I IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 7*" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 20.O9]'+«.,f,V PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. PD. DINAKA_R.AN_, cH,IE'FE'3LJ_::T'I. No.19339/2oo'9,.t§e:r;_gI_f_:agerieved by the order dated O6.O8._2OO£§fwh'erei'Vn tétettearned singie Judge of this Court theI'*~w«ri't petition by imposing exerrtpiary mtg vQf"'RQ:S.; zsiooo/~. The appeliant herein ~ Karnataka Arya Vysya A '*:GfMAaVhés_abha (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') filed W.P. No.I9339/2009 being aggrieved by the order 'flpassed by the first respondent - Under Secretary to
\J”
3
Government, Department of Co–operative Soci_eties
(Annexure ‘E’ to the writ petition), wherein Administratovr
has been appointed under Section 27~A of
Societies Registration Act, 1960, (h_erei_nafterlrefeirreldw t’_0.Vas_ 0″
‘the Act’ ) since no elections weréiziheiid cieslpite
of term of office of the office__”‘o.eare’rs of – v 0′
Society and appointment of’,_4hdm_i_r:istrator«islimited to
three months or tiil Ve’leflcti,o’ng.’ is _ the Executive
Committee of the’-p_etitioner– is earlier.
It is the co said order has
not law and is passed
without, to the petitioner to
substantiate its period of office of the
petitionier. — Sd’ciety’s office bearers has been enhanced
3 5 years by amendment .
“Learned single Judge, after considering the
.,,.iCententi’o’ns of the iearned counsel for the petitioner and
,.11t’h.Ve””ie’arned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3
“and the learned counsel for the impieading applicant, by
order dated 06.08.2009, held that though the bye=~iaw of
\/3
4
the petitioner – Society has been amended enhancing the
tenure of the Executive Committee of the Society.,:f«ro’rn
three years to five years, the competent
approving the resolution relating _t_o…a_i4ner:t:iVment;V»of” bf-,.(e–‘-,_,
law, has made the said bye–law prosgpecjtivve
that it is not applicable”ft_o’–~._the’A”-e§<isting'Aifixecutive
Committee and wherefore, th_ehte._nure of liicecutive
Committee of the petitio-her.4:.So,cietyVf,hadexpired and no
elections are heyldand passed by the
first appointing
Administ_ra,tor~.,u:'ndier" the Act is justified.
Learnedisipgiewfjudge'further held that : the Petitioner has
suppresseci–_the competent authority, while
approivifng. the resolvutioin, had made the amended hye–iaw
pro.sKpec_tiv.e.a'iid had specificaily stated that the same was '
fnotf'f.a,i3i5E'ica*vbl_e'V~:to" the existing Executive Committee; the
V . terrn""ofv*«.':office of the existing Executive Committee has
..',,"'—".,,expiired and the office hearers of the Society are continuing
ihfoffice without holding any election and wherefore, there
C isfno merit in the writ petition and accordingly, dismissed
it the writ petition by imposing exemplary cost of
\/L
S
Rs.25,000/–. Being aggrieved by the said order of the
learned single 3udge dated 06.08.2009, the writ petitioner
has preferred this appeal.
4.. We have heard the learned ilsenilorl,’4counsel._ 0′
appearing for the appellant.
S. Learned Senior ‘co~eVn’s~el”–~._appearinglifor the
appellant submitted has already
notified electlopnl’ to .ng.dl’0n1ittee of the
appellant -1; grievance of the
appellant in to the finding given by
the learnedsingle’ appellant has suppressed
the,,.;5.j91atierial factivand imposition of exemplary cost of
-vtearned counsel appearing for the impleading
0. ..,.l:aApplican’t:and the learned Additional Government Advocate
a_l5i3€:aring for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that they
-ivwlould leave it to the discretion of the Court to consider
waiving of cost.
V’
6
7. We have given careful consideration to_.__the
contentions of the Eearned counsel appearing
parties and scrutinized the material on record. A
8. The material on record :’woii_lAdr~’cEe’a~rl_y”
in the writ petition filed * L’
i\Eo.19339/2009, the ap_pellantp…hVe’rein.._.hadlc’ha_llepfged the
order passed by the firstrespondent.’uVnd’§r–..$ection 27-A of
the Act dated has been
appointed period of three
monthsvpvor,pt_iEl».,e”l’ecti:’oVn Committee of the
Societyiggwhicihieiieiiisea’rlier.. ‘Since it is not disputed that
Administra’to_r*h_as” a.l”i*ea’d:§/_.»s»taken charge and has notified
election’ to the Eirecutiive Committee of the appeliant —
t-A§oci,ety,_ilearne~d’senior counsel appearing for the appellant
fairltpsuvbniivtted”that the appellant confines the grievance
V . in the a-ppeail oniy to the finding of the learned single
regarding suppression of fact by the petitioner –
a”ppei’iant herein and imposition of cost of Rs.2S,O0O/-.
\,/5
7
9. We have perused the averrnents made in the
writ petition as also the material on record and the same
would make it clear that what was challenged in Vthlepjlwarit
petition was the order of the first responclent;”‘ap’p.o–intii:.g’=
Administrator under Section 27–A of the Act.,.uaj’i1dV trje..fac:t’
that bye-law has been amended Iextendi.n”g-_t:h,e”–tenu.reé
the Executive Committee of ,the__ appel_l_ant –
years to 5 years is not dispulvted, _iiavii’ig,_VV:re:gard to the
material on record, it’is”clea.r *4theT”a.mended bye~laws
were produced in the W.fit:l’E1et.i’t_ion a’ndl’t.hsg,’..learned single
Judge has held of “Executive Committee
is exte’n_de,d However, mere fact that the
appellant herein “4 _p’eVtitio”ner has not stated that the said
amendment walla not be applicable to the Executive
pnwould not by itself lead to the conclusion that
th_e”l’sVaAid” been intentionally suppressed so as to
. gain””anyfiadvantage or to abuse the process of the Court.
llaxring regard to the above said material on record, we
hold’ that the finding of the learned single Judge that the
it “appellant herein has suppressed the said material fact and
C’ hence, is liable to pay exemplary cost of Rs.25,GOO/- is
\_/L
8
liable to be set aside and the impugned order of the
learned single Judge dated 06.08.2009, in aE’i.,,’fotl1er
respects, remains unaltered.
Accordingly, the Writ Appealfis dispbsed
* .1′; V”l’Chie§’}L’afstice
§U!’¥’la
0′ __I ndiex: ” ‘_,
We.b*~Host –3’,j\fés”/ No