ORDER
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.
1. W.P. No.44217-220 of 2003 are filed assailing the correctness of the order dated 5.8.2003 of the 3rd respondent-District Registrar directing the holding of the election to the post of Managing Committee of the 2nd respondent Society, while W.P. No. 45715/ 2003 is filed calling in question the order dated 12.10.2003, indefinitely postponing the elections. Common question of law and that of fact arise in the Writ Petitions, hence, by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, they clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed off by this common order.
2. The 2nd respondent is a Society, registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, (for short the Act), engaged in the running of educational institutions at Keragodu in Mandya District. The petitioners state that the total membership of the Society consists of 66 members, out of whom 28 members including themselves were inducted as life members in the meeting of the Managing Committee held on 4.8.2002, the minutes of which were confirmed in the meeting held on 8.9.2002. The 3rd respondent, the District Registrar of the Societies, in exercise of power under Section 25 of the Act, passed an order dated 5.8.2003 holding, that the action of the Managing Committee in removing the 4th respondent from the post of President, as illegal, since notices of the meetings held on 9.4.2002, 19.5.2002 and 4.8.2002 and 8.9.2002 were not served on the President. In addition; by the said order, elections were directed to be held to the Managing Committee of the Society. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order of the District Registrar are before this Court in W.P. No.44217-20 of 2003.
3. In pursuance of the order dated 5.8.2003, the elections to the posts of Managing Committee of the 2nd respondent Society was scheduled to be held on 12.10.2003, on which date the Returning Officer is said to have postponed, indefinitely, the election due to acts of violence, by order of even date, the correctness of which is called in question in WP No.45715/2003.
4. The Writ Petitions are opposed by respondents 4 to 22 while respondents 23 to 54 claim to be inducted as members of the Society in the Special General Body Meeting held on 15.11.2003 and hence, necessary parties. The 2nd respondent represented by its Secretary opposes the claim of respondents 23 to 54 inter alia on the premise that they have been inducted without following the procedure as required under the bye laws and that the dispute is between the petitioners and the District Registrar.
5. Sri F.V. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner would advance two contentions. Firstly, the finding of the District Registrar that there are only 38 recognised members of the Society entitled to participate in the election, disentitling the petitioners, suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and perversity. Secondly, the petitioners having not been heard in the matter, the order impugned is in violation of principles of natural justice.
6. Sri Yoganarasimha, learned Counsel for respondents 4 to 22 would support the order impugned as being well merited, not calling for interference, while questioning the locus-standi of the petitioners to maintain the Writ Petitions. In addition, learned Counsel would contend that the 2nd respondent - Society at the Managing Committee, having not questioned the order impugned and the Secretary of the Society having failed in his attempt to secure an injunction restraining the 4th respondent from functioning as the President of the Society in the civil suit, the lis, if any, is only as between the 4th respondent and the Society, and not the petitioners.
7. Sri K. Vishwanath, learned Counsel for the Society would maintain that the meetings held on 9.4.2002, 19.5.2002, 4.8.2002 and 8.9.2002 are legal, valid and the removal of 4th respondent from the Managing Committee is in accordance with the bye laws of the Society.
8. Sri K.V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the respondents 23 to 54 would support the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents 4 to 22.
9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, two questions arise for decision in these Writ Petitions.
(1) Whether the order dated 5.8.2003 of the 3rd respondent - District Registrar in so far as it relates to not permitting the petitioners to take part in the election to the Managing Committee of the Society, is arbitrary as contended by the petitioners?
(2) Whether the order impugned suffers from the vice of violation of principles of natural justice in not having extended a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners?
10. The answer to the questions need not detain the Court for long. The District Registrar by the impugned order held the removal of the 4th respondent from the post of President of the managing committee as illegal on the ground that there was no notice served on the 4th respondent for the meeting of the managing committee on 9.4.2002, 19.5.2002, 4.8.2002 and 8.9.2002. As a consequence, the meetings held on the said dates were held to be illegal. The finding of the 3rd respondent - District Registrar is not questioned by the society or the other members of the managing committee and has become final and binding. Another fact that requires to be noticed is that the Secretary of the society made an unsuccessful attempt to restrain 4th respondent from functioning as President of the society by instituting the original suit in O.S. No. 316/2002 for permanent injunction, on the file of the Munsiff, Mandya and in which the request for temporary injunction was refused. Although the said order was set aside in MA No.3/2003, the same was challenged before this Court by the 4th respondent in C.R.P. 1300/ 2003 and this Court, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties directing maintaining of status quo, by order dated 10.4.2003. In the context of the aforesaid facts the contention of the learned Counsel for the society that the removal of the 4th respondent from the post of President of the managing committee is legal and valid, cannot be countenanced and is rejected.
11. It is not in dispute that the petitioners claim to be included as life members of the society in the meetings of the managing committee held on 4.8.2002, the minutes of which were confirmed in the meeting on 8.9.2002. The District Registrar having held that the meetings dated 4.8.2002 and 8.9.2002 as illegal, the question of petitioners claiming to be legally inducted as members of the 2nd respondent Society in the said meeting cannot claim any right of membership in the society. In view of the finding of the District Registrar not being questioned, the business transacted in the said meeting cannot be held to be legal and valid. It is in these circumstances the District Registrar, in the impugned order, restricted the number of members of the society to 38 members and rejected the membership of 28 members including the petitioners to participate in the elections to be held to the managing committee of the society. The finding of the District Registrar cannot be characterised as either perverse, illegal or arbitrary.
12. Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that there is neither legal flaw nor infirmity much less perversity or arbitrariness in the findings recorded by the District Registrar, in the order impugned. The meetings' said to be held on the four dates viz., 9.4.2002; 19.5.2002; 4.8.2002 and 8.9.2002, having been held to be illegal, the business transacted in such meetings inducting 28 life members of the society, including the petitioners, cannot be said to be legal and valid. In the absence of notice to the 4th respondent, the President of the managing committee, the action of the Secretary and other members of the Committee was not bona fide and was done to scuttle and circumvent the democratic process. The meetings held on the aforesaid dates are vitiated. There is no substance in the first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and is rejected.
13. The next contention that the order impugned is nonest for the reason that no opportunity much less, reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners before making the order, is also without any merit. The dispute before the 3rd respondent was amongst the members of the managing committee of the society, while one set of the members took the plea that the proceedings of the meetings on the aforesaid four dates were valid and the enrolment of 28 life members was perfectly legal, while the 4th respondent and other members took the position that the meetings were vitiated for want of notice. The petitioners who were enrolled as members in the meeting held on 4.8.2002 have no right to be heard in person. If they are actually interested in getting themselves enrolled in the General Body of the Society, they can still approach the managing committee. There can be no violation of principles of natural justice as no substantial rights of the petitioners have been affected, as it is for the managing committee to enroll them as members or not. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have no right to claim any such right.
14. In the result, I find that a concerted effort has been made by the Secretary and the members of the managing committee to usurp the powers of the Society and control the same to the exclusion of the 4th respondent - President of the managing committee. The District Registrar was justified in declaring the meetings held on 9.4.2002; 19.5.2002,4.8.2002 and 8.9.2002 as void and illegal and I find no infirmity in the order impugned.
15. The relief sought for by the petitioners in W.P. 45715/2003 to quash the order postponing the elections, cannot, as a consequence of ray finding recorded supra, be granted and the same deserves to be rejected.
The Writ Petitions are devoid of merit and are dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
RMRJ:
24.09.2004
W.P. Nos. 44217-20/2003