K N RUDRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in all these petitions are assailing the order dated 05.07.2013 passed by the respondent - State Government. The said order is impugned at Annexure -V in W.P.No.35824/2013, while it is at Annexure -W in W.P.Nos.31042 -43/2013. By the said order, an Administrator is appointed to Desheeya Vidyashala Samithi, an education Society, in exercise of the power under Section 27 -A of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act,1960( 'Act' for short).

(2.) THE petitioners are all members of the fourth respondent -Desheeya Vidyashala Samithi which is running several educational institutions. The fact that there are several litigations with regard to the administration and membership of the Society is not in dispute. An appeal in RSA No. 1281/2009 is pending before this Court. When that was the position, at an earlier point in time, an Administrator was appointed by the Government vide the order dated 26.07.2010 in respect of the Society to administer its affairs. The said order was called in question before this Court in W.P.Nos.27601 -606/2010 and W.P.No.20958/2010. The said appeal and the writ petitions were taken up together before this Court and by the interim order dated 13.02.2012, this Court directed the Administrator to conduct the elections to the Managing Committee of the Society in question. While so directing, this Court also specifically clarified the persons who would be entitled to contest the election, as also the members who would be entitled to vote.

(3.) PURSUANT to such direction, the elections to the Managing Committee was held. The results were announced on 10.03.2012 and it was reported to this Court. Though 10 members were to be elected, since there were only 09 nominations, they were elected unopposed. Since the Managing Committee was constituted, the Administrator consented before this Court that the Charge will be handed over to the elected body on 24.03.2012. On recording the same, the writ petitions were disposed of. In compliance thereof, the charge was handed over. It is to be noticed that as per the bye law, the election to the post of President is made directly by the members, while the persons who occupy the post of Vice -President, Secretary and Treasurer were to be elected by the members elected to the Managing Committee as also the members nominated to the Managing Committee. The right to contest for the said posts however is available only to the elected members. The first petitioner in W.P.Nos.31042 -43/2013 is the person who was elected as the President and it is the other office bearers who were to be elected. It is from this point the present dispute has once again arisen. According to the petitioners, the procedure has been followed and the Vice -President, Secretary and the Treasurer have been elected unopposed and as such, there was no need for the election though it had been scheduled to be held on 31.03.2012. The respondents however contend that the Managing Committee members who were to be nominated had not been nominated, but two others who were not entitled were included and the election was manipulated without adhering to the schedule. In that view, the appointment of the Administrator is sought to be justified.