercised, it seldom lays down what will be the legal consequences of failure to observe its prescriptions. The courts must therefore formulate their own criteria for determining whether the procedural rules are to be regarded as mandatory, in which case disobedience will render void or voidable what has been done, or as directory, in which case disobedience will be treated as an irregularity not affecting the validity of what has been done (though in some cases it has been said that there must be "substantial compliance" with the statutory provisions if the deviation is to be excused as a mere irregularity). Judges have often stressed the impractibility of specifying exact rules for the assignment of a procedural provision to the appropriate category. The whole scope and purpose : 31 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 of the enactment must be considered, and one must assess 'the importance of the provision that has been disregarded, and the relation of that provision to the general object intended to be secured by the Act,' Furthermore, much may depend upon the particular circumstances of the case in hand. Although 'nullification is the natural and usual consequence of disobedience,' breach of procedural or formal rules is likely to be treated as a mere irregularity if the departure from the terms of the Act is of a trivial nature, or if no substantial prejudice has been suffered by those for whose benefit the requirements were introduced, or if serious public inconvenience would be caused by holding them to be mandatory, or if the court is for any reason disinclined to interfere with the set or decision that is impugned,"
Section 27A of the Act, which was incorporated in the Act by Act No. 26 of 1965 confers extraordinary powers on the State Government. It enables the State Government to remove the executive or governing bodies of Societies registered under the Act and appoint administrators, though for a temporary period. The Registrar is conferred with powers to probe into the affairs of the societies and to make a report to the Government. When the Government removes a Managing Committee and appoints an Administrator it purports to have done so in public interest. Consequences of such action particularly on the Managing Committee or office bearers of such a Society are far reaching. Some times it may even entail actions in Courts of law both civil and criminal-against them. Therefore, the law has provided that the Society concerned should be communicated with the result of the enquiry. This is evidently with the intention to provide the office bearers of the Society with a further opportunity of making representations either with the Registrar or the Government, as the case may be, on the adverse remarks, if any, found in the report before they proceed to take further action against the Society.
: 32 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 Therefore, the aforesaid provisions are not merely directory, and they are, in my opinion, mandatory. 8.16. A.S.Kupparaju Vs. General Secretary, Raju Kshatriya Welfare Association, reported in ILR 1990 KAR. 3721, more particularly paragraph Nos.9, 10, and 25, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
9. We are satisfied that the learned Judge correctly analysed the import of Section 25 of the Act and reached the right conclusions. The fault if any is in a coma missing after 'suo motu' in para 8 before "when an application is made". That way one may misread the order to mean "suo motu when the application is made". That becomes clear when the learned Judge clearly states 'whether a suo moto enquiry should be ordered or not' in the following sentence. In other words the learned Judge has enumerated correctly the three occasions on which the Registrar is directed to hold an enquiry. They are:
"(i) suo motu or on his own;
(ii) when an application is made by the majority of the members of the governing body of the society, and
(iii) when an application is made by not less than one-third of the members of the society."
10. The significant feature to notice in the exercise of the power to hold an enquiry or direct the holding of an enquiry is in the employment of the expressions "may" and "shall" in the language of Section 25(1) of the Act. May, occurring just before : 33 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 "on his own" clearly indicates the directory nature. That is, if and when he acts on his own upon or with reference to information or material gathered by him from whatever source or sources, he has the discretion to hold or not to hold an enquiry or direct the holding of it or not holding it by person authorized by him. On the other hand, if it is a case falling either under the second or the third occasion indicated by us, that discretion is taken away by the Legislature and the Registrar is mandated to hold the enquiry or direct the holding of it by person authorised by him. For this reason in Rule 8 of the Rules reference is made to the application that is required to be made relating to the latter two occasions when the power is to be exercised.
25. What remains for us to decide is whether the petitioner is entitled to the second relief restraining the Registrar from acting upon the impugned report. In our opinion that prayer does not survive for consideration because we have held that the report in question is liable to be quashed. 8.17. The writ petition is maintainable since the Administrator now appointed though under the Central Sabha is discharging the administrative functions, the Sabha carries on important public activities inasmuch as it is involved in the dissemination of the Hindi language, the Sabha performing important activities which are required to be so performed by the Government, the respondent : 34 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 No.2 is a State or would qualify to be an instrumentality of State discharging public functions and as such be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In this regard, he relies upon the decision passed in Nagappa Pradhani Vs. The State of Karnataka, 2008 (1) Kar. LJ 635, more particularly paragraph Nos.6, 9 and 10 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference.
6. Respondents who were served by notice, entered appearance. State is represented by Sri Khureshi, learned Government Advocate and respondents 2 and 3 by Sri Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat, advocate. Statement of objections have been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. An application is also moved on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 seeking for vacating the interim order of stay contending inter alia that the writ petition itself is not tenable; that the respondent-society is not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12; that the administrator, being a substitute for the management of a private society, while so functioning, cannot elevate the institution to the status of State and therefore, the writ petition is to be dismissed outright. It is also contended that assuming the society is State, even then, writ petitioners should have availed for the statutory remedies and for this reason also, writ petition should not be entertained and when there is no prima facie ground even to maintain the writ petition, the petitioners are not entitled for interim order and the interim order requires to be vacated and the writ petition dismissed.
: 35 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021
9. Submission of Sri Khureshi, learned Government Advocate is that the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act governs the functioning of the 3rd respondent-institution and it is open to the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedies provided under this Act and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained.
10. While this question as to Whether the 3rd respondent - society is state or otherwise within the meaning of Article 12 does pose some difficulty and prima facie it appears, the 3rd respondent - society may not readily answer the test for calling it state just because some financial assistance it had received from the State Government, I find the power exercised by the administrator who has been appointed to perform the role of managing the affairs of a society under Section 27A of the KSR Act, 1960 being by a statutory functionary whose actions can be reviewed by this Court even under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and for this reason, this writ petition is entertained and the matter is taken up for disposal.
8.18. The decision of the Kerala High Court dated 09.03.2021 in W.P.(C) No.22385/2015, [K.P.Haridas Vs. The Dakshina Bharat Hindi Pracharasabha] more particularly paragraph No.10 thereof.
: 36 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021
10. Taking into account the facts emerging from the pleadings and arguments of the counsel on either side, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to conduct elections to the 2nd respondent-Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Kerala, WP(C) No.22385/2015 expeditiously and in a time bound manner. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to prepare a provisional voters list within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Election to the Vyavasthapika Samiti of the 2nd respondent-Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Kerala should be conducted within a period of six months thereafter.
8.19. By relying on the above, he submits that, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, has exercised its jurisdiction in the writ petition filed against the Kerala Pranteeya Sabha which could also be done by this Court in the present matter as regards the Karnataka Pranteeya Sabha. 8.20. As regards the delay and laches, he submits that, the orders questioned herein dated 23.05.2020 and 08.06.2020, the delay in questioning the same would not adversely effect the merits of the matter since the Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application : 37 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 No.665/2021 between In Re Cognizance for extension of limitation Vs. XXXX, has passed an order on 23.09.2021, taking into consideration the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic and extended the period of limitation, therefore, the said order would enure to the benefit of the petitioner. He relies upon the paragraph Nos.1 to 4 of the said order which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
1. Due to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic in March, 2020, this Court took Suo Motu cognizance of the difficulties that might be faced by the litigants in filing petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/ all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws (both Central and/or State). On 23.03.2020, this Court directed extension of the period of limitation in all proceedings before the Courts/Tribunals including this Court w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further orders.
2. Considering the reduction in prevalence of COVID-19 virus and normalcy being restored, the following order was passed in the Suo Motu proceedings on 08.03.2021:
"1. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021.
: 38 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021
2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021,notwithstandingthe actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021.Inthe event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90days,thatlonger period shall apply.
3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act,2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.
4. The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for containment zones, to state. "Regulated movement will be allowed for medical emergencies, provision of essential goods and services, and other necessary functions, such as, time bound applications, including for legal purposes, and educational and job-related requirements."
3. Thereafter, there was a second surge in COVID-19 cases which had a devastating and debilitating effect. The Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) intervened in the Suo Motu proceedings by filing Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 seeking restoration of the order dated 23.03.2020. Acceding to the request made by SCAORA, this Court passed the following order on 27.04.2021:
"We also take judicial notice of the fact that the steep rise in COVID-19 Virus cases is not : 39 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 limited to Delhi alone but it has engulfed the entire nation. The extraordinary situation caused by the sudden and second outburst of COVID-19 Virus, thus, requires extraordinary measures to minimize the hardship of litigant-public in all the states. We, therefore, restore the order dated 23rd March, 2020 and in continuation of the order dated 8th March, 2021 direct that the period(s) of limitation, as prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended till further orders.
It is further clarified that the period from 14th March, 2021 till further orders shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and
(c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.
We have passed this order in exercise of our powers under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Hence it shall be a binding order within the meaning of Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and Authorities."
4. In spite of all the uncertainties about another wave of the deadly COVID-19 virus, it is imminent that the order dated 08.03.2021 is restored as the situation is near normal.
8.21. He submits that, once the Societies Act, 1960 came to be repealed by the KSR Act, 1960, the Central Sabha which was registered under the Act of 1860, : 40 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 1860 ceased to be in existence and the KSR Act, 1960 superseded the Act of 1860, 1860. In this regard, he relies upon a decision in the case of State of Orissa and another Vs. M/s. M.A.Tulloch and Co., reported in AIR 1964 SC 1284, more particularly paragraph No.20, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
20. We must at the outset point out that there is a difference in principle between the effect of an expiry of a temporary statute and a repeal by a later enactment and the discussion now is confined to cases of the repeal of a statute which until the date of the repeal continues in force.
The first question to be considered is the meaning of the expression 'repeal' in s. 6 of the General Clauses Act- whether it is confined to cases of express repeal or whether the expression is of sufficient amplitude to cover cases of implied repeals. In this connection there is a passage in Craies on Statute Law, Fifth Edition at pages 323 and 324 which appears to suggest that the provisions of the corresponding s. 38 of the English Interpretation Act were confined to express repeals. On page 323 occurs the following:
"In Acts passed in or since 1890 certain savings are implied by statute in all cases of express repeal, unless a contrary intention appears in the repealing Act", and on the next page:
"It had been usual before 1889 to insert provisions to the effect above stated in all Acts by which express repeals were effected. The result or' this enactment is to make into a general rule what had been a common statutory form, and to substitute a general statutory : 41 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 presumption as to the effect of an express repeal for the canons of construction hitherto adopted."
There is, however, no express decision either in England or, so far as we have been able to ascertain, in the United States on this point. Untrammeled, as we are, by authority, we have to inquire the principle on which the saving clause in s. 6 is based. It is manifest that the principle underlying it is that every later enactment which supersedes an earlier one or puts an end to an earlier state of the law is presumed to intend the continuance of rights accrued and liabilities incurred under the superseded enactment unless there were sufficient indications-express or implied-in the later enactment designed to completely obliterate the earlier state of the law. The next question is whether the application of that principle could or ought to be limited to cases where a particular form of words is used to indicate that the earlier law has been repealed. The entire theory underlying implied repeals is that there is no need for the later enactment to state in express terms that an earlier enactment has been repealed by using any particular set of words or form of drafting but that if the legislative intent to supersede the earlier law is manifested by the enactment of provisions as to effect such supersession, then there is in law a repeal notwithstanding the absence of the word 'repeal' in the later ,statute. Now, if the legislative intent to supersede the earlier law is the basis upon which the doctrine of implied repeal is founded could there be any incongruity in at- tributing to the later legislation the same intent which s. 6 presumes where the word 'repeal' is expressly used. So far as statutory construction is concerned, it is one of the cardinal principles of the law that there is no distinction or difference between an express provision and a provision which is necessarily implied, for it is only the form that differs in the two cases and there is no difference in intention or in Substance. A repeal may be brought about by repugnant legislation, without even any reference to the Act intended to be repealed, for once legislative competence to effect a repeal is posted, it matters little whether this is done expressly or inferentially or by the enactment of repugnant legislation. If such is the basis upon which repeals and implied repeals are brought about it appears to us to be both logical as well : 42 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 as in accordance with the principles upon which the rule as to implied repeal rests to attribute to that legislature which effects a repeal by necessary implication the same intention as that which would attend the case of an express repeal. Where an intention to effect a repeal is attributed to a legislature then the same would in our opinion, attract the incident of the saving found in s. 6 for the rules of construction embodied in the General Clauses Act are, so to speak, the basic assumptions on which statutes are drafted. If this were the true position about the effect of the Central Act 67 of 1957 as the liability to pay the fee which was the subject of the notices of the demand had accrued prior to June 1, 1958 it would follow that these notices were valid and the amounts due thereunder could be recovered notwithstanding the disappearance of the Orissa Act by virtue of the superior legislation by the Union Parliament."
8.22. The Administrator/Special Secretary or the Advisory Committee cannot enroll any new members and even if it is assumed that, the appointment of the Administrator is valid, such appointment is for a temporary period, needless to say the elections would have to be carried out. During this time, there cannot be the enrollment of the new members by the Administrator, since the Administrator has no power to enroll such new members. In this regard, he relies upon the decision in the case of Maharudrappa : 43 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 Sirse Vs. State of Karnataka and others, reported in 1999 (4) KLJ 346, more particularly, paragraph Nos.5, 6 & 7 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
5. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that in spite of a specific prayer made in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has not given direction to the Administrator not to enrol any new members and taking advantage of the absence of the said direction, the Administrator is enroling new members, which is not permissible under law and has not conducted the election to the Managing Committee within a period of 3 months fixed by the learned Single Judge. In support of his contention that an Administrator has no power to enrol new members, he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Shantharaj and Another v M.L. Nagaraja and Others, wherein it was held that "it is beyond the power of an Administrator appointed in supersession of the Managing Committee, to enrol new members while exercising the powers under the provisions of Sections 30 and 30-A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (Act No. 11 of 1959), he can organise election process in accordance with the Act, Rules and Bye-
laws of the Society. In para 5, at page 2926, of the above decision, it is observed as follows:
"It would be clear from the language of these provisions that the Administrator or Special Officer, subject to control of any of the functions of the Society, and in the interest of the Society take such action as is necessary for proper functioning of the Society as per law. He should conduct elections as is enjoined thereunder. In other words, he is to conduct election with the members as on the rolls : 44 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 and by necessary implication, he is not vested with power to enroll new members of the Society".
6. He also relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T. Ramegowda v R. Krishnamurthy and Others, wherein it was held that "enrolment of new members done by the Special Officer while exercising the powers under Section 30-A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 is without jurisdiction. In view of the above rulings of the Supreme Court, we agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the 3rd respondent has no power to enrol new members to the Society and that he has to conduct the elections to the Managing Committee of the members as on the rolls by the date 4-10-1996 of his first appointment as an Administrator on supersession of the then existing Managing Committee. We, therefore, find it necessary to give a direction in this regard to the 3rd respondent- Administrator. Since the period of 3 months fixed, for holding the election to the Managing Committee, by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order has expired, we find it necessary to extend the said period till 6-4-1999.
7. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. All the steps taken to enrol new members by the 3rd respondent-Administrator are declared as null and void. The direction given to the 3rd respondent- Administrator to hold the election to the Managing Committee of the Society and thereafter to hand- over administration to the elected body by issue of a writ of mandamus, is confirmed. Respondent 3- Administrator is further directed not to enrol any new members and to conduct the election to the Managing Committee of the Society with the members as on the rolls by the date of his initial appointment, on supersession of the then existing Managing Committee i.e., 6-10-1996 in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws of the Society, by 6-4-1999 and to handover : 45 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 administration to the newly elected Managing Committee. No costs.
8.23. Relying on the above it is submitted that the Writ Petitions are to be allowed and the reliefs sought for granted.
9. Sri. Sunil Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.104100/2021 while adopting the arguments of learned Senior Counsel Sri. M.V.Sheshachala, would further submit that;
9.1. In the present petitions the notice said to be issued by the Central Sabha on 12.05.2020 at Annexure-L is only issued to Secretary and not to the elected members or to the other Office bearers. 9.2. If at all, the said notice had to be issued to all the elected members, the same not having been issued to : 46 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 them the said notice would not be binding or applicable to the elected members.
9.3. The Dharwad Sabha election has been carried out in a proper manner and if at all any one is aggrieved by the same, the remedy would be under Section 15 of the KSR Act, 1960.
9.4. The Central Sabha has no power to interfere in elections which have been held in a proper and required manner. If at all anybody is aggrieved by the same, only an election petition could be filed challenging the election duly held, Central Sabha has no power to declare an election as null and void. 9.5. The notice has been issued under the instructions of the President of the Central Sabha so also the order dated 23.05.2020 and the same has not been issued by the Vyavasthapaka Samiti of the Central Sabha : 47 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 and as such, neither the notice nor the order are in consonance with the bye-laws of the Central Sabha. 9.6. The exercise of power by the President alone is not permissible and on this ground the order dated 23.05.2020 is required to be set aside. 9.7. Assuming that an Administrator has been appointed without conceding as regards the validity of such appointment, the Administrator so appointed should not enroll any new members, the Administrator/Special Officer along with the Advisory Committee has in terms of Annexure-T to the writ petition in W.P.No.104100/2021, recommended to the Central Sabha the enrollment of several hundreds of people as members of the Dharwad Sabha and has in fact enrolled such persons in terms of Annexure-T. : 48 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 9.8. This enrollment would have to be declared as null and void, since the Administrator would not have any power to enroll members.
9.9. In this regard, he relies upon the decision in Jt.
Registrar of Co-operative Societies Vs. T.A.Kuttappan, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 127, more particularly portion of paragraph No.7 and 8 which are extracted hereunder for easy reference:
7. If we carefully analyse the provisions of the Act, it would be clear that the Administrator or a Committee appointed while the Committee of Management of the Society is under supersession cannot have the power to enroll new members and such a question ought not to be decided merely by indulging in an exercise on semantics in ascertaining the meaning of the expression have "power to exercise all or any of the function.". Whether an authority is discharging a function or exercising a power will have to be ascertained with reference to the nature of the function or the power discharged or exercised in the background of the enactment. Often we do express that functions are discharged or powers exercised or vice versa depending upon the context of the duty or power enjoined under the law if the two expressions are inter-changeable.
What is necessary to bear in mind is that nature of function or power exercised and not the manner in which it is done. Indeed this Court, while considering the provisions of Section 30-A : 49 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 of the Karnataka Act, which enabled a Special Officer appointed to exercise and perform all the powers and functions of the Committee of Management or any officer of the Cooperative Society (and not merely functions), took the view that the Administrator or a special officer can exercise powers and functions only as may be required in the interests of the Cooperative Society. In that context, it was stated that he should conduct elections as enjoined under law, that is, he is to conduct elections with the members as on the rolls and by necessary implication, he is not vested with power to enrol new members of the society. We may add that a Cooperative Society is expected to function in a democratic manner through an elected Committee of Management and that Committee of Management is empowered to enrol new members. Enrolment of new members would involve alteration of the composition of the society itself and such a power should be exercised by an elected Committee rather than by an administrator or a Committee appointed by the Registrar while the Committee of Management is under supersession. This Court has taken the view, it did, bearing in mind these aspects, though not spelt out in the course of the judgment. Even where the language of Section 30-A of the Karnataka Act empowered a special officer to exercise and perform all the powers and functions of Committee of Management of a Cooperative Society fell for consideration, this Court having expressed that view, we do not think, there is any need to explore the difference in the meaning of the expressions "have power to exercise all or any of the functions of the Committee" in the Act and "exercise all or any of the functions of the Committee" in the Karnataka Act as they are not different and are in substance one and the same and difference in language will assume no importance. What is of significance is that when the Committee of Management of the Cooperative Society commits any default or is : 50 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 negligent in the performance of the duties imposed under the Acts, rules and the bye-laws, which is prejudicial to the interest of the society, the same is superseded and an administrator or a Committee is imposed thereon. The duty of such a Committee or an administrator is to set right the default, if any, and to enable the society to carry on its functions as enjoined by law. Thus, the role of an administrator or a Committee appointed by the Registrar while the Committee of Management is under supersession, is, as pointed out by this Court, only to bring on an even keel a ship which was in doldrums. If that is the objective and is borne in mind, the interpretation of these provisions will not be difficult.
8. Thus, we are of the view that this Court in K.Shantharaj's case [supra] took the view that an administrator or a special officer in the Karnataka Act is not vested with the power to enrol new members of the Cooperative Society in this context. While reiterating that view in regard to the Kerala Act, we afford further reasons to support the said view and dismiss these appeals, though for reasons different from those expressed by the High Court. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs. 9.10. K.Shantharaj and Another Vs. M.L.Nagaraj and others, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 37, more particularly paragraph No.8 and 9 thereof which are extracted hereunder for easy reference:
8. Shri Santosh Hedge, learned senior counsel, contends that since the Administrator has power to conduct elections, by necessary implication, he has power to update the electoral lists by either : 51 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 enrolling the new members or substituting the legal representatives of the members in accordance with the bye-laws; therefore, he has power to enroll the members. We find that there is no force in the contention. The power of Administration given under the statute to conduct elections should be confined within the parameters set under the relevant provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws.
The division Bench has minutely and carefully gone into all the questions and agreed with the learned single judge that the Administrator has no power to enroll new members; but he has the powers to organise election process in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the rules and the bye-laws of the society. In that view of the matter, we think that the High Court has not committed any error of law warranting interference.
9. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, we confirm the direction issued by the learned single Judge for enrollment of new members by the board or the Board of Directors, as the case may be, in accordance with the bye- law No.15 and dispose them of No costs.
9.11. M.G.Doddegowda and others. Vs. State of Karnataka and others, reported in (2002) SCC online Karnataka 547, more particularly paragraph No.3 thereof which are extracted hereunder for easy reference:
3. The Administrator was appointed on the report of the 3rd respondent-District Registrar in which it is stated that general body meeting and elections have not been conducted. This Court has already held that enrolment of members by the : 52 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 Administrator is not valid. In view of the law so laid down by the Apex Court in (1998) 2 SCC 267 (sic), the members enrolled by the Administrator to various categories is null and void.
9.12. By relying upon the above, he submits that the Apex Court as also this Court have held that an Administrator cannot enroll members and if at all any elections have to be held, the elections have to be held with the members on the rolls as on the date on which the Administrator had been appointed. This being an alternative argument to the contention that the Central Sabha could not have superseded the Dharwad Sabha.
10. Sri. M.B.Naragund, learned Senior Counsel and Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents instructed by Sri. Mrutyunjaya Tata Bangi, Sri. Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath and Sri. Santosh Malligwad submitted that:
: 53 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 10.1. There is a long history in the establishment of the Prachar Sabhas, inasmuch as Hindi not being a prevalent language in the southern States, the father of the nation felt that the southern States also ought to adopt Hindi and in order to familiarize Hindi language in the southern States, at the instance of the father of the Nation, the Daskshina Bharata Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras was established in the year 1927.
10.2. This Sabha came to be known as the Central Sabha and the Central Sabha not being able to discharge all the activities by itself constituted Pranteeya Sabhas which were based on the regional language, namely for the Tamil speaking area, for Malayalam speaking area, for Kannada speaking area and last for the Telegu speaking area.
: 54 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 10.3. Though at the time when Pranteeya Sabhas had been established there were no States as such like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, the establishment of Pranteeya Sabha was on the language basis, so that the persons of a particular language could easily propagate Hindi in that particular area.
10.4. It is only a matter of coincidence that subsequently the States were organized on a regional language basis after independence.
10.5. The Pranteeya Sabha being a creature of the Central Sabha would be bound and would come within the superintendence of the Central Sabha. 10.6. A perusal of the constitution of the Central Sabha and that of the Pranteeya Sabha would indicate that, similar language and similar clauses have been used in both the documents.
: 55 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 10.7. The kind of members of the Pranteeya Sabha and that of the Central Sabha are more or less the same inasmuch as the Central Sabha has Samrakshas, Poshakas, Ajeevan Sadasyas, Samanya Sadasyas, the Dharwad Sabhas has Samrakshas, Poshakas, Ajeevan Sadasyas, Samanya Sadasyas.
10.8. The management of the Central Committee is by the Vyavasthapak Samiti, which is similar situation for the Dharwad Sabha.
10.9. The Karyakarini Samiti of Central Sabha is composed of 29 members, which also comprises of 12 members of four sets of three members each from the different territories or Provincial Sabhas.
10.10. As regards membership, he submits that the membership to the Dharwad Sabha, upon the fulfillment of certain criteria, can be made only upon : 56 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 admission by the Central Sabha to anyone class of membership on the basis of recommendation of the Karyakarini Samiti of Dharwad Sabha. Thus, he states that, there cannot be a direct membership to the Dharwad Sabha, but only a recommendation made by the Dharwad Sabha to the Central Sabha and it is only on the approval by the Central Sabha that a person could become a member of the Dharwad Sabha.
10.11. The manner in which the bye-laws have been formulated would indicate the intimate connection between the Dharwad Sabha and the Central Sabha, inasmuch as the Logo of the Central Sabha has been made use of in Annexure-C produced along with the petition which is the constitution and rules and regulation of the Dharwad Sabha and there is a reference made that the Dharwad Sabha is an institution of national importance by an Act No.14 of : 57 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 1964, which would necessarily entail that the recognition under the Act of 1964 would apply to the Dharwad Sabha, which would not be the case unless the Dharwad Sabha is part of the Central Sabha. 10.12. By referring to the various provisions of the bye-laws, he submits that, the Central Sabha has been defined under Rule 3 (D), a member has been defined under Rule 3(E) to be a member admitted by a Central Sabha.
10.13. The office bearers have also been defined under Rule 3(I) and under Rule 3(J). A Sachiv/Karyadarshi (Secretary) is stated to be one appointed by the Central Sabha to the Dharwad Sabha.
10.14. By referring to the aims and objects more particularly Rule 4(B), he submits that one of the aims and objects of the Dharwad Sabha is to aid and assist the : 58 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 Central Sabha for the fulfillment of its objects in Karnataka.
10.15. On the basis of the above, he submits that the Dharwad Sabha though registered under the KSR Act is not independent of the Central Sabha. The registration under the KSR Act is only for the purpose of proper administration. The administration is required to be carried out in terms of the bye-laws, which requires constant interaction and approval by the Central Sabha.
10.16. The dispute in the present case is as regards the elections having been held to the Vyavasthapaka Samiti of the Dharwad Sabha.
10.17. Bye-law 7 of Dharwad Sabha relates to the said election and the said bye-law clearly denotes the manner in which the elections have to be held as also the representativeness of each district and or each : 59 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 class of membership in the Vyavasthapaka Samiti, this requirement under bye-law Rule 7 has been completely violated in the elections held on 26.02.2020, inasmuch as there are 9 representatives for the Belagavi District and 9 representatives for Dharwad District, when in fact there could have been only one representative for each of these districts. By allowing nomination for such an election with such number of persons, the purpose and ambit of Rule 7 has been lost.
10.18. It is this violation that has resulted in the Central Sabha exercising powers under Rule 28 of the Bye- laws of the Central Sabha, which permit the Central Sabha to question the Pranteeya Sabha like the Dharwad Sabha and in pursuance thereto, a notice dated 12.05.2020 had been issued pointing out the various discrepancies, in reply the Dharwad Samiti on 19.05.2020 requested for time on the ground of : 60 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 prevalent Covid situation which was refused by the Central Sabha on 20.05.2020, contending that when elections could be held, reply could be given. 10.19. On 21.05.2020, the Dharwad Sabha replied stating that the elections have been conducted in accordance with law, without giving any scope for lapses. Since no proper reply had been given, proceedings of the Central Sabha were conducted and in the said proceedings, it was decided that the powers under Rule 28 would be invoked and it was in pursuance thereto that the order dated 23.05.2020 had been passed. Therefore, he submits that the exercise of powers by the Central Sabha is proper and correct.
10.20. He relies upon the decision in the case of G.R.Bhagavanta Goudar Vs. The Registrar, Uchcha Siksha Aur Sodh Sansthan (Post Graudate and Research Insititute), Dakshin : 61 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021
Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, reported in 1998 (1) KLJ 719, more particularly paragraph No.6 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
6. Section 2 of the Societies Act provides for drawing of Memorandum of Association and framing of the rules of the society for the purpose of management of its affairs. This Section reads as under;-
"Memorandum of Association.- The Memorandum of association shall contain the following things (that is to say) - the name of the society;
The object of the society;
The names, address, and occupations of the governors, council, directors, committee or other governing body to whom, by the rules of the society, the management of its affairs is entrusted.
A copy of the rules and regulations of the society, certified to be a correct copy by not less than three of the members of the governing body, shall be filed with the memorandum of association"
10.21. By relying on the same he submits that the Sabha has to conduct its affairs in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Sabha, the bye-laws of the Dharwad Sabha, Andhra Pradesh Sabha as also the Kerala Sabha are identical to each other, which would : 62 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 also establish the superintendence of the Central Sabha over the Pranteeya Sabha.
10.22. By referring to the order passed by the Government of India, in No.F/83/D.I.(L) dated July 1986, he submits that the power under Rule 28 has also been accepted by the Central Government and it is thereafter that the amendment was notified on 15.07.1986 and it in pursuance thereto bye-law 28 is applicable.
10.23. On the basis of the above, he submits that, the excise of power by the Central Sabha is proper and correct and the appointment of Special Secretary as also the advisory committee being proper and correct, the writ petition has to be dismissed.
10.24. The Special Secretary and advisory Committee are in process of conducting the elections and the elections : 63 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 would most probably be conducted within a period of six months from now.
10.25. For all the above reasons he submits that both the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
11. Learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the state is only a formal party to these proceedings. The dispute is between the Pranteeya Sabha and the Central Sabha and the members thereof and the State has got nothing to do with it.
12. Heard Sri. M.V.Sheshachala, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri. Gangadhar J.M, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.103712/2021, Sri. Sunil S. Desai for the petitioner in W.P.No.104100/2021 and Sri. M.B.Naragund, learned Additional Solicitor General and Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 in W.P.No.103712/2021 and respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 6 in : 64 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 W.P.No.104100/2021, instructed by Sri. Mrutyunjaya Tata Bangi, Sri. Mallikarjunaswamy B. Hiremath. I have perused the papers and bestowed my attention to all the submissions made.
13. The points that arise for my determination are :
1. Whether the present dispute and/or the reliefs can be sought for by way of a writ petition and or that the Writ Petition is not maintainable on account of the Sabha's not being State?
2. Whether the delay caused in filing of the above petition would require this Court not to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, requiring dismissal of the writ petition?
3. Whether on the repeal of the Central Registration Act, 1960, by Section 31 of KSR Act, 1960, a Society registered under the Act of 1860 can claim benefits of either the first or second proviso to Section 31 of KSR Act, 1960?
4. Whether the Central Sabha has any superintendence power over the Dharwad Sabha and can Rule 28 of the Central Sabha be exercised in respect of Dharwad Sabha?, If so, as the powers under Rule 28 been properly exercised by the Central Sabha?
5. Whether once the Dharwad Sabha is registered under the KSR Act, 1960, the appointment of an : 65 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 Administrator or otherwise would be only under the KSR Act, 1960?
6. Whether the Administrator/Special Officer and/or the Advisory Committee can enroll new members subsequent to their appointment?
7. What order?
14. I answer the above points as under
15. Answer to Point No.1: Whether the present dispute and/or the reliefs can be sought for by way of a writ petition and or that the Writ Petition is not maintainable on account of the Sabha's not being State?
15.1. The object of the Central Sabha is as under:
3. the object of the Sabha is to spread knowledge of Hindi as specified in Article 351 of the Indian Constitution, in the areas in South India were Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam and Kannada are spoken.
15.2. The functions of the Central Prachar Sabha in terms of Annexure-A to the writ petition which is been approved by the Government of India are as under:
4. For the due fulfillment of its object, the Sabha shall have power:
(a) To work for the promotion, development and advancement of Hindi language, Hindi Literature : 66 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 and Devanagari Script, in India and foreign countries, and for that purpose wherever necessary to propagate the South Indian languages also;
(b) To produce, print and publish literature in Hindi, other Indian Language and English;
(c) To arrange for the holding to examinations through the medium of Hindi language for teaching Hindi and other languages and to confer degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions for the same;
(d) To establish and maintain schools, colleges and other institutions for instructions in Hindi language and Hindi literature and for training of Hindi teachers and also to affiliate schools, colleges and other institutions for its examinations;
(e) To affiliate institutions having for their object the promotion of Hindi language and Hindi literature;
(f) To award honorary degrees and other academic distinctions to persons who may have rendered distinguished service to the cause of Hindi;
(g) To institute and award prizes (Paritoshiks) to distinguished scholars in Hindi;
(h) To promote and encourage research in Hindi language and Hindi literature;
(i) To receive gifts, grants, donations or benefactions from the Govt. and to receive bequests, donations to transfer of movable and immovable properties from testators, donors or transferors, as the case may be;
(j) To deal with any property belonging to or vested in the Sabha in such manner as the Sabha may deem fit for advancing the objects of the Sabha;
(k) To raise funds or borrow money, on the security of the property of the Sabha or otherwise, for the purpose of the Sabha;
: 67 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021
(l) To perform such other functions as may be deemed necessary by the Sabha for advancing the cause of Hindi language and Hindi literature or as may be necessary, incidental or conducive to the performance of all or any of the above functions.
15.3. Article 351 of the Constitution reads as under:
351. Directive for development of the Hindi language: It shall be the duty of the Union to promote the spread of the Hindi language, to develop it so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of India and to secure its enrichment by assimilating without interfering with its genius, the forms, style and expressions used in Hindustani and in the other languages of India specified in the Eighth Schedule, and by drawing, wherever necessary or desirable, for its vocabulary, primarily on Sanskrit and secondarily on other languages 15.4. The object of the Sabha is apparently to spread the knowledge of Hindi as specified in Article 351 by performing the functions as stated above.
15.5. The Sabha is stated to have been established in pursuance of the directions of Sri. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the Father of Nation, the : 68 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 avowed objective is for propagation of Hindi in non-
Hindi speaking area.
15.6. Sri. M.B.Naragund, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that, a writ petition is not maintainable since the Sabha is not a State. 15.7. The Apex Court in the case of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Samarak Trust and others Vs. V.R.Rudani and others, reported in 1989 (2) SCC 691 at paragraph No.22 has held as under: "22. Here again we may point out that mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the duty to be enforced is not imposed by the statute. Commenting on the development of this law, Professor de Smith states : "To be enforceable by mandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to be one imposed by statute. It may be sufficient for the duty to have been imposed by charter, common law, custom or even contract."" We share this view. The judicial control over the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into watertight compartment. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available 'to reach injustice : 69 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 wherever it is found'. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226. We, therefore, reject the contention urged for the appellants on the maintainability of the writ petition." 15.8. The Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Ahluwalia Vs. State of Punjab and ors, reported in 2012 (12) SCC 331, at paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 has held as under:
12. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, in view of the judgment rendered by this Court Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Mahotsav Smarak Trust there can be no doubt that even a purely body, where the State has no control over its internal affairs, would amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, for issuance of a writ of mandamus. Provided, of course, the private body is performing public functions which are normally expected to be performed by the State authorities.
13. In the aforesaid case, this Court was also considering a situation where the services of a Lecturer had been terminated who was working in the college run by the Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust. In those circumstances, this Court has clearly observed as under: (V.R. Rudani case 4, SCC pp. 700-701, paras 20 & 22) "20. The term 'authority' used in Article 226, in the context, must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term in Article 12. Article 12 is relevant only for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32. Article 226 confers power on the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental rights.
The words 'any person or authority' used in Article : 70 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 226 are, therefore, not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party. No matter by what means the duty is imposed, if a positive obligation exists mandamus cannot be denied.
22. Here again we may point out that mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the duty to be enforced is not imposed by the statute. Commenting on the development of this law, Professor de Smith states: 'To be enforceable by mandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to be one imposed by statute. It may be sufficient for the duty to have been imposed by charter, common law, custom or even contract.'8 We share this view. The judicial control over the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into watertight compartment. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available 'to reach injustice wherever it is found'. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article
226.We, therefore, reject the contention urged for the appellants on the maintainability of the writ petitions"
The aforesaid observations have been repeated and reiterated in numerous judgments of this Court including the judgments in Unni Krishnan J.P. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (1993) 1 SCC 645 and Zee Telefils Ltd Vs. State of India, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 469 brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Parikh."
: 71 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 15.9. The function and object of the Sabha is in effect to discharge the obligation of the State under Article 351 of the constitution, thus it is discharging a public function, furthermore the fact that certification is provided to the persons who take the examination of the Sabha and such certification is recognised by all institutions of the State for purposes of employment etc., The object and nature of functions discharged by the Sabha and also on account of the fact that the Sabha is declared by the Parliament as an Institution of national importance.
15.10. What is to be seen here is as to whether the Dakshina Bharata Hindi Prachar Sabha performs any actions which are public in nature, admittedly the Sabhas both the Central and the State have an object of implementing the requirement of Article 351 of Constitution of India. Upon propagating Hindi as a : 72 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 language in the South of India, the certification is also given to successful candidates. The elections are held to the committees across all districts of the Southern Sates.
15.11. In the above background, I am of the considered opinion that, a writ petition would be maintainable since any action taken by the Institution of national importance would have to be subjected to judicial review, the said actions of such an Institutions would have to satisfy the requirements of law and stand test of the constitution, more particularly Article 14 thereof.
15.12. In view of the above, I answer Point No.1 by holding that, the Dakshina Bharatha Hindi Prachar Sabha is amenable to judicial review by way of a Writ Petition and thus the present writ petitions are maintainable.
: 73 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021
16. Answer to Point No.2: Whether the delay caused in filing of the above petition would require this Court not to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, requiring dismissal of the writ petition?
16.1. The contention of Sri. M.B.Naragund Learned Senior Counsel if that what has been challenged are the orders dated 23.05.2020 and 08.06.2020 by filing the above writ petitions in W.P.No.103712/2021 on 28.09.2021 and W.P.No.104100/2021 on 21.10.2021 respectively.
16.2. He therefore, submits that, the said orders having been challenged after a long gap of over 16 months, the present writ petition is hit by the principles of delay and latches and as such, the writ petitions are required to be dismissed.
16.3. Per contra, Sri. M.V.Sheshachala, learned Senior Counsel would submit that, on account of the orders passed in Miscellaneous Application No.665/2021 by the Apex Court on 23.09.2021, the limitation period has been extended and as such, the writ petition is not barred by limitation : 74 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 and this Court would be required to consider the petitions on merits.
16.4. In my considered opinion, the order passed by the Apex Court is only with regard to the extension of the limitation period that does not in any way defer the filing of any proceedings or petitions seeking emergent reliefs, the courts being open and functioning there was no need for the petitioners to have waited for such a long period of time to challenge the orders they should have approached this Court at the earliest.
16.5. Admittedly, there is a delay of more than 16 months in filing the writ petitions. During the intervening 16 months, there are various actions that have happened equities which have been created which cannot be undone. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the delay though not requiring the dismissal of the writ petition would have to be taken into considering while dealing the same on merits.
: 75 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021
17. Answer to Point No.3: Whether on the repeal of the Act of 1860, by Section 31 of KSR Act, 1960 a Society registered under the Act of 1860 can claim benefits of either the first or second proviso to Section 31 of KSR Act, 1960?
17.1. Section 31 of the KSR Act, reads as under:
31. Repeal and savings - The Mysore Act of 1860, 1904 (Mysore Act No.III of 1904), as in force in the Mysore rea, the Act of 1860, the Mangalore and Kollegal Area and the Coorg District and the Public Act of 1860, 1350 Fasli (Hyderabad Act I of 1350 Fasli), as in force in the Gulbarga Area are hereby repealed;
Provided that every society registered under any of the repealed enactments shall be deemed to be registered under this Act;
Provided further that subject to the preceding proviso the provisions of Section 6 of the [Karnataka] General Clauses Act, 1899, shall be applicable in respect of the repeal of the said enactments and Sections 8 and 24 of the said Act shall be applicable as if the said enactments had been repealed and re-enacted by this act.
17.2. Section 8 and 24 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1999, read as under:
8. Construction of references to repealed enactments - Where this Act, or [any Mysore Act or Karnataka Act] made after the commencement of this Act, repeals or re-enacts, with or without modification, any provision of a former enactment, then references in any other enactment or in any instrument to the provision so repealed, shall, unless : 76 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 a different intention appeared, be construed as references to the provisions so re-enacted.
24. Continuation of order, etc., issued under enactments repealed and re-enacted -
Where, any enactment is, after the commencement of this Act, repeal and re-enacted with or without modification, then, unless it is otherwise expressly provided, any [appointment, notification] order, scheme, rule, form or bye-law, made or issued under the repealed enactment, shall so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted, continue in force and be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted unless and until it is superseded by any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form or bye-law made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted.
17.3. By referring to Section 31 extracted above Sri. M.V.Sheshachala, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, since the Act of 1860, has been repealed by Section 31 of the KSR Act, the Central Sabha which has been registered under the Act of 1860, is no longer in existence in the State of Karnataka and therefore, the said Central Sabha can also not be recognised in the State of Karnataka by this Court or otherwise.
: 77 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 17.4. The 1860 Act had been promulgated for the purpose of improving the legal conditions of the societies established for promotion of Literature, Science or Fine Arts or for the diffusion of useful knowledge or for charitable purposes and provided for registration of such societies.
17.5. Needles to say that, when the Act of 1860 has brought into force, the Constitution was not in force. It is only on the Constitution coming into being that in terms of Entry 32 of List 2 of the VIIth Schedule, registration of any organization or Society has been brought under the said Entry 32, thereby empowering the States to pass legislations relating to registration of any organization or association. It is in pursuance thereof, that in the year 1960, the KSR Act, 1960 was brought into force and in terms of Section 31 thereof, : 78 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 the Act of 1860 was repealed insofar as the State of Karnataka is concerned.
17.6. The said repeal does not in essence repeal the enactment itself, but only provides that the same would not be applicable in the State of Karnataka. Perusal of Section 31 extracted herein above would make it clear that the societies registered under any of the repealed enactments shall be deemed to be registered under the KSR Act.
17.7. This gives rise to an anamoly, on the one hand, any society registered under the Act of 1860 would be deemed to be registered under the KSR Act, however, what would happen if the society registered under the 1860 Act is not based out of Karnataka or that it is not having the registered offices in Karnataka, but in another State.
: 79 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 17.8. In such a situation, it cannot be said that a society which is registered under the Act of 1860, having its registered offices for example in Madras, as in this case, is deemed to be registered under the KSR Act, since if that be so all the compliances required to be done under the KSR Act would have to be carried out by such a society in the State of Karnataka including filing of the necessary documents with the Registrar of Societies in the State of Karnataka. 17.9. Admittedly, no such filing has been made nor is the Central Sabha brought within the purview of the KSR Act to claim the benefit of the first proviso to Section
31. Thus, in my considered opinion the contention of Sri. M.B.Naragund learned Senior Counsel that the Central Sabha would have to be recognised in the State of Karnataka as that registered under the KSR Act is untenable and is liable to be rejected.
: 80 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 17.10. The second proviso to Section 31 provides that the provisions of Section 6, 8 and 24 of the [Karnataka] General Clauses Act, 1899, shall be applicable. In terms whereof there is a deeming provision as if the said enactments had been repealed and re-enacted by KSR Act.
17.11. For the same reasons as discussed with reference to 1st provisio the 2nd provisio would also not be applicable to a society which had been registered outside the State of Karnataka.
17.12. Both the first and second proviso would have been applicable only if the society which is registered under the 1860 Act, were to comply with the requirements of the KSR Act within the State of Karnataka. Thus Section 31 perse would not apply to the present fact situation.
: 81 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 17.13. Thus I answer point No.3 by holding that on the repeal of the Act of 1860, by Section 31 of the KSR Act, 1960, a society registered under the Act of 1860 cannot be deemed to be registered under the Act of KSR Act, 1960, unless the same were to have its registered office in Karnataka and has complied with all the requirements of the KSR Act. As a corollary the Central Sabha registered in Tamil Nadu cannot be deemed to be registered within the state of Karnataka.
18. Answer to point No.4: Whether Central Sabha has any superintendence power over the Dharwad Sabha and can Rule 28 of the Central Sabha be exercised in respect of the Dharwad Sabha? If so, as the powers under Rule 28 been properly exercised by the Central Sabha? 18.1. It is not in dispute that the Central Sabha had been established in the year 1927 in Madras. It is also not in dispute that for better administration of the Central Sabha and achieving objects of the Central Sabha : 82 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 various Pranteeya Sabhas were established in southern India on the basis of the language prevalent in different areas. It cannot be disputed that when the Pranteeya Sabhas were sought to be established there were no states as such in existence like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka or Andra Pradesh. In view thereof, taking into account the prevalent local languages different Pranteeya Sabhas were established one each for the Kannada, Telugu and Malayali speaking areas and the central Sabha took care of the Tamil speaking area.
18.2. Thus, Pranteeya Sabhas were established on the basis of the language prevalent in that particular area. Insofar as the Kannada speaking area is concerned a Pranteeya Sabha was established in Dharwad in the year 1935, which would take care of the Kannada speaking areas. It is only after the State : 83 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 of Karnataka was established and on the repeal of the Act of 1860, that the Dakshina Bharata Hindi Prachar Sabha (Karnataka), Dharwad which was a Pranteeya Sabha for Kannada speaking area was registered under the KSR Act.
18.3. A perusal of Annexure-C to the writ petition in W.P.No.103712/2021 which is the Constitution and Rules and Regulations of the Dharwad Sabha indicates that it was established in the year 1935 and is recognised as an Institution of national importance by Act No.14 of 1964. It also uses the logo of Hindi Prachara Sabha i.e. Central Sabha.
18.4. An examination of the bye-laws of the Central Sabha and the Karnataka Pranteeya Sabha would also be required to be made.
18.5. The objects and functions of the Central Sabha in terms of Rule 3 and 4 are as under:
: 84 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021
Object:
3. The object of the Sabha is to spread knowledge of Hindi as specified in Article 351 of the Indian Constitution, in the areas in South India were Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam and Kannada are spoken.
4. Functions: For the due fulfillment of its object, the Sabha shall have power:
(a) to work for the promotion, development and advancement of Hindi language, Hindi Literature and Devanagari Script, in India and foreign countries, and for that purpose wherever necessary to propagate the South Indian languages also;
(b) to produce, print and publish literature in Hindi, other Indian Language and English;
(c) to arrange for the holding to examinations through the medium of Hindi language for teaching Hindi and other languages and to confer degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions for the same;
(d) to establish and maintain schools, colleges and other institutions for instruction in Hindi language and Hindi literature and for training of Hindi teachers and also to affiliate schools, colleges and other institutions for its examinations;
(e) to affiliate institutions having for their object the promotion of Hindi language and Hindi literature;
(f) to award honorary degrees and other academic distinctions to persons who may have rendered distinguished service to the cause of Hindi;
(g) to institute and award prizes (Paritoshiks) to distinguished scholars in Hindi;
: 85 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021
(h) to promote and encourage research in Hindi
language and Hindi literature;
(i) to receive gifts, grants, donations or benefactions from the Govt. and to receive bequests, donations to transfer of movable and immovable properties from testators, donors or transferors, as the case may be;
(j) to deal with any property belonging to or vested in the Sabha in such manner as the Sabha may deem fit for advancing the objects of the Sabha;
(k) to raise funds or borrow money, on the security of the property of the Sabha or otherwise, for the purposes of the Sabha;
(l) to perform such other functions as may be deemed necessary by the Sabha for advancing the cause of Hindi language and Hindi literature or as may be necessary, incidental or conducive to the performance of all or any of the above functions.
18.6. The aims and objects of the Dharwad Sabha in terms of Rule 4 is as under:
(a) To spread knowledge of Hindi as specified in article 351 of the Constitution of India.
(b) To aid and assist the Central Sabha for the fulfillment of its objects in Karnataka.
(c) To promote and propagate Hindi and Hindi Literature in Devanagari Script.
(d) To promote Hindi through translation from Kannada to Hindi, from Konkani to Hindi and vice-versa or through other regional languages.
(e) To develop Hindi so that it may serve as a link language or as a medium of expression for all the elements of composite culture and promote integrity of India.
: 86 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021
(f) To establish, adopt and maintain schools, colleges and other Institutions for instruction in Hindi language and Hindi literature and to promote education of all kinds.
(g) To do any other measures conducive to the propagation of the Hindi.
(h) To establish, adopt and maintain, Professional Colleges like Engineering, Medical etc., and Para Medical Colleges, Diploma and Allied Courses, where Hindi also could be taught without prejudice to the prescribed curriculum of the concerned University or Authority.
(i) The benefits of the Sabha shall be open to all irrespective of caste, creed or religion.
(j) To raise funds and carry on propaganda.
(k) To constitute "Zilla Hindi Prachar Samities"
(l) To render all help financial or otherwise to recognized Hindi Prachar Associations.
(m) To impart Tuition for the different Hindi examinations of the Central Sabha.
(n) To conduct Hindi Examinations of the Central Sabha, entrusted to the Sabha.
(o) To conduct Hindi Vidyalayas.
(p) To print and publish the necessary propaganda literature for the propagation of Hindi.
(q) To work for the introduction of Hindi in educational institutions and
(r) To accept all such means which are conducive to fulfill the objects of the Sabha.
(s) It is hereby agreed upon by all members of Daskshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha (Karnataka) Dharwad society/association that no child labour of any form specially, domestic child labour, will be employed in the premises of the Sabha complexes and in apartments, homes residences, either owned or rented.
(t) The Sachiv is authorized to correspond with the Registering Authorities.
(u) Any income of the Sabha shall not be distributed among the members of the Sabha and shall be utilized only for the purpose of the aims and objects of the Sabha.
: 87 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 18.7. The object and function of the Central Sabha is provided under Rule 3 and Rule 4. The aims and objections of the Karnataka Sabha is at bye-law No.4.
A comparison of both the said provisions would indicate that essentially the aim and object is one and the same. Except that the Karnataka Sabha has its operations only in Karnataka. Both the Central Sabha and State Sabha are working towards promotion, development and advancement of Hindi language. They conduct examination through the medium of Hindi language, establish and maintain schools and colleges, award Honorary Degrees, etc., 18.8. What is of importance is that, one of the objects of the Dharwad Sabaha in terms of Rule 4 (b) is to assist the Central Sabha in its fulfillment of its objects in Karnataka. Thus, the link between the Central : 88 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 Sabha and the Dharwad Sabha continued even after registration of the Dharwad Sabha under the KSR Act. 18.9. The membership of the Central Sabha in terms of Rule 6 is as under:
Membership:
6. All persons of eighteen years of age and above, who subscribe to the object of the Sabha, and who pay either donations or subscriptions and satisfy the other conditions prescribed below may be admitted by the Karyakarini Samiti on the recommendations of the concerned pranteeya Sabhas to the several classes of membersip of the Sabha mentioned hereunder:
(a) Samrakshaks : -- Those who pay to the Sabha a single donation of not less than Rs. 5,000/-
(b) Poshaks : -- Those who pay to the Sabha a single donation of not less than Rs. 1,000/-
(c) Ajeevan Sadasyas : -- Those who pay to the Sabha a single donation of not less than Rs. 250/-
(d) Sadharan Sadasyas : -- Those who pay a subscription of not less than Rs. 10/- annually.
PROVIDED the membership of Sadharan Sadasyas shall not lapse if he does not pay annual subscription in time along with the form prescribed and numbered by the central Sabha. In case of new enrolment, from with fee should be received in the Central Sabha on or before 31st March. PROVIDED further a Sadharan Sadasya shall neither : 89 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 i have a right to vote not contest for election to the Vyavasthapak Samiti if, at the time of election the subscription of the Sadasya is in arrears; PROVIDED further that the membership of a Sadharan Sadasya shall cease if his annual subscription remains in arrears for two consecutive years.
Sammanya Sadasyas :- The Karyakarini Samiti may enroll any person as a Sammanya Sadasya of the Sabha, with his consent, if in its opinion, the interests of the Sabha would be advanced thereby, provided however, that the number of this class of members shall not exceed 15 at any one time. 18.10. The Membership of the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha in terms of Rule 5 is as under:
5) MEMBERSHIP:
Any person of 21 years of age & above, who is competent to contract and not otherwise ineligible and who subscribes to the objects and functions of the Sabha and who pays either donations or subscriptions and satisfy the other conditions prescribed below may be admitted by the Central Sabha to any one class of Membership mentioned below on the recommendation ofthe Karyakarini Samiti of the Sabha.
(a) SAMRAKSHAKAS: Those who pay to the Central Sabha a single donation of not less than Rs. 5,000/-
(b) POSHAKAS : Those who pay to the
: 90 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021
Central Sabha a single donation of not less than Rs.1,000/-
(c) AJEEVANA Sadasyas : Those who pay to the Central Sabha a single donation of not less than Rs. 250/ -
(d) SAMANYA Those who pay subscription of not less than Rs. 10/-. annually.
Any member who is in arrears of subscription shall not be eligible either to vote or to contest the election. The membership may be renewed by the Karyakarini Samiti on application and on payment of arrears.
18.11. Under the Central Sabha, the membership is of Samrakshaks, Poshaks, Ajeevan Sadasyas, Sadharan Sadasyas, Sammanya Sadasyas. Under the Karnataka Sabha, the membership is of Samrakshakas, Poshakas, Ajeevan Sadasyas, Sammanya. 18.12. A person can become a member of the Central Sabha if a person has attained 18 years of age, subscribes to the object of the Sabha, pays donations and subscriptions and on satisfying certain other conditions may be admitted to membership by the : 91 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 Karyakarini Samithi on the recommendation of the concerned Pranthiya Sabha to the several classes of membership. Thus, it is only if the concerned Sabha were to recommend a person to be a member of the Central Sabha, then Karyakarini Samithi of Central Sabha can admit a person to membership. In the absence of recommendation by the concerned Pranthiya Sabha, no person can be admitted to membership of Central Sabha.
18.13. For a person to be a member of the Pranthiya Sabha of Karnataka, a person has to attain 21 years of age, to be competent to contract and subscribe to the objects and functions of the Sabha, pays the donations and subscriptions and upon satisfying the conditions may be admitted by the Central Sabha to any one class of membership of the Pranteeya Sabha on the recommendation of the Karyakarini Samithi of : 92 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 the Sabha. Thus, a person could be a member of the Pranteeya Sabha only if the Karyakarini Sabha would recommend his or her membership to the Central Sabha and the Central Sabha admits him or her to membership. In the absence of the Central Sabha, admitting a person to membership no person can become a member of the Pranthiya Sabha. To put it otherwise it is only the Central Sabha which can admit a person to be a member of the Pranteeya Sabha.
18.14. Functions of the Central Sabha are discharged in terms of Rule 5 by the following bodies:
1. Nidhipalak Mandal,
2. Vyavasthapak Samiti
3. Karyakarini Samiti,
4. Siksha Parishad and
5. Uchcha Siksha Aur Shodh Sansthan 18.15. The functions of the Dharwad Sabha in terms of Rule 6 are discharged by the following bodies:
: 93 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 (1) Vyavasthtapika Samiti (Governing Body) (2) Karyakarini Samiti (Executive Committee) 18.16. The nomenclature of the governing body and the executive committee is also more or less one and the same, except for a spelling change on the basis of local language. This would also indicate the close nature in which the Central Sabha and the local Sabha are administered.
18.17. The composition of the Vyavasthapak Samiti of the Central Sabha in terms of Rule 7 is as under:
Vyavasthapak Samiti Composition :
7. (1) There shall be a Vyavasthapak Samiti for the Sabha with the functions hereinafter specified. This shall consist of :
(a) The President, the First Vice-President, the Second Vice-President & the Treasurer;
(b) Members of the Nidhipalak Mandal;
(c) Sammanya Sadasyas;
(d) Each of the four Pranteeya Sabhas and the City of Madras shall be entitled to elect representatives to the Vyavasthapak Samiti from and : 94 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 out of the Samrakshaks, Poshaks and Ajeevan Sadasyas who have been members of the Central Sabha for a period of three years before the date of announcement of the election to the Vyavasthapak Samiti, as may be prescribed in the bye-laws regarding election matters, and who reside within the areas of the Pranteeya Sabhas concerned or the city of Madras, as the case may be, at the rate of one for every 6 members subject to a maximum of 20 for each Pranteeya Sabha and 10 for the city of Madras.
(e) Members of the Siksha Parishad;
(f) Three representatives of each of the Pranteeya Sabhas nominated by the Karyakarini Samiti of the Pranteeya Sabha concerned from among the members thereof;
(g) Each of the four Pranteeya Sabhas and the City of Madras shall be entitled to elect representatives to the Vyavasthapak Samiti from and out of the Ten Rupee members who have members for a period of three years continuously before the date of announcement of the aforesaid election and who reside within the area of the Pranteeya Sabha concerned, or the City of Madras, as the case may be, at the rate of one for ten members subject to a maximum of ten for each Pranteeya Sabha and five for the City of Madras.
(2) The members elected or nominated to the Vyavasthapak Samiti under clauses 7 (1), (a), (d),
(e), (f) and (g) above, shall vacate their membership on the expiry of three years from the date of their election, provided that they will continue in office will new members are elected.
: 95 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 18.18. The composition of Vyavasthapika Samiti of the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha in terms of Rule 7 is as under:
7) VYAVASTHAPIKA SAMITI: (Governing Body) Composition, election and term;
(A) There shall be a Vyavasthapika Samiti for the Sabaha of not more than 95 members of which 90 members shall be elected from different category of members of the Sabha as detailed below : The Sachiv shall be an ex officio member of the Vyavasthapika Samiti.
The Vyavasthapika Samiti shall be the General Body and an ultimate authority
a) Fifty members elected from the constituency of Ajeevan Sadasyas, Poshakas and Samrakshakas;
b) One member elected from each district from the constituency of Sadharana Sadasyas;
c) One member elected from each district from the constituency of Pramanit Pracharak;
d) Five Sanmanya Sadasyas nominated by the Karyakarini Samiti;
e) The Office bearers elected by the Karyakarini Samiti shall be the Office bearers of the Vyavasthapika Samiti.
(B) The election to the Vyavasthapika Samiti shall be by means of simple majority by the respective constituency. A person who is otherwise eligible may contest from any one of the constituencies in which he is a voter. However, a person who is a voter already in more than one constituency shall have option to contest or to vote from any one.
: 96 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021
(C) The term of Office of Vyavasthapika Sarniti shall be
five years from the date of election provided that it shall continue to hold office until the election of a new Vyavasthapika Sarniti. Provided further that any vacancy caused owing to resignation, illness, death or otherwise shall be filled in by co-option for the remaining period.
(D) The Sabha shall have an emblem prescribed hereunder.
18.19. In terms of Rule 7(1)(d), each of the Pranteeya Sabha and the City of Madras are entitled to elect representatives to the Vyavasthapak Samiti. Further more, 03 representatives of each Pranteeya Sabha would be nominated to the Karyakarini Samiti of the Central Sabha. This would again necessarily establish the intimate connection between the Dharwad Sabaha and the Central Sabha. It cannot be contended that, there are two different entities.
18.20. The functions and powers of Vyavasthapaka Samiti of Central Sabha in terms of Rule 7 is as under:
Functions and Powers :
: 97 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021
7. The functions and powers of the Vyavasthapak Samiti shall be as follows :-
(a) To consider and pass the Annual Report of the work of the Sabha, the audited statement of accounts and the balance sheet.
(b)To consider and pass the budget and also to appoint an auditor for the ensuing year.
(c) To elect the President, First Vice-President, Second Vice-President, Treasurer and other members of the Karyakarini Samiti and of such other bodies of the Sabha as are prescribed hereinafter.
(d) To lay down the general policy of the Sabha from time to time.
(e) To institute degrees on the recommendation of the Karyakarini Samiti.
(f) To deal with all such matters as may be referred to it by the Nidhi Palak Mandal, Karyakarini Samiti, Siksha Parishad and Uchcha Siksha Aur Shodh Sansthan.
(g) To alter or amend any of the rules of the Sabha, provided that no alteration or addition to any rule shall be made unless two-thirds of the members present at the meeting vote in favour of it and the meeting at which it is taken up for consideration was convened on a notice of fourteen clear days specifying the changes sought to be made.
(h) To generally discharge all the functions of the Sabha hereinbefore mentioned and, in particular to borrow money and to acquire, hold and dispose property whether movable or immovable.
: 98 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 18.21. The functions and powers of Vyvasthapika Samiti of the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha in terms of Rule 8 is as under:
8. Functions and powers of Vyavasthapika Samiti:
(a) To consider the annual report and audited accounts of the Sabha.
(b) To consider and pass the budget.
(c) To appoint an auditor for the ensuing year.
(d) To lay down the general policy of the Sabha from time to time and to deal with all such matters as may be referred to it by the Karyakarini Samiti.
(e) To alter, extend or abridge the constitution of the Sabha on the recommendation by the Karyakarini Samiti.
(f) To elect the members of the Karyakarini Samiti when the election is due.
18.22. The functions and powers of Vyavasthapaka Samiti of the Central Sabha in terms of Rule 7 and the functions and powers of Vavastapika Samiti of the Dharwad Sabha in terms of Rule 8 thereof are similar if not identical.
: 99 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 18.23. The composition of Karyakarini Samiti of the Central Sabha in terms of Rule 16 of the Central Sabha is as under:
Karyakarini Samiti Composition :
16. (a) There shall be a Karyakarini Samiti consisting of not more than 29 members to carry on the administration of the Sabha composed as hereinafter provided.
(1) The President of the Sabha :
(2) The First Vice-President, the Second Vice President and the Treasurer to be elected at its ordinary meeting from among its members by the Vyasthapak Samiti; PROVIDED that the treasurer shall be a resident of Madras city ;
(3) The Managing Trustee of the Sabha;
(4) Twelve members of the Vyavasthapak Samiti comprising four sets of three such members to be elected from among the members of the Vyavasthapak Samiti by such members residing in the territorial jurisdiction of each of the four provincial Sabhas:
(5) One member of the Vyavasthapak Samiti to be elected from among its members by such members residing in Madras City:
(6) One representative of the Ministry of Education of the Govt. of India:
(7) Not more than four members to be nominated by the President of the Sabha from among the persons the Karyakarini in the list Samiti;
: 100 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 (8) The Chairman of the Siksha Parishad:
(9) Four members of the Siksha Parishad to be elected by the members among themselves, from each of the four provinces including Madras City except the province to which the Chairman belongs:
(10) The Pradhan Sachiv.
(b) The Bank accounts of the Sabha shall be operated by the joint signatures of the Pradhan Sachiv and the Treasurer: PROVIDED that under special circumstances, the Karyakarini Samiti may, by resolution and with the approval of the First Vice President authorise any other member or members of the karyakarini Samiti to operate the accounts in the place of the Pradhan Sachiv or Treasurer, or both of them, for reason to be recorded in writing.
18.24. The composition of Karyakarini Samiti (Executive Committee) in terms of Rule 9 thereof, is as under:
9) KARYAKARINI SAMITI: (EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE) Composition and Election:
(a) There shall be a Karyakarini Samiti of not more than Twenty five members of which 22 shall be elected by the members of Vyavasthapika Samiti from among themselves specified here under:
(b) Four members shall be elected from the Head Quarters. Out of that three shall be elected from the members at Head Quarters other than Pracharaks and one shall be elected by pracharaks at Head Quarters:
: 101 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021
(c) Fourteen members shall be elected other than Head Quarters excluding pracharaks:
(d) Four members shall be elected from Pracharaks other than Head Quarters:
(e) The election of members under sub-clauses (c) and
(d) above shall not exceed two for each district.
f) The Karyakarini Samiti at its first meeting shall elect the office bearers from among its members provided that the Karyadhyaksha and Koshadhyaksha shall be a resident of Dharwad. The Adhyaksha shall be a resident of the place other than the head quarters. The Sachiv shall be an ex officio member of the Karyakarini Samiti. Any vacancy caused either owing to resignation, illness, death or otherwise shall be filled in by co-option by the Karyakarini Samiti for the remaining period.
(g) The terms of the Karyakarini Samiti shall be co terminus with the Vyavasthapika Samiti.
18.25. In terms of Rule 16(a)(4), four sets of three members of the Provincial/Pranteeya Sabha are to be members of Karyakarini Samiti of the Central Sabha. 18.26. In terms of Rule 16(a)(9), four members of Siksha Parishad are to be elected by members of each of the Pranteeya Sabha. Thus, even the Karyakarini Sabha : 102 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 of the Central Sabha comprises of members from the Pranteeya Sabha.
18.27. The functions of Karyakarini Samiti of the Central Sabha in terms of Rule 19 is as under:
Functions:
19. The functions of the Karyakarini Samiti shall be as follows:
(a) To carry on the work of the Sabha in accordance with the policy laid down by the Vyavasthapak Samiti.
(b) To frame the budget of the Sabha every year and forward it to the Nidhipalak Mandal for scrutini.
(c) To place it before the Vyavasthapak Samiti for its saction, along with the recommendation of the Nidhipalak Mandal, if any.
(d) To arrange to prepare the annual report and audited statements of accounts and present them to the Vyavasthapak Samiti at its annual meeting.
(e) To control direct and supervise all the different activities of the Sabha.
(f) To permit deviations in the budget sanctioned by the Vyavasthapak Samiti, in such manner as may be necessary: PROVIDED, however, that such diviations do not involve additional expense of more than Rs. 5,000/- for the year or violate any specific direction given by the Vyavasthapak Samiti, or the terms of any donation.
(g) To frame bye-laws not inconsistent with the object and : 103 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 rules of the Sabha, for the conduct of its work and to alter or amend them from time to time.
(h) To sanction purchase and sale of movable property not exceeding Rs. 10,000/- in any one transaction; PROVIDED that any single transaction of movable property exceeding Rs. 10,000/+ in value shall require the prior approval of the Vyavasthapak Samiti.
18.28. The functions of Karykarini Samiti of the Dharwad Sabha in terms of Rule 10 is as under:
10) FUNCTION OF KARYAKARINI SAMITI AND POWERS OF KARYAYAKARINI SAMITI-
(a) The Karyakarini Samiti shall be responsible to the day to day administration.
(b) The Karyakarini Samiti shall ordinarily meet once in three months at the head office of the Sabha or at any other place as may be determined by the Karyakarini Samiti. If necessary, the Sachiv shall have power to convene the meeting earlier in consultation with the Karyadhyaksha. The Karyadhyaksha may authorise the Sachiv to transact any business of the committee by circulation. Such decision shall be placed before the next meeting of the Karyakarini Samiti for consideration.
(c) A notice of 7 clear days shall ordinarily be given for a meeting of the Karyakarini Samiti except in case of emergency.
(d) The Quorum for the meeting of the Karyakarini Samiti whether ordinary or special shall be eight.
(e) The Karyakarini Samiti shall have power to remove any member from the rolls of the Sabha provided that the : 104 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 presence of such members is found detrimental to the interest of the Sabha.
(f) The Karyakarini Samiti may by resolution of 2/3 majority of the members present and voting press the Central Sabha to recall/ transfer the sachiv.
(g) To raise funds or borrow money on the security of the property of the Sabha for the purpose of the Sabha.
18.29. The functions of the Karyakarini Samiti of the Central Sabha and the State Sabha are similar if not identical. 18.30. In terms of Rule 3(j) Sachiv (Karyadarshi) is defined to be a person appointed by Central Sabha :
3(j) 'Sachiv' (Karyadarshi) means Sachiv (Secretary) appointed by the Central Sabha.
18.31. The functions of Sachiv are in terms of Rule 12(D) of the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha, which are reproduced hereunder:
D) Sachiv
(i) Shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Sabha;
(ii) Shall be fully responsible to the Karyakarini Samiti and Vyavasthapika Samiti;
(iii) Shall be the custodian of papers, files, documents, movable and immovable properties of the Sabha ;
: 105 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021
(iv) Keep money of the Sabha in the Bank or Banks as may be determined by the Karyakarni Samiti ;
(v) Shall be the custodian of the emblem of the Sabha;
(vi) Correspond on behalf of the Sabha;
(vii) Shall convey meeting of Vyasthapika Samiti and Karyakarini Samiti in consultation with the Adyaksha and Karyadhyaksha as the case may be;
(viii) Shall operate Bank A/c. subject to countersignature by the Karyadhyaksha or Koshadhyaksha as resolved by the Karyakarini Samiti;
(ix) Carry out the directions of the office bearers, Vyavsthapika Samiti and Karyakarini Samiti;
(x) Shall represent the Sabha in all legal proceedings. The Sachiv shall sue or be sued in the name of the Sabha;
(xi) Shall be the convener of any subcommittee 18.32. The Sachiv of the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha is appointed by the Central Sabha who shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Central Sabha, custodian of papers, files, documents, custodian of Emblem who would have the power to convene meeting, operate bank accounts, represent the Sabha in all legal proceedings, etc., This would again establish the superintendence and control that the Central Sabha has over the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha.
: 106 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 18.33. The Definition clause of the rules of the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha are reproduced hereunder:
(3) Definitions: In these rules unless the contexts otherwise requires:
(a) 'Sabha' means Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, (Karnataka) a registered society.
(b) 'Constitution' means the rules and regulations of the Sabha.
(c) 'Rule' means Rule of the constitution of the Sabha
(d) 'Central Sabha' means Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Thyagaraya Nagar, Chennai - 600 017
(e) 'Member' means any person admitted by the Central Sabha on the recommendation of the Executive Committee of the Sabha.
(f) 'Karnataka' means the areas comprised in the states of Karnataka & Goa, Daman and Diu, as specified in the first schedule of the Constitution of India.
(g) 'Pramanit Pracharak' means a person enrolled as such by the Central Sabha.
(h) "Year' means a financial year commencing from 1st day of April to 31st day of March (both days inclusive)
(i) 'Office Bearers' means the Adhyaksha (President), Karyadhyaksha (Working President), and Koshadhyaksha (Treasurer) and includes Acting Adhyaksha, Acting Karyadhyaksha and Acting Koshadhyaksha.
(j) 'Sachiv' (Karyadarshi) means Sachiv (Secretary) appointed by the Central Sabha.
(k) 'Sabha Employee' means the paid employee of the Sabha & includes teaching & non-teaching staff working in the Institutions run by the Sabha.
: 107 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 18.34. In terms of Rule 3(d) of the Dharwad Sabha, the Central Sabha has been defined. In terms of 3(e) a member means a person admitted as such by the Central Sabaha. In terms of 3(g), Pramanit Pracharak is a person as such enrolled by the Central Sabha. In terms of 3(j), a Sachiv is one who is appointed by the Central Sabaha.
18.35. The cross references made in the definition clause to the Central Sabha also indicates intimate connection of the Central Sabha and the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha.
18.36. Rule 28 of the Central Sabha provides as under:
Pranteeya Sabhas:
28. The Karyakarini Samiti may whenever necessary, establish Pranteeya Sabhas for expanding its work in areas where Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam and Kannada are spoken.
PROVIDED that the city of Madras shall remain under the direct charge of the Central Sabha.
The Central Sabha, when it is satisfied that any : 108 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 provincial branch has failed in properly carrying the functions of the provincial branch or is not functioning properly due to any internal dispute the Central Sabha shall have the powers to take over the administration of the provincial Sabha or suspend the constitution of the Provincial Sabha and take necessary steps to manage the work of the Provincial Sabha PROVIDED the procedure laid down in bye-laws is followed.
18.37. In terms of Rule 28 above, the Pranteeya Sabhas are treated more or less like Branches of the Central Sabha though registered separately and the Central Sabha would exercise powers of superintendence and on determining that the provincial Branch is not functioning properly, the Central Sabha has a power to takeover the administration of the provincial Sabha.
18.38. The above being various bye-laws applicable to the Central Sabha and the Pranteeya Sabha in Karnataka/Dharwad, the submission of Sri. M.V.Sheshachala, learned Senior Counsel appearing : 109 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 for the petitioner is that on the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha being registered under the KSR Act, the umbilical cord with the Central Sabha has been cut and therefore, the Central Sabha cannot exercise any superintendence power over the Pranteeya Sabha and or exercise the powers under Rule 28 of the Central Sabha.
18.39. The above Rules had been so formulated at the time of registration under the KSR Act the said Rules which have been extracted hereinabove clearly and categorically establish the relation and cross-relation between the Central Sabha and Pranteeya Sabha. 18.40. The Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha though registered subsequently makes use of the Logo of the Central Sabha. It describes itself as an Institution of national importance under the Act No.14 of 1964 and claims to be established in the year 1935.
: 110 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 18.41. Firstly, the usage of Logo would establish a close relationship with the Central Sabha, the reference to the recognition as an Institution of national importance can only refer to the Central Sabha, the aspect of being established in the year 1935 can only relate to the fact of the Central Sabha establishing the Pranteeya Sabha.
18.42. A perusal of the Rules and Regulations indicates that, the Central Sabha has in fact been defined under Section 3(d), a Member is defined under Section 3(e) to be a person admitted by the Central Sabha on the recommendation of the executive committee of the Sabha, Paramanit Pracharak has been defined under Section 3(g) to be a person enrolled as such by the Central Sabha, Sachiv has been defined under Section 3(j) to mean Sachiv (Secretary) appointed by the Central Sabha. Thus, there are several references : 111 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 made in the definition clause itself which refers to the Central Sabha it is in this background that the submission of Shri. M.V.Sheshachala, learned Senior Counsel that with the registration and formulation of rules and regulations of the Dharwad Sabha the umbilical cord has been cut has to be tested. If at all, the umbilical cord had been cut, there would be no reference to the Central Sabha and or the above factors as detailed above.
18.43. One of the aims and objects of the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha under Rule 4(b) is to aid and assist the Central Sabha for the fulfillment of its objects in Karnataka, thereby incorporating all the aims and objects of the Central Sabha into the Pranteeya Sabha.
18.44. In terms of Rule 5 extracted above, a person may be admitted to be a member of Dharwad Pranteeya : 112 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 Sabha by the Central Sabha to any one class of membership by the Karyakarini Samiti of the Pranteeya Sabha i.e. to say without the Central Sabha admitting to membership no one could become a member of the Pranteeya Sabha. The nomenclature of different classes of members is also more or less identical except a little bit of tweaking taking into consideration the local language.
18.45. In the Central Sabha there is a membership class called Samrakshaks but in the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha it is called Samrakshakas. In the Central Sabha there is a class of membership called Poshaks but in the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha they are called Poshakas. In the Central Sabha there is a class of membership called Ajeevan Sadasyas, but in the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha they are called Ajeevana Sadasyas. In the Central Sabha there is a class of membership called Sadharan Sadasyas but in the : 113 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha they are called as Samanya.
18.46. The nomenclature of the governing body and executive committee is also more or less identical. In the Central Sabha, the governing body is called as Vyavashtapak Samiti and in the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha it is called as Vyavashtapika Samiti. The executive committee of the Central Sabha is known as Karyakarini Samiti which is the same in Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha where it is called as Karyakarini Samiti.
18.47. There are various other similarities in the functions, nomenclature, etc., in both the institutions. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am unable to accept the contention of Sri. M.V.Sheshachala that the umbilical cord between the Central Sabaha and the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha has been cut. There are enough and : 114 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 more cross references and inter relation between both the organizations which would lead to an irresistible and irrefutable conclusion that both of them form part and parcel of one single organiaation, the Dharwad Sabha being only a branch though registered under a different enactment. 18.48. In view thereof, Rule 28 which has been extracted herein above, which relates to Pranteeya Sabha would apply to the Pranteeya Sabha and the Central Sabha can always exercise its rights under the said Rule 28.
18.49. Rule 28 provides that if the Central Sabha is satisfied that any provincial Branch/Pranteeya Sabha has failed to properly carryout the functions or is not carrying out the functions properly, the Central Sabha could takeover the administration of the : 115 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 provincial/Pranteeya Sabha and take steps to manage the work of the provincial/Pranteeya Sabha. 18.50. The operation and management of the Central Sabha and the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha are intertwined and the Dharwad Sabha having been established by the Central Sabha, by exercising powers under Rule 28, the administration could be taken over. 18.51. When there is a specific provision like Rule 28, I am of the considered opinion that the Central Sabha would have superintendence power over the Dharwad Sabha.
18.52. The above aspects being provided under Rules of Central Sabha and the said power can be exercised by the Central Sabha.
: 116 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 18.53. The question that then arises is whether the exercise of such power now made under Rule 28 can be said to be proper in the circumstances of the case. 18.54. Sri. M.B.Naragund, learned Senior Counsel for the Central Sabha submitted that there is a blatant violation of the constitution document of the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha, inasmuch as Rule 7(b),(c),(d) as also Rule 15 above are grossly violated. 18.55. A perusal of Rule 7(b) provides that one member from each district in Karnataka would have to be elected from the constituency of the Sadharan Sadasyas, whereas, Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha has some of the districts which has a representation of 9 persons, there was over representation from Belagavi and Dharwad districts, which could not be done, the representation has to be restricted to one person per district from and out of Sadharan Sadasyas.
: 117 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 18.56. One member was required to be elected from each district from the constituency of Pramanith Pracharaks which also has been violated. 18.57. Apparently voters list has also not been prepared or published which is a violation of the constitution document.
18.58. Rule 15 which prohibits an employee of the Sabha to contest an election as also been violated inasmuch as there are several staff members who have contested the elections.
18.59. It is in the above background that the Central Sabha had on 12.05.2020 written to the Secretary of the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha bringing these several violations to the notice of the said secretary and called upon for a reply to be furnished within seven : 118 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 days, failing which the Central Sabha would be constrained to initiate legal and appropriate action. 18.60. The Dharwad Pranteeya Sabaha had replied on 19.05.2020 stating that, there are numerous information sought for and since there is a COVID-19 pandemic which is prevalent requested time till situation becomes normal for a detailed reply to be issued. The Central Sabha had immediately on 20.05.2020 replied stating that this is only a ruse to delay the matter and had called upon the Pranteeya Sabha to furnish the details within seven days. This was replied on 21.05.2020 by the Pranteeya Sabha contending that the elections have been held in accordance with law and there are no lapses. 18.61. It is on receipt of such a vague reply that on 23.05.2020 a proceeding of the Central Sabha was held, wherein, the elections conducted to the : 119 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 Vyavasthapika Samiti of the Karnataka Pranteeya Sabha, Dharwad, for the period 2020-2024 was declared as null and void. The Pranteeya Sabaha was superseded and an administrator was to be appointed. In furtherance thereof, on 23.05.2020 an order was issued by the Central Sabha appointing a Special Secretary of the Karnataka Pranteeya Sabha with various powers as an Administrator to administer the Dharwad Sabha and on 08.06.2020 an Advisory committee of three members was appointed to advise the Special Secretary.
18.62. In the above background I'am of the considered opinion that the Central Sabha having powers under Rule 28 has followed the due procedure, issued notice, considered the reply given by the Pranteeya Sabha and orders have been passed, which cannot be faulted with.
: 120 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 18.63. The Central Sabha having superintendence power over the Dharwad Sabha in terms of Rule 28, such power has been properly exercised. In the above background, I answer point No.4 by holding that, the Central Sabha has superintendence power over the Dharwad Sabha and can exercise powers under Rule 28 of the Central Sabaha in respect of Dharwad Sabha. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the power under Rule 28 has been properly exercised by the Central Sabha and the appointment of the Special Secretary is proper and correct.
19. Answer to Point No.5: Whether once the Dharwad Sabha is registered under the KSR Act, 1960, the appointment of an Administrator or otherwise would be only under the KSR Act, 1960?
19.1. As answered in point No.4, the Central Sabha would have superintendence power over the Dharwad Sabha in terms of Rule 28 which has been exercised.
: 121 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 19.2. I have also held in answer to point No.4 that the operation and management of the Central Sabha and the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha are intertwined and the Dharwad Sabha having been established by the Central Sabha, by exercising powers under Rule 28, the administration could be taken over. The above aspects being provided under Rules of Central Sabha and the said power having been exercised by the Central Sabha, I have opined above that the said exercise of power is proper and correct. 19.3. The contention of Sri. M.V.Sheshachala, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, since the Dharwad Sabha is registered under the KSR Act, the appointment of an Administrator or otherwise would have to be made under the KSR Act. Section 25 of of the KSR Act, reads as under:
: 122 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 Section 25: -Meetings of the managing committee:-
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 shall have the following powers, namely, (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;
: 123 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021
(iii) when an enquiry is made under this section, the Registrar shall communicate the result of the enquiry to the society concerned.
19.4. Section 27(A) of the KSR Act, reads as under:
27-A. Appointment of Administrator- Notwithstanding anything in this Act ,-
(1) (a) where any society on account of the pendency of litigation or otherwise has not held or is unable to hold the annual general meeting; or
(b) where the term of office of the members of the governing body of a society has expired and a new governing body has not for any reason been constituted; or
(c) where on a report made by the Registrar or otherwise, on enquiry, the State Government considers it necessary in public interest so to do, the State Government may, by order published in the official Gazette, appoint an Administrator for such society for such period, not exceeding six months, as may be specified in the order to manage the affairs of the society;
Provided that for reasons to be recorded in writing, the State Government may, by like order, 1[extend either prospectively or retrospectively, the said period] by any further periods not exceeding six months at a time, so however subject to the provisions of clause (5), the aggregate period shall not extend beyond "[four years]; (2) the expenditure incurred by the State Government towards the salary and allowances of the Administrator shall be paid to the State Government from out of the funds of the society;
: 124 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021
(3) on the appointment of the Administrator under
clause (1) and during the period of such appointment the governing body of the society shall cease to exercise any powers and perform and discharge any functions or duties conferred or imposed on it by this Act, or its memorandum of association or the rules and regulations or any other law and subject to any directions which the State Government, may from time to time issue, all such functions or duties shall be performed or discharged by the Administrator;
(4) the Administrator shall, before the expiry of the period of his appointment take necessary action to convene the general body meeting of the society and hold elections for the constitution of the governing body; (5) if the Administrator is not, for reasons beyond his control, able to convene the general body meeting or inspite of such meeting being convened, the general body fails to elect the governing body, the Administrator shall forthwith send a report to the State Government, who may pass such orders as are considered necessary, either extending the period of appointment of the Administrator for a further period or if satisfied that public interest so requires, for the dissolution of the society; (5-A) the State Government may, if it thinks fit, appoint an Advisory Council to advise and assist the administrator appointed under sub-section (1) in the exercise of the powers and performance and discharge of the duties and functions conferred or imposed on him under this Act. The members of the Advisory Council shall hold office during the pleasure of the State Government]; (6) where an order of dissolution is passed under sub- section (5) the assets of the society shall vest in and the liabilities shall devolve on the State Government.] : 125 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 19.5. The enquiry under Section 25 is provided for where a majority of the members of the governing body or not less than 1/3rd members of the society request for holding an enquiry then the Registrar shall hold such an enquiry.
19.6. In the present case, it is the election of the Pranteeya Sabha which is in violation of the constituent documents of the Central sabha and the Pranteeya Sabha. The Central Sabha is not a member of the Pranteeya Sabha, but as a superintendence power. 19.7. In the event of any inter-se membership dispute, the remedy under Section 25 can be availed of by such members. In the present case, the position of the Central Sabha not being that of the member, but being that of superintendence over the Pranteeya Sabha, I am of the considered opinion that Section 25 of KSR Act would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances, the Central Sabha could independently : 126 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 exercise its rights under Rule 28 of the Central Sabha.
19.8. Insofar as the appointment of an Administrator under Section 27(A) is concerned, the right of appointment of such an Administrator can be exercised when an Annual General Meeting was not held due to a litigation or the term of the governing body having expired, no new governing body has been elected or on the basis of the report submitted by the Registrar of the societies after enquiry.
19.9. In the present case, as again observed above, in terms of Rule 28, the Central Sabha could takeover the administration of the provincial Sabha, suspend the constitution of the Provincial Sabha and take necessary steps to manage the work of the Provincial Sabaha. In pursuance thereof, a Special Secretary is appointed by the Central Sabha, who would : 127 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 administer the Pranteeya Sabha with the aid and advise of the Advisory Committee.
19.10. The action taken by the Central Sabha in pursuance of Rule 28 is different than though provided for under Section 25 or Section 27(A) of the KSR Act, 1960. 19.11. Merely because there is a presence of Section 25 and 27(A) in the KSR Act, it would not negate the powers of the Central Sabha under Rule 28 of its bye-laws. 19.12. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that, the Central Sabha can always invoke powers under Rule 28 of the bye-laws of the Central Sabha and any qualifying members could invoke the remedy under Section 25 of KSR Act. Both these powers and remedies operate in different situation and are independent of each other.
: 128 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 19.13. Hence, I answer point No.5 holding that irrespective of the registration of the Dharwad Sabha under the KSR Act, 1960, the Central Sabha could always exercise powers under Rule 28 of the Central Sabha and appoint an Administrator. This being a independent right of the Central Sabha, the members of Dharwad Sabha could always exercise their right for enquiry under Section 25 which operates in a different field.
20. Answer to Point No.6: Whether the Administrator/Special Officer and/or the Advisory Committee can enroll new members subsequent to their appointment?
20.1. Sri. Sunil Desai, learned counsel, by relying upon T.A.Kuttappan's case, K. Shantaraj case and M.G.Doddegowda's case, (Supra) has sought to contend that, no new member could be enrolled by the Special Secretary and or the Advisory Committee : 129 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 and that the elections when held would have to be held with the current members.
20.2. The nature and methodology of membership has been detailed herein above. No person can be made a member of the Pranteeya Sabha like that of the Dharwad Sabha without the approval of the Central Sabha. The Karyakarini Samiti of the Pranteeya Sabha can only recommend for a membership. It is only the Central Sabha which admits a person to be a member.
20.3. Though Sri. M.B.Naragund, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Central Sabha would contend that, since the Administrator has been appointed under Rule 28 and not under Section 27(A) of the KSR Act, the aforesaid decisions relied upon by Shri. Desai would not be applicable, I am of the considered opinion that the net effect and result of the Central : 130 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 Sabha exercising powers under Rule 28 is a takeover of the management and appointment of the Administrator though called the Special Secretary to administer the affairs of the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha who would in essence be performing the role of an Administrator.
20.4. In such a situation, I am of the considered opinion that, pending elections being held in accordance with bye-laws and constitutional documents of the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha, the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions would clearly apply to the Administrator appointed by the Central Sabha as that would have been applicable to the Administrator appointed by the State Government under Section 27 (A) of the KSR Act.
20.5. Hence, I answer point No.6 by holding that the Administrator/Special Secretary and or the Advisory : 131 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 Committee cannot enroll new members until the election process is completed.
21. What order:
21.1. W.P.No.103712/2021 and W.P.No.10400/ 2021 are partly allowed.
21.2. The prayer seeking for setting aside the order dated 23.05.2020 and 08.06.2020 are rejected.
21.3. It is declared that the Central Sabha can exercise superintendence power over the Pranteeya Sabha, in terms of Rule 28 of the bye-laws of the Central Sabha.
21.4. The Special Secretary/Advisory Committee is restrained from enrolling new members to the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha, until election process is completed with the existing members as on the date : 132 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W WP NO.104100/2021 of appointment of the Administrator/Special Secretary i.e., 23/05/2020.
21.5. The enrollment if any subsequent to the appointment of the Special Secretary is set aside which could however to be reconsidered by Karyakarini Committee when it comes in existence after the elections.
21.6. The Administrator/Special Secretary and the Advisory committee are directed to complete the election process strictly in accordance with the byelaws of the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE *Svh/-