Karnataka High Court
Ningayya, S/O Sangayya Chowkimath vs The Inspector General Of Registration ... on 11 January, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.226437 OF 2020 (EDN-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.202274 OF 2014 (GM-ST/RN)
W.P.NO.226437/2020:
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHIVANAND VIDYA VARDHAK SANGH
MASABINAL, TQ: BASVAN BAGEWADI,
DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586203
BY ITS SECRETARY,
SRI. VEERAGONDAPPA M. PARANNAVAR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ KAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
EDUCATION,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
RPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (EDUCATION) DEPARTMENT
OFFICE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
BELGUM DIVISION,
HALIYAL ROAD, DHARWAD-580001.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
2
OFFICE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
4. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
BASAVAN BAGEWADI, TQ: BASAVAN BAGEWADI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586203
6. NINGAYYA
S/O SANGAYYA CHOWKIMATH
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O MASABINAL, TQ: BASAVAN BAGEWADI,
DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586203
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5;
SRI. B.B.PATIL AND SRI. R.J.BHUSARE, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER OF RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 02.03.2020 IN FILE
BEARING NO.f8/SÁ²C/SÁºÀÄvÀ/C£ÀÄ/25/2011-12/3525 VIDE
ANNEXURE-J AND ITS CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER OF
RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 15.06.2020, IN FILE NO.
f2/SÁ¥Ëæ±Á/².«.ªÀ.¸ÀA./ªÀĸÀ©£Á¼À/2020-21/895 VIDE ANNEXURE-
K AND ETC.
W.P.NO.202274/2014:
BETWEEN:
NINGAYYA
S/O SANGAYYA CHOWKIMATH
41 YEARS, SECRETARY,
SRI SHIVANAND VIDYA VARDHAKA SANGH,
MASABINAL, BASAVAN BAGEWADI,
DISTRICT BIJAPUR. ...PETITIONER
3
(BY SRI. B.B.PATIL AND SRI. R.J.BHUSARE, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
AND THE COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS
7TH FLOOR, BWSSB WING, CAVERY BHAVAN,
K.G.HALLI, D'SOUZA LAYOUT,
ASHOK NAGAR, BANGALORE-560001.
2. DISTRICT REGISTRAR
SOLAPUR ROAD,
BIJAPUR.
3. MALLKAJAPPA B. BAGEWADI
MAJOR,
CHAIRMAN,
SHIVANAND V.V.SANGH, MASABINAL,
(A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE
KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960)
TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST: BIJAPUR
4. VEERAGONDAPPA M. PARENNAVAR
S/O MALLAPPA PARENNAVAR
MAJOR,
SECRETARY,
SHIVANAND V.V.SANGH, MASABINAL
(A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE
KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960)
TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST: BIJAPUR
5. GOLAPPA
S/O SHIVAPPA DEGINAL
AGE: 68 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
6. ANNAPPA
S/O MALKAPPA NAGASHETTY
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
4
7. GURULINGAPPA
S/O MALLAPPA NAANDI
AGE: 68 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
8. DANAPPA
S/O BHEEMAPPA NATEKAR
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
9. VEERANAGOUDAPPA
S/O MALLAPPA PARENNAVAR
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
10. SHIVAPPA
S/O GUTTAPPA PARENNAVAR
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
ALL ARE R/O MASIBINAL VILLAGE,
TQ: BASVANABAGEWADI
DIST: BIJAPUR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 AND 2;
SRI. BASAVARAJ KAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOs.3 AND 4;
SRI. R.S.LAGALI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.5 TO 10)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.01.2014 IN
NO.JINOKAVI/SANGHA/18/2013-14 AT ANNEXURE-S PASSED
BY DISTRICT REGISTRAR, BIJAPUR AND ETC.
THESE PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDER ON 07.09.2021 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
5
ORDER
Writ Petition No.202274/2014 is filed by a Person claiming to be the Secretary of a Trust, challenging an order dated 29.01.2014 (Annexure-S) passed by the respondent No.2, at an enquiry under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act of 1960') by which the annual returns submitted by Shivanand Vidya Vardhak Sangh for the year 2011-12 and list of committee members for the 2012-13 and the annual returns for the year 2012-13 and list of committee members for the year 2013-14 of Shivananda Vidyavardaka Sangha, a society registered as Reg.No.68/2004-05, was accepted. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus for a direction to the respondent No.2 to hold an independent enquiry as regards the audit reports of the society named. Shivanand Vidya Vardhak Sangha.
6
2. In this case, both the Trust and the Society carry the same name and hence wherever relevant they shall be referred to as "Trust" or "Society". The petitioner claims to be the secretary of Sri Shivanand Vidya Vardhak Sangh (henceforth to referred as 'Trust' for short) which was registered as a public trust on 21.10.1971 under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (henceforth referred to as 'BPT Act, 1950'). He claimed that the Trust had established an English composite Junior college at Masabinal and new High school at Basavana Bagewadi. He claimed that the Trust owned land in Sy.No.89 of Masabinal measuring 05 acres 10 guntas and Sy.No.135 of B.Bagewadi measuring 01 acre 38 guntas. The Trust was allegedly receiving enormous amount in the form of grant from the Government. The petitioner alleged that he along with 10 members were elected on 05.06.1992 to the Governing body of the trust for the period 05.06.1992 to 04.06.1994. A report of the change of management of Trust was filed before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, which was contested by certain persons. The Assistant 7 Charity Commissioner in terms of his order dated 01.07.1994 in Enquiry No.695/1992 accepted the change in Management, which was challenged by the objectors before the Charity Commissioner in Appeal No.10/1994 where the parties were directed to maintain status quo.
3. When things stood thus, it is claimed that a person named Sidramappa Natikar also filed a report in the change of management of Trust before the Assistant Charity Commissioner which too was accepted after an Enquiry in No.534/1994 on 17.09.1994. This was challenged by a person by named Shivanagouda before the Charity Commissioner in Revision No.3/1995. He alleged that the supporters of Shivanagouda submitted a change report to enter names of 04 persons and 02 office bearers claiming that they were the co-opted members of the Trust which was contested by the petitioner herein. The Assistant Charity Commissioner conducted an enquiry in No.305/1995 and accepted the report on 29.04.1995. This was challenged by Basanagouda Sahebagouda Biradar in 8 R.P. No.10/1995 where the Charity Commissioner stayed the order of Assistant Charity Commissioner.
4. When things stood thus, Shivanagouda and his supporters filed another change report before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, who after an enquiry in No.292/1996 accepted it on 19.04.1996, which was challenged by the petitioner before the Charity Commissioner in Rev. No.9/1997. Later Shivanagouda filed another application on 08.07.1999 to accept the change report seeking to enter names of office bearers of the Governing body, pursuant to an alleged general body meeting convened by Nagashetty, a self styled secretary.
5. When the disputes were pending between various groups before the Charity commissioner and Assistant Charity Commissioner, the Karnataka Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1997 (henceforth referred as 'Act of 1997' for short) came into force w.e.f. 01.05.2004. It repealed the BPT Act, 1950. Thus, the office of the Charity 9 Commissioner and Assistant Charity Commissioner under the BPT Act, 1950 were closed. Consequently, all proceedings stood closed. The petitioner alleged that the Trust was not covered by the Act of 1997 in view of a clarification issued by Government of Karnataka dated 04.06.2005 addressed to the Charity Commissioner, where it was mentioned that the Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920 would apply to educational institutions and other institutions that were not covered under the Act of 1997. It was also stated that institutions not covered by the Act of 1997, may approach the District Court under Sections 3 and 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920 for necessary orders. This position was again clarified by the circulars dated 19.03.2004 and 04.06.2005. The petitioners claim this position of law was affirmed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2866/2008.
6. The petitioner therefore, approached the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bijapur in M.A.No.18/2007 for quashing the order passed by the Charity Commissioner in 10 Enquiry No.489/1999. A compromise was entered into in M.A. No.18/2007 between the warring members of the Trust by which the petitioner and respondents therein became members of the Trust.
7. It is alleged that the respondent No.4 in an attempt to play fraud on the Trust constituted a society with the same name, which was registered with the respondent No.2 under the Act of 1960. When M.A. No.18/2007 was compromised, the respondent No.4 filed a return with the respondent No.2 stating that the petitioner and others have become members of the Society. A person named Shivanagouda declared himself as the Chairman of the society and issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment of 03 teachers in one of the Institutions of Trust. The petitioner questioned the advertisement before this Court in Writ Petition No.30548/2003, where Shivanagouda filed a memo on 25.10.2005 stating that a new governing body had been constituted for the society and "that many other Trusts 11 imparting education got themselves registered with the District Registrar of Societies. Hence, the Trust was also registered as R.68/2004-05." The petitioner alleged that it was only then that he came to know that the society carrying the same name as that of the Trust was registered. Writ Petition No.30548/2003 filed was disposed off in terms of the compromise dated 04.10.2010. (The petitioner has deliberately not produced the memo dated 25.11.2005 though he claimed that it was produced at Annexure-F.)
8. The petitioner alleged that the Trust was a public trust and therefore, Shivanagouda and respondent No.4 could not have formed a society parallel to the existing Trust. He therefore, contended that the constitution of the society did not supersede the Trust. The petitioner denied that he was issued with any notice of the alleged meeting dated 03.07.2004 referred in the memo dated 25.10.2005. In order to buttress his contention, he claimed that Shivangouda had declared in an affidavit before the 12 District Registrar on 17.08.2005 that the petitioner was in no way related to the society formed by him. Therefore, the petitioner claimed that the formation of the alleged committee leading upto the formation of the society was false and designed to mismanage the Trust. The petitioner also relied upon a letter dated 03.08.2005 issued by respondent No.2 that the society was in no way connected to the Trust. He alleged that the society had filed its returns for the period ending 31.05.2005 and successive years, which did not tally with the huge funds and grants received by the Trust from the State. He alleged that the total receipts and expenditure of the society were so insignificant that it debunked that the society had any connection with the trust.
9. Based on the representation of the petitioner, the Principal and Ex.Officio DD CTE Jamakhandi recommended the appointment of an administrator for the society on 22.05.2006. In the meanwhile, the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Bijapur submitted a report indicating 13 various proceedings between the factions in Trust and that Shivanagouda had formed a society in the year 2004. In the light of such recommendations, the Commissioner of Public Instructions, Dharwad appointed Block Education Officer, Basavana Bagewadi as a Special Officer of the Trust for six months under Section 67(1) of Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The term of the Special Officer was extended from time to time. When things stood thus, the Commissioner of Public Instructions passed an order dated 25.07.2008 withdrawing the Special Officer and directed him to hand over charge to the Chairman of Managing Committee of the society which was registered with respondent No.2. The petitioner challenged this order in Writ Petition No.11187/2008. This Writ Petition was disposed off in terms of a compromise wherein it was allegedly agreed that the society was in no way related or connected with the Trust and that they are distinct and separate. (The petitioner has not enclosed the compromise petition). Thereafter petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.61/2010 under Section 92 of CPC which was 14 dismissed. The petitioner again followed it up by a complaint alleging offences against respondent No.4 in forging the signatures of the members of the Trust for the purpose of registering the society. This was challenged by respondent No.4 before this Court in Criminal Petition No.16031/2013.
10. It is stated that on 15.04.2004, the respondent No.4 filed an application with the respondent No.2 for registration of the Society. The said application was signed by 11 members of the society. Later, out of the 11 members, three members lodged a complaint alleging that the signatures were forged and the case in that regard was registered in C.C.No.269/2014 before the JMFC, Basavana Bagevadi. This being the position, the petitioner alleging interference in the affairs of Trust by the Society and respondent No.4 lodged a complaint before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 issued notice to the respondent No.4 and later passed an order dated 29.01.2014 by which he held that the Society and the 15 Trust were one and the same and accepted the annual retrns and the list of committee members for the years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2012-13, 2013-14. The petitioner sought and obtained information that the society came into existence from 16.06.2004 and therefore, claimed that the respondent No.2 could not hold that the Trust is converted into a society.
11. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2014, the petitioner has filed the present petition contending as follows;
i. That the respondent No.2 could not have recorded a finding that the societies registration Act, 1960 and the sanga registered under the Bombay Public Trust, 1950 were one and the same as it was beyond its jurisdiction. It is also contended that such a finding could not have been recorded in view of the compromise entered into W.P.No.11187/2008. It is claimed that in terms of the compromise petition, it was clearly agreed that the society and the sanga were two 16 distinct and separate entities and had nothing to do with each other.
ii. Respondent No.2 has wrongly recorded a finding unmindful of the various disputes pending before various courts.
iii. The issue of questioning the registration of the society should not be interpolated with the issue of an enquiry under Section 25 of the Karnataka Society Registration Act. The name of the respondent No.4 had lapsed by the operation of the law and therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent No.2 to take suitable remedial action. iv. That the education institutions were run by the Sanga and the Society was not running any institutions and therefore, the finding recorded by the respondent No.2 would have a deleterious effect on the running of the education institutions.
12. The learned counsel relied upon the following case law to contend that even if the society was 17 constituted for charitable purposes, the Trust continued to be governed under the BPT Act, 1950 and therefore there was no need to get it registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920) as a charitable Trust:
i) Krishna Kumar G Dholakiya vs. Assistant Registrar of Societies, Rajkot. [(2002) 3 GLR 567]
(ii) Prakashacherya Kadlasker vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Others [Writ Petition No.65689/2009 D.D.: 10.03.2011]
(iii) Vinodkumar M. Malavia and others Vs. Maganlal Mangaldas Gameti and others [(2013) 15 SCC 394] relating to question whether unification of a society with a trust results in unification of the property of the society.
(iv) Amiya Vilas Swami and others vs. Shankha Brita Das and others [2008 (3) Kant L.J. 16] 18
(v) Sri. Jagadguru Basavaraj Pattadarya Mahaswamigalu vs. The State of Karnataka and others [W.P.No.64520/2011]
(vi) Deewan Singh and others vs. Rajendra Pd. Ardevi and others [(2007) 10 SCC 528]
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the settlement arrived at in W.P.No.11187/2008, which read as follows;
"In the light of the said agreement and in the best interest of the students, it is agreed between the petitioner and respondent No.6 that the governing body of S.V.V.Sangha so constituted in the meeting convened on 15.02.2010 be given charge of the affairs of S.V.V. Sangha. The parties to be above petition have agreed to withdraw all the petitions and cases pending before various forum as regard the dispute between the members of S.V.V sangha masibinal".19
14. It is contended that pursuant to the settlement, a Governing body was elected for the period 15.02.2010 to 15.02.2015 and the said governing body was approved by the respondent No.2 under Section 13 of the Act of 1960. The petitioner herein held the post of Joint Secretary in the said elected body. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is estopped from now contending that the Trust was not converted into a society. It is also contended that the BPT Act, 1950 was repealed and that there was no law which governed the Trust. They contended that the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institution and Charitable Endorsement Act, 1999 repealed the BPT Act, 1950 and in that regard, the Commissioner of the Department of Endorsement issued a circular dated 20.01.2005 clarifying that education and non-religious institutions registered under the BPT Act, 1950 would be governed by the Charitable and Religious Act, 1920 or by the Act of 1960. It was in that context that the deceased Shivana Gowda and others members unanimously resolved to register the society under the Act of 1960. He contended that the 20 proceedings before the Principal District Court, Bijapur in Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.5, 6 and 7 of 2006 were compromised and the petitioner herein was a party to the said compromise. It is contended that due to disputes between members, an administrator was appointed and later withdrawn. The petitioner challenged the order withdrawing the administrator in W.P.No.11187/2014, which ended in a settlement. The petitioner was appointed as a Joint Secretary of the Managing Committee of the Society during the year 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12. It is claimed that petitioner has filed the present writ petition by suppressing the above fact. It is claimed that petitioner himself sought for approval of the governing body of the society, which was approved in the general body meeting dated 21.09.2012. This was approved by the District Registrar in terms of his Order dated 09.04.2013. It is also claimed that petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent No.2 regarding conversion of the trust to the society. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner admitted the lawful registration of a society and participated in each and 21 every proceeding of the society including the maintenance and administration of the education institution. It is also contended that in response to the letter dated 16.02.2013 issued by the respondent No.2, the petitioner himself sought for an amendment of the Trust, which is approved in terms of the resolution dated 10.03.2013. Therefore, it is contended that writ petition is wholly mischievous and is an attempt to derail the smooth running of the institution by the society. He relied on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Prakasha Charya Kadlasker vs. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative society and others in W.A.No.6134/2011 and contended that the question whether the Trust was converted into society or whether the society could be registered the same name as that of the Trust and the whether the properties of the Trust were unified with the society, around questions of facts that have to be adjudicated by the Civil Court and not by the High Court in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
22
15. This Court did not have the benefit of perusing the memo filed in W.P.No.30548/2003 and the compromise petition entered into in W.P.No.11187/2014 and therefore secured the file from the registry and found that the compromise reads as follows:
"PETITION UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE.
Petitioner and respondent no.6 in the above petition submit as under:
1. The petitioner had filed the above petition calling in question the order of the Commissioner, Department of Public Instructions, Dharwad withdrawing the Block Education Officer, Basavana Bagewadi as Special Officer of S.V.V. Sangha with immediate effect and further directing the handing over the charge to the Chairman of the Management Committee of the society which was registered with the District Registrar of Societies Respondent No.6 here in.
2. This Hon'ble Court was pleased to issue an interim order. The interim order was extended from time to time and rule was issued pending the disposal of the petition. The parties to the above petition had filed a M.A. No. 18 /2007 before the District Court Bijapur. The Hon'ble District Court 23 was pleased to refer the matter to mediation and in furtherance of the said mediation a meeting of the petitioner and respondent no.6 and other members of S.V.V. Sangha was called for.
3. During the pendency of the petition the petitioner and respondent no.6 under the auspices of elders taking the need of the hour into consideration and the welfare of the students, and the order of the District Court in M.A. No. 18/2007 convened a meeting of S.V.V. sangha on 15.02.2010. The notice of the said meeting was issued on 01.02.2010 to the members of the S.V.V. Sanghn registered under the Bombay Trust Act and the same was convened at the Pre-University College Masabinal.
4. The said meeting held on 15.02.2010 was presided by Shri Shivanagouda Rudragouda Patil, respondent no.6 in the above petition. The meeting was attended by the petitioner and other members of S.V.V. Sangha. In the said meeting a new governing body was elected. The tenure of the said governing body was fixed as 15.02.2010 to 14.02.2015. The minutes of the said meeting is produced herewith as ANNEXURE - A1.
5. In the light of the said agreement and in the best interest of the students it is agreed 24 between the petitioner and respondent no.6 that the governing body of S.V.V. Sangha so constituted in the meeting convened on 15.02.2010 be given charge of the affairs of S.V.V. sangha. The parties to the above petition have agreed to withdraw all the petitions and cases pending before various forum as regards the dispute between the members of S.V.V. sangha Masibinal."
Note:- The petitioner in the above petition was the Secretary of Sri.Shivanand Vidya Vardhak Sangh (Trust) while the respondent No.6 was Chairman of Sri.Shivanand Vidya Vardhak Sangh (society).
16. The dispute essentially between the parties in this writ petition relates to the existence of a Trust and whether the members of the Trust constituted it as a Society, in view of the repeal of BPT Act, 1950 by the Act of 1997. The petitioner claims that the Government of Karnataka had issued a clarification that notwithstanding such repeal, educational institutions established shall be governed by The Charitable And Religious Trust Act, 1920. On the contrary, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 claimed that 25 keeping the best interest of the students and a circular issued by the State that educational institutions established by a Trust registered under the BPT Act, 1950 would be governed under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, the Trust was converted into a society.
17. A perusal of the compromise recorded in W.P.No.11187/2014 makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner was privy to the fact that the Trust was converted to a society. The fact that the petitioner was an office bearer of the Managing Committee of the Society was not denied by him. He also did not deny that he filed the list of managing committee of the society elected at the Annual General Meeting held on 21.09.2012. He therefore, cannot now turn around and claim that the Trust was not converted into a society. Though the petitioner has persistently denied the existence of a Society, yet the educational institution established by the Trust as well as the property on which it is situate has come into the 26 administrative control and management of the society. All these circumstances undeniably demonstrate that the erstwhile members of the Trust had transformed it into a society for ease of administration and the petitioner was an officer bearer of the managing committee of the society. The impugned order by which the list of managing committee for the year 2011-12 and 2012-13 was approved, cannot be challenged by the petitioner on any ground whatsoever. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner though indicate the circumstances under which a Trust could be registered as a society, the same are to be pressed into service in a civil suit and certainly not in this writ petition, that too at the behest of the petitioner herein who held a supervening post in the society. The case law relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the peculiar facts of this case as the petitioner himself partook in the administration of the Society. The case law relied deals with the procedure of registration of a society for charitable purposes and whether such a society must first 27 be registered under the BPT Act, 1950 as a charitable Trust.
18. Hence, the writ petition No.202274/2014 fails and is dismissed with costs.
19. It is seen that the petitioner had though participated in the affairs of the society and had corresponded with the authorities under the Act of 1960, yet had failed to produce the documents. On the contrary, indulged in a frivolous writ petition, resulting in wastage of precious judicial time which could have been dedicated to a more deserving case. In order to deter such frivolous/reckless/mischievous proceeding, it is inevitable but to impose exemplary costs, quantified at a sum of Rs.50,000/- payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within four weeks from today. Failing this, the Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur is directed to take steps to recover the cost as an arrears of land revenue and the cost of such recovery shall be quantified and collected from the petitioner and his properties.
28
20. This Court has not expressed any opinion whether the Trust is dissolved and whether its properties have vested with the society. Any person interested in the Trust other than the petitioner is entitled to initiate proceedings before the concerned Civil Court. It is for the Civil Court to decide whether the Trust was dissolved in accordance with law and whether the constitution of the Society was by the members of the Trust and whether the properties of the Trust vested in the society or not. IN W.P NO.226437/2020
21. The petitioner in W.P.No.226437/2020 being the Society has challenged an order dated 02.03.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 and the order dated 15.06.2020 passed by the respondent No.3. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondents to accept the list of governing body approved by the 4th respondent.
22. The petitioner claims that subsequent to the filing of W.P.No.202274/2014, in view of the order of 29 status-quo granted in the said petition, the respondent No.4 renewed the registration of a society and its managing committee which was subject to the outcome of W.P.No.202274/2014. It is claimed that on the recommendation of the respondent No.3, the respondent No.2 unilaterally passed an order dated 10.12.2018 appointing an administrator to the schools managed by the petitioner. This was challenged by not only the petitioner but the respondent No.6 in W.P.Nos.200004/2019 and 200023-24/2019. This Court disposed off the said writ petitions by order dated 14.06.2019 and remitted the case back to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 heard the parties and in terms of the order dated 02.03.2020 held that there was an on going dispute between the members of the Trust from the year 1995 till the year 2010. But yet the petitioner was registered in the year 2004 and therefore held that prima-facie the registration of a Society was ill-motivated and even after disposal of W.P.No.11187/2008, the Society that was registered in the year 2004 continued to exists. He held that two rival 30 fractions in the society came together only for the purpose of filing up the posts of three teachers in the Pre-University College by giving false information to the Court. Since the education institutions run by the society was admitted to grant in aid, he therefore directed the respondent No.3 to bring to the notice of the Court the actual state of affairs.
23. The respondent No.3, without adverting to the directions of the respondent No.2, went on a tangent and held that the petitioner had not registered the educational institutions run by it under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and therefore, the petitioner did not fall within the administrative control of Department of Education. He stated that under Section 30 and 31 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1993, only those institutions which had obtained registration and recognition would fall within its jurisdiction. Hence, he stated that since the petitioner had not registered the education institutions run by it under the Karnataka Education Act, 1993, the proposals, 31 complaints and grievances etc., of the petitioner would not be entertained.
24. The petitioner claims that the Trust and the Society were one and same entity and necessity of registration of the Trust as Society arose due to the repeal of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The learned counsel submitted that respondent No.3 acted beyond its jurisdiction in holding that the petitioner had to get an approval of the order passed in W.P.No.11187/2008 from the competent authority, in view of the fact that respondent No.6 who was the only contesting member, had conceded to the fact that the Trust and the Society were one and the same entity.
25. The respondent No.6 has contested this writ petition and contended that new high school and other institutions established at Masabinal and Basavanbagevadi were run by the Trust and not the Society and therefore, the respondent No.2 and 3 were right in holding that the petitioner would not be entertained henceforth on any 32 complaint, proposal or grievance. He submitted that the petitioner had not registered the institutions as being established by it but was claiming the benefit of its registration / recognition under the Trust. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 need not be disturbed.
26. The question whether the Trust was converted into society or not and the question whether the registration - recognition of the educational institutions by the Trust would enure to the benefit of the society and whether the property of the Trust merged with the Society are all questions of fact and law that had to be adjudicated by the Civil Court and not by the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
27. A Division Bench of this Court while considering the case of conversion of a Trust into a Society in K.P.Devaiah and another vs. State of Karnataka and others [2004(4) KLJ 209(DB)] held that issues concerning the Constitution of a society are to be adjudicated before the Civil Court and not by the statutory 33 authorities. In view of the fact that the petitioner and respondent No.6 have already reported compromise in W.P.No.11187/2008 between them, they cannot raise any dispute regarding the conversion of the Trust into a Society.
28. In that view of the matter, W.P.No.226437/2020 is allowed and the order dated 02.03.2020 passed by respondent No.2 and consequential order dated 15.06.2020 passed by respondent No.3 are quashed.
29. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall not disturb the registration/recognition of the educational institutions established under the auspices of the Trust and shall not interfere with the administration of these institutions by the petitioners until the issue is decided by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ/NBM