AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Krishna S.Dixit, J
Both the petitioners being the very same Society, are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for laying a challenge to the order dated 20.11.2021 made by the Administrator of the second respondent-Society which is none other than the petitioner-Society; the operative portion of the impugned order at Annexure-R in the vernacular, reads as under:
ಅದೇಶ ಪ್ರಸ್ತಾವನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಿವರಿಸಲಾದ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಅಂಶಗಳ ಮೇರೆಗೆ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಅಮೆಚೂರ್ ಕಬಡ್ಡಿ ಅಸೋಸಿಯೇಷನ್ (ರಿ), ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಇದರಲ್ಲಿ ಸದ್ಯÀ ತ್ವ ಪಡೆದ ಮತ್ತು ಅಫಿಲಿಯೇಷನ್ ಆದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮೂಲ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳಿಂದ ದೃಡ¥ಟಿ À್ಟgುÀ ವುದರಿಂದ "ತುಮಕೂರು ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ಅಮೆಚೂರ್ ಕಬಡ್ಡಿ ಅಸೋಸಿಯೇಷನ್ (ರಿ) ನಂ.23, ಸಿಎಸ್‍ಐ ಲೇಔಟ್ (ವಿವೇಕಾನಂದ ನಗರ), ಕೃಷ್ಣ ಹೋಟೆಲ್ ಹಿಂಭಾಗ, ತುಮಕೂರು - 572 101" ಮೂಲ ಹಾಗೂ ಅಧಿಕೃತ ಅಸೋಸಿಯೇಷನ್ ಎಂದು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಿ ಚುನಾವಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಲು ಅವಕಾಶ ನೀಡಲು ತೀರ್ಮಾನಿಸಿದೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಈ ಅಸೋಸಿಯೇಷನ್ ಪ್ರತಿನಿಧಿಗ¼ುÀ ಚುನಾವಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಲು ಡೆಲಿಗೇಷನ್ ಫಾರಂನೀಡಲು ತೀರ್ಮಾನಿಸಿ ಆದೇಶಿಸಿದೆ.
ಈ ಆದೇಶವ£ುÀ್ನ ಈ ದಿನ ದಿನಾಂಕ:20-11-2021ರಂದು ಸಹಿ ಮತ್ತು ಮೊಹರ್‍ನಿಷಿಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ನೀಡಿದೆ
By the impugned order, the Administrator of the 2nd respondent-Society having treated "Tumakuru Zilla Amateur Kabaddi Association (Re.No.23) CSI, Layout (Vivekananda Nagara), behind Krishna Hotel, Tumakuru- 572101" as the original & genuine Association has permitted it to participate in the ensuing election; he has also decided to issue delegation forms to the representatives of the Association; the Returning Officer has issued the Election Notification dated 17.11.2021 pursuant to the impugned order;
Learned AGA on request having accepted notice for the respondent resists the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed; he also contends that the impugned order though is made by the Administrator, should be deemed to be the one made by the Society in question and therefore, a Writ Court cannot examine its validity, the Society not being an instrumentality of the "State" as defined under article 12 of the Constitution of India; learned counsel for the caveator adopts the submission of learned AGA and seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
a) It is not the case of petitioners that the 2nd respondent-Association/Society is an agency or instrumentality of State as defined under Article 12 and as extensively construed by the Apex Court in R.D.SHETTY vs. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTORITY, AIR 1979 SC 489 or other decisions of that order; merely because the Government has appointed an Administrator to the said Society, it does not gain the characteristics of 'other authorities' and therefore a writ court cannot be moved for invalidating the actions of the Society, as rightly contended by the learned AGA.
b) The vehement submission of Prof. Ravi Verma Kumar, learned Sr.Adv. appearing for the petitioner that the impugned order has been made by the Administrator who is an official of the Government and therefore his actions are amenable for judicial review under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution is bit difficult to countenance; an Administrator though appointed by the Government functions as the Managing Committee of the Society concerned and therefore his actions have to be treated as of the said Committee, in whose stead he stands; if the order of the Managing Committee of the 2nd respondent- Society cannot be scrutinized by the writ court, logically the order made by its substitute also cannot be.
c) The contention of learned Sr. Adv. Appearing for the petitioners that the impugned order has been made by the Administrator pursuant to the order dated 15.07.2020 made by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7707/2020 and therefore it has sufficient public law elements warranting examination at the hands of this court, is difficult to agree with; merely because a decision of a body which is not an instrumentality of the State is taken pursuant to some direction of the writ court, that per se does not animate the order with sufficient public law character for invoking the writ jurisdiction vide LIC OF INDIA vs. ESCORTS INDIA LTD, 1986(1) SCC 264.
In the above circumstances, writ petition being devoid of maintainability is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is, liberty being reserved to the petitioners to seek redressal of their grievance elsewhere in accordance with law.
Costs made easy.