VIDYAVARDAK SANGH Vs. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner No. 1 is said to be a Society imparting education since the year 1962 and it was registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the B.P.T. Act', for brevity) with the coming into force of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1997, the said B.P.T. Act was repealed and since the New Act had no jurisdiction over educational institutions such as the institutions. managed by petitioner No. 1, a need was felt to re -register itself. Accordingly, at a general body meeting held on 02.02.2007 elections were conducted and it was resolved by the newly elected committee to have the institution registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act', for brevity) with the same name, namely, Vidya Vardak Sangh, Tilavalli. The petitioners, therefore, had submitted an application on 19.02.2007 seeking registration under Section 8 of the Act. The institution was duly registered as such on 01.03.2007. It thereafter transpires that respondent No. 2 had filed an application before respondent No. 1 claiming that there was already a body registered under the B.P.T. Act by the same name, namely, Vidya Vardak Sangh, Tilavalli, and hence claimed that the name of the petitioners was undesirable. Pursuant to which, a notice was issued by respondent No. 1 to the petitioners dated 12.04.2007 to which the petitioners had replied that the respondent No. 1 had been mislead by respondent No. 2 to believe that there were two separate Societies, when in fact there was only one Society and the confusion was that the very same Society was seeking re -registration under the Act and the respondent No. 2 claiming that there was already a Society registered under the B.P.T. Act, was with reference to the very Society. The petitioners also pointed out that respondent No. 2 was the erstwhile President of the Society, in question, during 1987 and 1990 and there were serious charges pending against him, which were subject matter of enquiry. It is on this that respondent No. 1 by an order dated 25.05.2007 held that earlier registration ceased to be in operation by virtue of the repeal of the B.P.T. Act and that the present registration of petitioner No. 1 -Society under the Act was valid.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that in the above background the respondent No. 2, who had all along claimed that there was another registered body, and therefore, the name of the petitioner society was undesirable since it was seeking to call itself by same name, has filed an application seeking registration of the very Society and the said application having been allowed as stated in the additional affidavit that is now filed, thereby belying the very objection taken by the respondent No. 2 as regards there being a Society in existence. The conduct of the respondent No. 2 in this regard would demonstrate the evil designs in seeking to destabilise the petitioner No. 1 -Society with an intention to register a Society by the same name, parallelly, while opposing the re -registration of the petitioner No. 1 -Society on the footing that there was already a body in existence, which in fact was not the true and correct circumstances. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the malafides on the part of respondent No. 2 stands compounded by the present conduct, which is clearly demonstrated by the subsequent conduct. Respondent No. 1, notwithstanding the above circumstances, and the vehement controversy that was raised earlier and it had even been decided in favour of petitioner No. 1, having played into the hands of respondent No. 2 and having encouraged the registration of the Society in the face of ambiguous stand of respondent No. 2 and seeks that the impugned order be set aside as also the registration of Society at the instance of respondent No. 2 be also set aside as it would result in multiplicity of proceedings, if the same is also not addressed.