AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J. - The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 30-9-2014 impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. By the said order, the second respondent has recalled the Certificate dated 5-2-2014 under which the acceptance of the returns filed for the period 1-4-2011 to 31-3-2013 was issued in favour of the petitioner.
The person representing the petitioner-society claims to be its Chairman. The society is registered with the object of imparting education in the premises which is situate at Sy. Nos. 224 and 226, Saluhunase near Kaggalipura, Udayapura Post, Kanakapura Main Road, Bengaluru. The issue presently in this petition is however with regard to the management of the society. The petitioner contends that the Chairman of the old management viz., the third respondent herein approached the person who is presently representing the petitioner as the Chairman to takeover the management of the society due to his advanced age and personal problems of the outgoing committee members. In that regard, resolutions are said to have been passed on 9-11-2013 and 9-12-2013 inducting 9 new members to the Governing Committee/Managing Committee of the society. In that view, it is claimed that all the erstwhile members resigned from the society. Pursuant thereto, the returns filed by the new management is stated to have been accepted by the second respondent and a Registration Certificate dated 5-2-2014 at Annexure-C was issued.
The petitioner in that background is referring to the manner in which the new Management Committee conducted the affairs of the society in running the educational institutions. The grievance of the petitioner is that though this was the position, the second respondent without providing an opportunity to the petitioner has passed the order dated 30-9-2014 whereby the acceptance of the returns for the period from 1-4-2011 to 31-3-2013 was made and the certificate dated 5-2-2014 issued in that regard are withdrawn. It is in that view'' the petitioner claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court.
The third respondent has filed detailed objections to the writ petition. The contention as put forth by the petitioner is disputed. The very contention relating to the claim of the petitioner that the members including that of the managing committee had resigned and therefore a new committee headed by the person representing the petitioner herein has assumed management of the society is seriously disputed. In that view, it is contended that when disputed questions of fact arise for consideration, the same cannot be considered in a writ petition. It is contended that the said issue relating to the validity of the managing committee is the subject-matter arising in O.S. No. 1767 of 2014 and also the dispute between the parties relating to the society is the subject-matter in another suit in O.S. No. 3708 of 2014, which are pending consideration. Insofar as the management of the society which is claimed as per the averments in the petition, the third respondent has controverted the same and in effect has sought to contend that the person who is now seeking to represent the petitioner had indulged in illegal activities which has resulted in criminal complaint filed by the Governing Committee headed by the third respondent. In that circumstance, it is contended that the returns filed by the person seeking to represent the petitioner in this petition was not a valid one and the very certificate dated 5-2-2014 issued indicated that if the documents submitted were not as per law and if there are any complaints, the same is liable to be withdrawn. Hence, it is contended that in that situation, the second respondent has taken note of these aspects and the order dated 30-9-2014 is passed which does not call for interference.
In the light of the contentions, I have heard Sri Shanmukhappa, Sri Y.D. Harsha and Sri S.V. Bhat, learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the petition papers.
As already noticed, though several other allegations relating to the management/mismanagement of the society is being traded against each other by the person representing the petitioner in the instant petition and the third respondent, who contends to have control over the society, such dispute essentially is with regard to valid membership and the Governing Committee of the society. The document at Annexure-C, dated 5-2-2014 will disclose that the second respondent having received the returns relating to the Karnataka Technical Education Society for the periods from 1-4-2011 to 31-3-2013 has accepted the same and issued the certificate subject to the conditions stated therein. The Condition No. 4 therein indicates that if there are any objections/defects relating to the documents submitted and if it is found to be invalid, the acceptance letter will be liable to be cancelled.
The learned Counsel for the respondents in fact has referred to the same with emphasis and in that light has indicated the nature of the contentions taken in their objection statement and also reference is made to the documents produced on 20-5-2015 to point out that the documents relied on by the petitioner for submitting the returns are fabricated and as such the second respondent was justified in passing the order dated 30-9-2014 as at Annexure-A.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has however referred to the situation where under the third respondent along with the other Governing Committee members had submitted the resignation letters and in that circumstance, when all the members had resigned, an induction of the new members headed by the person representing the petitioner herein was made and accordingly the returns had been filed in compliance of the requirement under law. Since all the members had resigned, the reconstitution was required to be made in the Extraordinary General Body Meeting. It is further contended that even if such action was to be taken by the second respondent, an opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioner. In the absence of the same, it is contended that the order impugned is not sustainable.
Prima facie a perusal of the order impugned would disclose that the second respondent in the order dated 30-9-2014 (Annexure-A) has at SI. No. 5 referred to the complaint made by the third respondent herein against the person representing the petitioner herein viz., Dr. S. Mahalingam. The Consideration No. 6 in the said order refers to the notice that is said to have been issued to both the parties and the reply submitted by the parties. The reply was in the same manner as is being contended in the instant petition by the rival parties relating to the resignation said to have been submitted by the old Committee. The same being disputed was also referred and in that circumstance, the second respondent has arrived at the conclusion that in the nature of the dispute raised, the returns filed and accepted earlier by issue of the certificate will have to be nullified and in that regard has withdrawn the same by the order impugned dated 30-9-2014 as at Annexure-A.
In a normal circumstance, despite the same if any further detailed consideration was thought fit to be ordered by this Court to be conducted by the second respondent by providing opportunity of hearing, it would have been appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the second respondent. However, the question herein is as to whether such a course is to be adopted? In that regard, as noticed, the very claim of the petitioner that the third respondent and the other members under his management had resigned is seriously disputed by the third respondent. In such situation, when there are serious disputes relating to question of fact which will require determination based on the evidence that would be tendered, the second respondent would not be in a position to determine the same keeping in view the nature of the rival contentions.
The decision in the case of Nanjundaswamy v. The District Registrar of Societies and Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Gulbarga District, Gulbarga and Others 2010 (4) Kar. LJ. 350 relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent will indicate that a learned Judge of this Court with reference to the decisions rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that in such situation, when the issue is as to whether the elections have been held appropriately; whether the any person had resigned from the office of the President of the society; who represents the society etc. arise for consideration and if any party'' is aggrieved by the order of the District Registrar, it is open to such person to establish the claim in a Competent Civil Court.
Therefore, in the instant case, if in the background of the rival contentions urged by the petitioner and the third respondent the situation is assessed, it would indicate that as per the decision rendered by this Court the resolution of such issues can only be made before the Civil Court. Insofar as the parties herein, the dispute in fact is already before the Civil Court in two suits, one filed by petitioner in O.S. No. 1767 of 2014 and the other filed by the group supporting the third respondent, in O.S. No. 3708 of 2014. The issues regarding the management of the Karnataka Technical Education Society relating to the returns filed and in that light the Acceptance Certificate dated 5-2-2014 issued and the cancellation of the same by the impugned order dated 30-9-2014 will also stand resolved based on the result of the suits. If any other relief is to be sought either as an additional main relief or as an interim measure, the same can also be appropriately incorporated and sought therein which will be considered by that Court in accordance with law. In that background, either interfering with the order impugned dated 30-9-2014 or allowing any other interim relief herein to continue would not be appropriate.
However, it is to be made clear that in such consideration to be made in the suit neither the Acceptance Certificate dated 5-2-2014 nor the impugned order dated 30-9-2014 will be relied on as a concluded or proved document in the suit, but the Trial Court would determine the aspect relating to the validity of the membership and the Governing Committee in the background of the independent evidence that would be tendered before the Court below. The documents dated 5-2-2014 and 30-9-2014 will yield to the finding rendered in the suit. Therefore, though I see no reason to interfere with the order impugned in this petition, all contentions are left open to be urged in the suits.
Before parting, to be fair to the learned Counsel for the third respondent, it is also necessary to refer to the contention that had been raised by him with regard to the very maintainability of the instant petition by contending that it does not satisfy the requirement of Section 5 of the Act and the person representing the petitioner cannot claim to be the Chairman who has been authorised by a resolution to represent the petitioner. To buttress such contention, the learned Counsel had also relied on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Illachi Devi (dead) by L.Rs and Others v. Jain Society, Protection of Orphans India and Others AIR 2003 SC 3397 and the decision of this Court in the case of B.H. Inamdar v. B.F. Swamy ILR 1991 Kar. 1654. However, I do not find the need to advert to the details on that aspect of the matter in view of the nature of the conclusion reached above and in that view, when the validity of all aspects is left open to be considered in the suits.
The petition is accordingly dismissed, subject to the observation contained in paragraph 13 herein above. No costs.