High Court Karnataka High Court

Sir M Vishweshwaraiah Memorial … vs The District Registrar And … on 14 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sir M Vishweshwaraiah Memorial … vs The District Registrar And … on 14 October, 2008
Author: B.S.Patil
 '' ''v;2gG1Ls*rR;aTI0N OWICER,

:1

w? 288412006

1
IN THE men coum' or? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
BATED THIS THE 14TH DAY 0:? ocroam, 2003 
BEFORE % .

THE HOIWBLE MRJUSTICE B.s.PA'r1L"1: " 

wnrr pmrrxon 1to.&zguo6* 23 gr_.,xs;gj  9  V
BETWEEN:  i  T' A'

SIR M.V§SHWESHWARAIAH
MEMORIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,  »
CHIKKABALLAPUR, KOLAR DI__S'1'RIC'I',_..._  

BY rrs SECRETARY,   

SR1 NNARAYANASWAMY,

s/0 NARAYANAPPA,   A

AGES 44 YEARS, ADVO_CATE,_...  _  '
c1~§:1<KABAL1¢AP1JR,,..«    _ 
KOLAR DISTRICT.      "  "-"'.'.P.§='.'I'I'I'IONER

(BY SR] T.hi';RAGI~!'l;} l5A.?H}*','__ - '
AND: ' 4' ' H  

1. THE n:aTRIc'f'REG1sTRAR 
assoczlmmss, "

V_ K01-AR BI'-'7«TRIC'T..
 NEAR P.RABHA'T,Ti1LKI ES,

THE"-n1REvc'*:'t§'R§
' . V DEPARTMENT OF PRE~UNIVI3RSI'"I'Y
EDUCEATIQN, PALACE ROAD,

 "  V.f»BANC'»;¢.LORE ~-- 560 001. ..RESPONDEN'I'S

   ;'~m"r."i<.sARoJ1N1 MUTTANNA, AGA)

' THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER' ARWCLES 226 8; 227 OF

 CONS'I'I'I'U'?ION OF' INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE
" ORDER AT ANN-Q ST. 8.2.2006, PASSED BY THE R1 18 ILLEGAL

AN!) SEX!' ASIDE THE SAME 85 ETC.



WP 2334 /2006

2
THIS PE'I'IT'ION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

1. In this writ petition, petitioner-«Society is H

order dated 08.02.2006 passmi by the 1″‘

Regbtrar and Socienles RcgistIation:”(§Eti1:-at-,:’

Kolar. The inlpllgned order is p!1D”v311ceti 5?3 n I ‘” §;Q… : ~

2. By the said order, the applicflfixan V

sttekifl g condemnation of delay ifiinutefi dVf’i}1′<§ gencrai

body and the audited bazancé «.~.:i" re}:-C' ma.

3. Th: disposal of the case stated in
nutshell <.ti1at 'B5? datcd 15.10.2005, the 1»:

xespondfgnt of registration of the petitioner»-

foriéissolufion of the same with a further

for taking over the assets and properties

thé Seem)" 1.1 22 of the Kaxnataka Societies

" 1960 (hereinafter refer-md to as 'the Act', for

said order was passed on the gonad that the

"',*'.fi!;;ftk3ner-Society had failed to comply with the provisions of

».s;.»;-mans 11 & 13 ofthc Act, in that, me: its registration, it did

not conduct any general body meefing nor did the society

%

WP 2884 xzooe
3

finnish the details of the members of the elected body or of the.
audited accounts of the sochaty. This order was by

the pctiiioner-Society before this Court in w.P.No.2483a,t;b_c5.

This Court by order dated 19.12.2005 dimcteci ‘-

Society to fik: an application for “‘ 2

con};-1y1ng’ with the pmV1s’ ‘Ems of n;f13:’

Court further dinzcted that if suctg ‘ax; a;$§1i¢éLti;on=i§ fixed’ pyf the =

petitioncr-Society, the District shfsifi . 1t:¢onfiider the
matter in the light of the prafiabnis ufidcr Section 13.
While issuing such a_ mind that the
petitionaer-Society ~fi12;1.nv En’ éériixsaifional institutions.
Two Week$’.. tiII.’3.€ -.th£2′ petitioner to makc such an

application the seeking condonation of

fielay in requirements of submitting audited

V. requirements. A direction was issued to the

1″ to consider the said application within a

V 1’r;ason£i”‘.9lc £a_:i1’11e.:’ Until oonsidcratison of the said application, the

V7.. 15.10.2005 passed by the Distréct Registrar

the society and canceling the mfisnanlon was kept in

Copy of the ozder passed by this Court is produced

1 LL * ” ‘~.*:Lf An11e1a1:rc—M.

%

WP 2884/’.2®6

4. Pursuant to this onier, the petifiaoner herein has

application making condonation of delay in filing nf

the general ‘body and the audited balance sheet _

supported by the afidavit of the Sccziztarylllll ‘f’}.f:~l3jl(“;’ in’:

pnph 6 of the afidavit, the

by the previous not
available despite search. He that after 2002,
both the mj11utes.vO§’jth¢ ‘audited balance
sheet have that if the delay
was not -‘of the students who were

studying in irrepambly aflected whereas

no pmjtggdics. or be caused to anyone if the delay

annlmafion has been dismissed by me 1»

order at An11exme–Q.

All of the impugned order disc’ loses that the

has persuaded himself to reject the

I» on the gonad among othczs that the aflavit filed

” msillppoxt of the application did not bear pmper stamp and

hlzxhcrcfoxc the contents of the sand’ aflavit cannot be taken into

account for condoning the delay.

%

WP 2834 /2005
5

6. The main oontention urged by the learned Counsel for the

petitioner in support of the chaflenge made is that as

proviso to Section 13, the Distnhct Rcgisnar is enjoifxxetlj

duty to afiord an opportunity of personal K

application is made seeking

audited accounts and in of ”

ofice boaters founiag the the V

management of the afihirs ofithe by the
1″ respondent. He subznito of personal

hearing has been to V’ Counsel has

also out contained under Section 13

providing of of the society and for

the society, has no application to the

nregent case, as the saiti provision has been

amendment which is brought into force

M with e1’ifecto.__’fio.ni 01.042002 and the alleged violation of the

:of submitting the balance sheet and the names

the list of members of the governing body was for the

anterior to the date of amendment

In order to fim out whether the 1″ respondent had in fact

given an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before

%

WP 288412006
6

passing the impugned order at Anncmire-Q, this Court by order
dated 13.10.2008 directed the Earned Add}. Government

Advocate to secum the records from the 1″ mspojidont

However, records are not made availahic. No of

objection is fled refuting the mound urged by _

statiflg that an oPP°m1m’tY ofP€rsonfl1:he&I’Iot t””*-_,§

8. A perusal of Section 13 of L»

incorporated therein makes it ity of
personal hcaxing is to : to_the before

passing any order on the Court had

directed 1-F3′ ‘hoiam to pass orcicrs in wcordance

with law, it .. ‘gt that the order can only be

hearing to the society as

provision. As the respondent has faded’ to

Show opportunity was gven to the petit3’oner–

‘ %ictA§*;««..the.__voz:?:oi’Aundcr chalknge suflbrs from serious mfinm” ‘ty,

” ” ‘:”it ‘*eriolafion of the principles of natural justice and the

t of personal hearing’ to be given.

In the result and for the foregoing, this writ petition

.-,

uetzucoecds in mrt. The order under challenge produced at

-Q is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the 1″

WP 2334 f2006
7

respondent with a direction to reconsider the matter in the T3111:

of the observations made above. It is made clear that tiie.T1’*

respondent shall take note of all the contents of

fies?! in support of the application, if necessary by .

the petitioner to farms’ h tbs requisit=ti Etamp

appropriate orders after giving an .

hearing. The District Registrar % ‘nu.

as expeditiously as possible ordeifs, at any
rate within a period. of th1t=:e ‘t1;ir§r1t}j3 of receipt of a

copy of this oxtlexf, until a flesh

decision taL£n._ ‘ .h¢I’e&n’ ‘ above. tlw older at

Annexume-L It is also made dear that

in vicwg§f”£he §3f.thc erstwhik: Ko}ar District and

of Chickballapur, the matter

to me magma: Registrar of seem’ ‘ ,

2 shall oonsiim’ the matter afresh and pass

” ” ‘T tam.’ is aimed shove.

Sd/-v
Judge