The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Rule 7(A) of the respondent-society was inconsistent with Section 2(b) of the act and therefore void. The court directed the first respondent to afford the second respondent an opportunity to suitably amend the rule and quashed the Certificate of Registration if the rule regarding subscription is not amended within the specified time.

R. P. SETHI, C. J.

( 1 ) CLAIMING to be the members of the respondent - Society, the appellants, on their own behalf and on behalf of the other members of the Society filed Writ Petitions with prayer for quashing rule 7 (A) of the Rules and Regulations of the H. K. E. Society, Gulbarga (hereinafter called the 'rules' ). Further prayer was made for the issuance of writ of mandamus to the first respondent to direct, in turn, to the second respondent to prepare a voters' list including the names of all the persons who were on rolls as members during 1978-79 and whose names were shown in the registrer of Members prepared after 1978-79 and whose names had been added to the said list from time to time irrespective of the fact whether they had paid subscription or they were in arrears. Referring to the provisions of Sections 2 (b), 6, 9 and 19 of the Karnataka Societies registration Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the 'act) and Rule 3 made thereunder, it was claimed that despite being in arrears, a person had to be continued as a member and could not be disqualified or expelled. The object of the Act is stated to be to provide for the Registration of literary, Scientific, charitable and other societies in the State of Karnataka. The Act does not specifically provide for expulsion of a member. It was claimed that a person who had been admitted once as a member had the right to continue as such till he resigned or incurred such disqualification which disentitled him to be member. The bye-laws, Rules and Regulations framed by the Society were required to be in conformity with Section 6 of the Act, proviso to which provided that no Rule or Regulation of the society shall exclude any member from being entitled to vote. Rule 7 (A) was stated to have the effect of expelling a member, with the result that his right to vote was taken away. It was submitted that the public policy behind the Act was to see that ail members participated in the affairs of the Society which was brought into existence for the good of the society. No person or management could take away the precious right to vote which was claimed to be the hallmark of a democratic system. The Rule 7 (A) was alleged to violate the principles of democracy and purported to give the management the right of expulsion of any member for any irregularity which was otherwise curable. The offending bye-law was alleged to be unconstitutional as it gave unguided and unbridded power to the second respondent to create a situation where it could refuse or avoid to take the subscription from the members to eliminate some persons from membership. The expulsion covered by Rule 7 (A) was alleged to result in civil consequences and thus violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE learned Judge formulated the following questions of law for his consideration : a) Whether a Writ Petition under Article 226 is maintainable against the second respondent society? b) Whether Rule 7 (A) of the second respondent-society is inconsistent with Section 2 (b) of the act and therefore void? and c) Whether the amendment to Rule 7 in March 1981 violated the provisions of Section 9 of the act and therefore, invalid;

( 3 ) WHILE deciding point (a), it was held that the Writ Petition was not maintainable against the second respondent-society in the matter relating to the membership. Further, as the petitioner contended that the prayer was so moulded that the relief was claimed against the first respondent and not the second respondent, the learned Judge decided to consider the other points arising for consideration instead of rejecting the petition as not maintainable. While deciding points (b) and (c), the petitions were dismissed after appreciating the rival contentions of the parties. Being not satisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed on the grounds that the learned Judge was not justified in holding that the Writ Petition was not maintainable against th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document