MUDDEGOWDARA VEERABHADRAPPA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an earlier round of litigation, in W.P. No. 43545/2015 and connected matters, this Court by order dated 16.11.2016 had made certain observations. It was observed that at this juncture, this Court cannot also pronounce on the validity of the action of the petitioners in expelling the respondents No. 3 and 4 in the meeting dated 16.08.2015. Proceeding further, it was observed that in any event the respondent No. 2 could not have nullified the same through the notice dated 24.08.2015 merely on the letter said to have been written by respondent No. 4 without examining the matter as per law by providing an opportunity. Therefore all the aspects of the matter including the allegation of misappropriation was required to have a denovo consideration by respondent No. 2 after duly complying the procedure contemplated in law. This Court therefore directed that the position which existed prior to the order dated 02.12.2015 should be restored and allowed to continue and the competent authority will have to recommence the process from that stage and if need be, do it in expeditious manner. Consequently, the impugned orders/notices dated 24.08.2015, 31.10.2015, 30.12.2014, 06.10.2015 and 02.12.2015 were quashed. Liberty was however reserved to respondents No. 1 and 2 to recommence the proceedings relating to the affairs of the respondent No. 5 Society from the stage of proceedings under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act on providing opportunity to the concerned parties strictly in accordance with law. All contentions in that regard were kept open. Liberty was also reserved to respondent No. 2 to take possession of such documents relating to respondent No. 5 society which may be considered as relevant and necessary for the purpose of enquiry, before handing back the affairs. This Court had also observed that the accounts submitted for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14 when the petitioner No. 4 therein viz., Sri L.V. Subramanya was the treasurer has been accepted by the annual general body. It was therefore observed that these are all aspects which will have to be taken into consideration by respondent No. 2 when a detailed enquiry is held.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners admits that consequent to the directions issued by this Court, the 2nd respondent Assistant Registrar (Administrator) handed over the charge as per the directions issued by this Court on 02.12.2016. Subsequent thereto, the petitioners herein sought to call for a general body meeting on 25.12.2016, for electing the Governing Council. However, it is submitted that the 2nd respondent Assistant Registrar issued an endorsement dated 14.12.2016 holding that the meeting dated 25.12.2016 proposed by the petitioners herein cannot be held. Learned Counsel further submits that the very same respondent No. 2 has thereafter permitted the other respondents to go on with a general body meeting on 05.03.2017. It is in the light of these two events that the petitioners have approached this Court.

(3.) Sri Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3 to 5 would submit that in any event a general body meeting for electing the Governing Council has to be held as the term of the previous Governing Council has already come to an end. It is therefore submitted by the learned Counsel that the dispute raised now by the petitioners is that if an election is to be held at this stage, it should be held in accordance with the directions that was issued by this Court having regard to the facts and events which were observed by this Court and therefore it was only those persons who were the members of the Society at that stage could participate in the election i.e., as on 14.02.2015. On the other hand, it is the contention of the other side that these questions were left open by this Court to be decided by the authorities. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner there were only 23 members who were eligible to participate in the Governing Body. However, due to subsequent event, the respondents have enrolled about 21 persons as members into the Society, illegally without following due procedure. It is therefore contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that these 21 persons cannot be permitted to participate in the election since they are not authorized members of the Society, in terms of the Bye-law 3 of the Society.