KANNADA NADU EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner having filed a return as provided under Section 13 of the Karnataka societies Registration Act, 1960, the district registrar accepted the return filed. Against that proceeding, 3rd respondent preferred an appeal before the Karnataka appellate tribunal, Bangalore. The tribunal entertained the matter and allowed the appeal. The validity of this order is called in question in this writ petition.

(2.) an appeal would lie to the tribunal under Section 9(3) of the said act. Section 9 pertains to alteration of memorandum of association. Sub-section (3) thereof is to the effect that if the registrar refused to register a change in the memorandum under sub-section (2), an appeal shall lie to the Karnataka appellate tribunal within the period mentioned therein. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that it is not a case of alteration of memorandum of association at all and therefore, the tribunal had no jurisdiction in the matter. However, the learned counsel for the respondent urges that the memorandum of association requires the names of the members of the governing body being mentioned to whom, tiy rules, the management affairs is entrusted and therefore, it is part of the memorandum of association and hence, Section 9 of the act is attracted. The scheme of the act requires that memorandum of association should contain name of the society, the object of the society, the names, addresses and occupations of the members of the governing body to whom, by the rules of the society, the management of the affairs is entrusted and the memorandum of association will have to be registered with the registrar of the societies. That pertains only to the first governing body of the society and not to the elections that take place thereafter and to any other person elected.

(3.) in the present case, what happened was as per Section 13 of the Act, the petitioner filed its return along with the balance sheet, the annual list of governing body and that was accepted by the district registrar. It is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the respondent that subsequently another list filed by the third respondent also has been accepted by the district registrar. In the circumstances, it is submitted that there are two sets of office bearers in respect of the same society. If that is so, the parties have to work out their remedies elsewhere in an appropriate form. It is clear that proceedings arising under Section 13 is not the same as referrable to Section 9 of the act and therefore, the tribunal has no jurisdiction at all in the matter. What could be considered under Section 9 is one of a change of memorandum of association approved under sub-section (1) to be filed with the registrar and that pertains to the matters mentioned in sub-section. It does not cover the cases of change of office bearers. Therefore it is obvious that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with such matter. Hence, the petition is allowed and the order of the first respondent in appeal No. 352 of 1989, dated 4-1-1991 vide Annexure-F is quashed. Rule made absolute accordingly.