High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Kanaka Vidya Samste vs The Deputy Registrar Of … on 23 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri Kanaka Vidya Samste vs The Deputy Registrar Of … on 23 October, 2010
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE'»._r"._V_

DATED THIS THE 23"' DAY OF OCTOBER 20 t ;;f ft r.- 4 

BEFORE

THE HON 'BLE MR.JUSTICli' S. At3DI;ILt.'AMzE3ER-t 4'  ft  ~ 7

WRIT PETITION N0.2m3 1/2010' '(CS-RES;»j      L}

Between:

1 Sri Kanaka Vidya Samsze,:t" _ 
Siddanamutt village, .. A 
Chennagiri'I'a1u!<.,  V
Davanagere msttjiet, 1 I 
Reptd. By itS.,vSec'fet.ar3t, 'K ' _

Smt. Sak2'm1rt:i;. V  '

2 Ranj2iswé1n1y,e5. 'V _ 
S/O iD__andy*ya;jp"3..'*.._»  _ é  ' .
Aged about 38--ye'ar$,~ _   _ 
Adhyaksha (;fvKé1':1ak3, V Samsthe,
R/Q Kabbur vVi11age; ' 
Ra,imagondanHa-ll_y§Post,

'' V'  i7)aVan'a.gere Tq. &Dist.

3    
2 S~/gr Hai'ap'p.a,,V ' ;; "
Aged a..boLit,-45 years,
-- Ldkikete ixiliage,
 Davtanagere Tq. & Dist.  Petitioners.

 '--{3'}}V_A'Bv.K.rManjunath, Adv.)



And:

The Seputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
And the District Registrar of Societies,

Davanagere District. .... Respon;1ent..iVi" -- ':'  ~

(By Smt. M.C. Nagashree, HCGP)

This Writ Petition is filed under Ariicl_es"-2,26 &  of the "
Constitution of India, praying to q':1as'h_V.the order Vpassed3_by.V4tVhei

respondent dated 25.5.2010 vide AnneXure'»'J', etc.'   _ 

This Writ Petition comiingon Heaiiingiiiin ‘B’

Group this day, the Court passediiche 1’o11€§,Wfin”g:rsV”t S _

{ietitioiier’ registered under the
provisions of theKiarnataiia.Socie’t»i.es–~ Registration Act, I960 (‘Act’

for short), _V Petitioner 3 are the members of the first

i:iet.itiorive154society, For theiininual year 2010-13, the first petitioner

sent ‘tiieii1ii:~:t_igovi/erning councii members as per Annexure ‘F’ to

the respondent.i:ii’s;iiarovicied under Section 13 of the Act. The

~ jgfrespondené by’ the order at Annexure ‘J’ has refused to accept the

E
ii:

same. Therefore, petitioners have fiied this writ peti_t._ion”._V

chailenging the said order.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.*.__”

3. Perusai of the records producedlby ‘flearnefd

shows that the first petitioner has list of governing eouneii’:

members as per Annexure ‘Ff for the…annu_aE’–»_year 2U}’Oji4,..V§ The
respondent has rejected the sarineiffor the in the order
at Annexure ‘}’ dateti_:2S_.5.2()fO;V’ibis f1’om~,the records that

the first pei:i_tione:* not”affbr_ded_ an -i opportunity of being heard

before rejectionrofrtheiistff’ .”:i”neV respondent ought to have afforded

an opportunity of being heard before passing the said order. The

A’~o_rd.er’vi.mp:tgried–_is».unilateral in nature and is opposed to the

principi.e_s0f f1r:i’_t_u rat’ ustice.

4. Inthie result, writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly

part. The order at Annexure ‘J’ passed by the

it

r

respondent is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the

responclzné for fresh disposal in accordance Wiih law and ir1§i;h–oj ‘ , A’

light of the observations made above. Nocosts.

BMM/–