High Court Karnataka High Court

K P Devaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 29 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
K P Devaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 29 June, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
EN THE BEG}-I COURT' OF' KARNATAKA AT 

DATED THIS THE 29th DAY 01'» JUNE   f  .

PRESENTVW_

THE HONBLE MR. RB. DINAKKRABE,  é  7

A24'  V
THE HeN'aLE Mre.JuSfi{§}3: \{.G.S;&F§H}ViHF:F§
WRIT APPEAL z§J c>~;a.6:;S/ ;>._dG9_  29411 géoéj

BETWEEN:

1    

raAJ0R%% 3     
RJO-.34»68]3;__!C':EROSS; -
SEZRV1CE--ROA_.E)._ __  ¢
HPCV-LAYOUT,  .. V 
_BANGALORE%--40'--v_ 

  2 °*S§zU.1..M cfi 'V---.----3APPA

 _R,I_c)* rm 134, I CROSS
 ._ .SAR!gSWM'HINAGAR
 BAN'(3rAL{)RE~40 ..................COMMON APPELLANTS

(By usxi°:u1 jAYA HOLLA SRACOUNSEL ma M/S G s BHAT

  f ASSGEIATES J

 -A1'€.D_.i§

 STATE 01:' KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

 



[)EPT.OF REVENUE

M S BUILDING   
DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDH1
BAN(}ALORI3~0 1 V

THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES  V V
BANGALORE URBAN DlS'I"RIC'I' "
NO 32, JAMUNA ARCADE...  ' 

II FLOOR, Sm Maia; ROAD '  V V 
GANDHINAGAR   _     
BANGALOREJ3 T  2

THE MAT}«¥fI;{ERE§;'CAMVBRf«[§(§E.{§E)i§(iATI(;)N SOCIETY
NO 35,VV1i(V3'I'H"1~f;»'=s:rs;. R'OA[)__ ;  

G0Ktjm i-- wACéE',=  V 
E:ANGALL')RE¥f§¥% REPRESENTED BY ITS
P'I_2Es1.DEré*r--gAI~ép EEEEERETARY

SR1 5 KM'   

NO 40,.V5'm CRGSS,...iI MAIN

5  »SANTi-{AVNAGAR
V_f ""«:B{\_I§GALOR'E~52. »

' " ~ V V 531' 'B'B?'REGOWDA

  

-- "-R/0   11 (mass
 III STAGE, III BLOCK
' BASAVESHWARANAGAR

BAEGMDRE-79

.V "SR1 G~OVINI)ARAJU
% " MAJOR

R/ca NO 362, 11 (moss
in STAGE, III BLOCK
BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BANGALORE-79

 



7 SRIT RANGASWAMY
MAJOR   
R/O NO 362, 11 CROSS  
HI sramz, HI BLOCK
BASAVESHWARANAGAR' _
BANGALORE--79 % 

3 SR: DINESH KUMAR
MAJOR    
R/O NO 362, IICREDSSS. 2
HI STAGE, III BLOCK  V  V
BASAVESHWARANA'GA!?'   %   '
BANGALQ.REg-':9  COMMON --RES_.P5ONDENTS

(By Sri : M s; Sii>£3RkkI§§AfvE-«:i'!§i'€   A
SR1.BASAVARAJ'v.KAREDDYVC3'A~ 992 R1 AND 2. )

TI-IESE WEE'? A9PEA.LS..__ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH  PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER 'pAssE_o_"--.._ 1'N' THE WRIT PETITION
No.24s7o/2995 £)A'rE9'.02,(99/ 2008.

 Writcoming up for Preliminary Hearing

" 'on this day, sA3HAHm""J., dc * cred the following.

'paunenanr

 

t' ' T_l_5f1es¢_ .i§§%g}'T::appcals an: filed by the petitioners in

'R..___w.3;9.No.2«a$?€s/2005 being awievcd by the order dated

 wherein the learned Single Jutigc of this court has

   the writ petition Wifllfllkt prejudice to other captions

 ' A  to the petitioners in law.

\/9

 



7

about the dissolution of the society and take over "the

school by the Trust and running of the school   

three years by the trust and calling upon  eft  b 

Societies not to take on his Ieeozd stay 

or papexs that may be filed byttte    

the filth respondent has   V

continues to exist and that must by the

society and the fabricated that the

dissolved, held ‘a general
meeting his own henchmen as ofice

beam;-sv _and” -a1sso1gw;p.No. 17642/94 was em seeking

. “f:>;f “a Ctnéindémus the Registrar of Societies mt to

from the Society which stands

to issue a writ of eertiorari to quash the

%tt”~..u._’_”-endorsezgeent datw 5.7.93 and for a declaration that the

was not in existence and for other teleifs. The said

wtitit petition came to be dismissed on wholly erroneous

yotmds. Being aggrieved by the same, ‘W.A.No.7878/2000

was filed. The fiivision Bench of this court snowed the

\/Q

‘F0

Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the

petitioners have preferred these appeals.

5. We have heard the

appearing for the appeIiants,.T’1c.;arnt:Ad’ for L,

respondent No.3 and tha £131″
n’.=:spondcntNos.1

6. Learned vco1m3€:i– “the appcfiamzs

sub113ii:fcd._;de.¢i:a»iT{>2:;__ of -‘thc proceedings whczein the
assets ‘I’rust*_ is unanimous and

thersfom, ttlé of the Registrar was erroneous and writ

cnfifiéd to the relief mught for in the writ

?;”‘v.Qfi Vthc other hand, learned counsel appearing for

K ,:l’AC-Eipfiéfltiélit No.3 argued in support cf the order passed by

f 1t:¢£’1ea”” med Single Judge.

\/1

12

jurisdiction of this court undéqr 22.2; ”

Constitution of India as it is q’i1¢-stiop,.~éf L’

present case and disputed que§§€ic.331 sf fa<§t*
out in accordance with ~qucst§§§i1 met can
be gone into only after cannot be
done in cxer_é2i4$f'j§:?.%:V:i)f 1;1_;1c of this court.
is not entitled to
manaamiig, 3 to 3 fiom in any
n1a11n<::f,i1"3t'::19fe2'r'fi:1'1:§fuh1nctioI1ing of the Cambridge

Educafioni permit the petitioner to manage

" _ .<_)f However, the onicr of tbs Registrar

of in the writ petition in so far as it

mates t¢&1§;¢'TI:x»Veso1uta:on dated 15.1.1991 is liable to be set

asitia. is an unanimous resolution passed by the

» and respondents 4 to 8 and to that extent, the

'gx tn¥:§~ passed by the learned Single Judge as liable to be set

V' 'aside and acconciingly, we pass the following order:

\/9

Y6

" 'Wé:b Host: Ya] No

13

The pmycr of the petitioner for» $B1Jt_f.}f ., u
restrain respondents 3 to 8 fiom
with the functioning of the _
Society, Mathikcrc is rejected.’ tfie fact V
thfit the resolution 0uS
resolution passed by 4 to 3, the
order passed is set aside

as the ” of the Cambridge

Educafion of Caxpbfidgc
Education Tfaxst’ has izfacconglance with law. I

Thg. mm :s.v31fi”dfSi>osed of, acofl jxzgly.

Sci/-

Chief jusficé

Sd/–

JUDGE

/.

Q No }

/,=