The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the

registration of the 4^th respondent 3 Hoysala Commanders

Retreat Apartment Owners Welfare Association under the

Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and the consequent

act of the 4^th respondent collecting maintenance charges from

all the owners of the apartment in the apartment complex.

2. Heard Sri.Sameer Sharma, learned counsel appearing

for

petitioner,

Smt.Rashmi

Patel,

learned

High

Court

Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and

Sri.Praveen Kamath, learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.4.

3. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the

subject petition as borne out from the pleadings are:

- 4 -

The petitioner is a resident of Hoysala Commanders

Retreat Apartment and has knocked the doors of this Court on

the ground that the 4^th respondent - Welfare Association of the

Apartment Owners have no right to collect any maintenance as

they are not the owners registered under the 1972 Act and are

the

owners

registered

under

the

Karnataka

Societies

Registration Act, 1960.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the

very issue is considered by the Division Bench of this Court in

W.A.No.974/2019 and connected cases in the case of VDB

Celadon Apartment Owners Association v. Praveen

Prakash and others. He would seek the same relief as is

granted by the Division Bench.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent

would however contend that the petitioner has filed a complaint

before the 2^nd respondent and is now seeking a dual remedy by

knocking the doors of this Court on the same cause of action

and would submit that remedy of appeal being available, this

- 5 -

Court would not interfere by exercising its discretion under

Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the 4^th

respondent though would become acceptable in the first blush,

the fact remains that the identical issue being decided by the

Division Bench in W.A.No.974/2019 and connected cases

wherein the Division Bench has held as follows:

<1. The appellant is a Society registered under the

Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (for short,

8the said Act of 19609). By the impugned order passed

in a petition filed by the first to seventh respondents,

the learned Single Judge has proceeded to cancel the

registration of the appellant Society under the provisions

of the said Act of 1960.

2.

It is the case of the appellant that M/s Value

Design Private Limited, a builder and developer,

constructed the apartment complex consisting of six

blocks having 196 flats. The complex has various

facilities

such

as

swimming

pool,

club

house,

gymnasium, indoor game halls, parking space, walking

track, etc. The case of the appellant is that no steps

have been taken to form an Association of apartment

owners by the developer under the provisions of the

Karnataka Apartments Ownership Act, 1972 (for short,

8the said Act of 19729).

- 6 -

3.

The case made out by the appellant is that in

terms of the said Act of 1972, deeds of declaration by

the owners were prepared. However, an Association of

apartment owners as contemplated by the said Act of

1972 was not registered and therefore, a majority of the

apartment owners came together and formed the

appellant Association in order to maintain the residential

complex and to give services to the owners of the

apartments.

4.

The submission of the learned counsel appearing

for the appellant is that the objects of the appellant

Association will fall in the categories covered by Section

3 of the said Act of 1960. He pointed out that the

dominant purpose or object of forming the said

Association is to administer, maintain and run the

buildings and apartments constructed by the aforesaid

developer. He submitted that in fact, the appellant has

been collecting maintenance charges for maintaining the

residential complex from a majority of the apartment

owners, barring a few