The court upheld the Single Judge's decision, emphasizing the importance of judicial review in administrative actions and the need for civil courts to resolve disputes between factions in a registered Society.

JUDGMENT :

(Krishna S. Dixit, J.)

These intra-court appeals seek to lay a challenge to a learned Single Judge's common order dated 2.1.2023 whereby, private respondents' W.P.No.18018/2022 and appellants' W.P.No.17127/2022 have been disposed off with the following directions:

"(i) Writ Petition No.17127 of 2022 is allowed and the order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent recommending appointment of an Administrator to the Society stands quashed.

(ii) A mandamus issues to the 2nd respondent to act in terms of the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.12702 of 2022 within two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(iii) Writ Petition No.18018 of 2022 is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to call in question the Annual General Body Meeting held on 17-03-2022 which has elected the office bearers to the Society before the competent civil Court, if they so desire."

(II) After service of notice, the State & its officials are represented by the learned Additional Government Advocate; the private respondents are represented by their counsel. The appeals are resisted by making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which the same has been structured.

(III) Submissions Made On Behalf Of The Appellants:

Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the appellants seeks to falter the impugned order on the following grounds:

(a) The learned Single Judge could not have decided the lis between the parties on merits donning the mantle of authorities constituted under the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960.

(b) The learned Single Judge ought to have seen videographs/photographs of the proceedings to ascertain the untoward incidents perpetrated by the other side on the eventful day, and only thereafter, he should have decided the matter. This having not been done, there is error apparent on the face of the record.

(c) In respect of the incident in question, the police because of political influence, had refused to register the criminal case although yielding to the public agitation, they registered one later; after investigation, charge sheet has been filed inter alia against the members of opposite faction. Even this aspect has not been adverted to by the learned Single Judge.

(d) The learned Single Judge failed to see that what he was examining were the proceedings undertaken under section 13 of the 1960 Act and therefore, he could not have set-aside the recommendations made by the District Registrar.

(e) Learned Single Judge erred in not differentiating the decision from decision making process, only the latter being the focal point of writ jurisdiction.

(f) Lastly, there is absolutely no justification for disqualifying as many as 54 members of the Society by the side of respondents and therefore, the said action is to be set at naught. In support of his submission, he cited certain Rulings.

(IV) Submissions Made on Behalf of Private Respondents:

Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents who were the writ petitioners countered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the appellants contending that:

(a) These being intra-court appeals have their own constraints, the scope of examination of impugned order being too restrictive.

(b) It is not that the learned Single Judge has decided the lis between the parties on merits inasmuch as he has relegated the aggrieved to the civil court, where all issues could be debated & resolved.

(c) In the matter that was required to be treated under section 13 of the 1960 Act, the jurisdictional authority could not have recommended for the voiding of elections, the scope of his examination being very restrictive.

(d) What has weighed with the learned Single Judge inter alia is the protection of interest of the educational institutions, the students, the staff & the like. The impugned order has brought about a just result and therefore, does not warrant interference.

(e) The appellants are not justified in contending that the l