Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.10292 OF 2020 (GM-KSR)
BETWEEN :
1. SRI. J.B. SURANA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS DIRECTOR M/S. PRECISION GRANITE AND MARBLE PVT. LTD NO.140, AND 140(A), 2ND PHASE BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE 560 091
2. SRI. ANEES UR-RAHMAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS PROPRIETOR KOHINOOR MARBLE NEHRU ROAD, VAKOLA BRIDGE SANTA CRUZ EAST MUMBAI-400 055 MAHARASTRA
3. SRI. RAKESH SHARMA MANAGING DIRECTOR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS M/S. INTERNATIONAL STONES (I) PVT LTD, NO. E5, SIPCOT INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX PHASE2, EXPN1, HOSUR-635 109 TAMIL NADU
4. SRI. B.K. MANOHARA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS PROPRIETOR S.M.K.GRANITES NO.94/20, 4TH MAIN ROAD INDUSTRIAL TOWN RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 044
5. SRI. NAGESH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS PROPRIETOR P.M. EXPORTS NO.4617, 8TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE NEAR R.K. CORNER MYSURU-570 017
6. SRI. RAGHURAM AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS PROPRIETOR INDUS GRANITES, PLOT NO.14D THANDAY INDUSTRIAL AREA NANJANGUD TALUK-571 302 MYSURU DISTRICT
7. SRI. MADHUR M, NAIK AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS PROPRIETOR AMRUTHA EXPORTS NO.187/3, 13TH B MAIN
1ST PHASE, 1ST STAGE MATHIKERE BENGALURU-560 054 ... PETITIONERS (BY SHRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)
[THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE]
AND :
1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES
4TH ZONE, NO.146, 3RD FLOOR SAHAKARA SOUDHA 8TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN MARGOSA ROAD MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560 003
2. FEDERATION OF INDIAN GRANITE AND STONE INDUSTRY NO.429/7, 12TH CROSS ROAD SADASHIVA NAGAR BANGALORE-560 080 MANAGING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS A). ITS PRESIDENT B). ITS SECRETARY ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1;
SHRI. YESHU MISHRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED REGISTRATION OF AMENDED BY-LAW BY THE R-1 DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES 4TH DIVISION BENGALURU VIDE AMR NO.59/19-2020 DTD.27.12.2020 VIDE ANENXURE-M THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.08.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Initially seven members of second respondent Federation have presented this writ petition. Out of them, petitioners No.4 to 7 have withdrawn their cases by filing a memo on 30.03.2021. Resultantly, petitioners No. 1 to 3 are prosecuting this case.
2. Petitioners have challenged registration of amended Bye-laws vide Annexure-M dated 27.12.2019 issued by the District Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
3. Shri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the proposal dated 09.11.2019, for amendment of bye-laws (Annexure- E), did not contain the subject with regard to contribution for economic development of the work force and their families, where as, in the amended Bye-laws, it has been included as Clause 6.20. Therefore, the registration of amended bye-laws is illegal and liable to be quashed.
4. Shri. Anoop Haranahalli, learned Advocate for the Federation submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of three petitioners out of 1237 Members of the Federation. Placing reliance on R.Shivakumar Swamy Kurki Vs. Kannada Sahithya Parishat, Chamarajpete, Bengaluru1, he submitted that Registrar is the Authority to regulate the working and administration of
the Societies. Aggrieved Members can approach the Registrar for redressal of their grievance.
5. In reply, Shri. Jayakumar Patil submitted that Registrar cannot review his decision. It is an admitted fact that Clause 6.20 is not found in the proposal submitted for amendment. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing this petition.
6. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.
7. It is not in dispute that Federation consists of
1237 Members. Only three Members have approached this Court. It is no doubt true that Clause 6.20 does not find its place in the proposal. It deals with the contribution for economic development for improving the quality of life of the work force. As many as 1234 Members are not aggrieved by the said bye-law. The four other persons, who had joined the petitioners have also withdrawn the writ petition on their behalf. Thus, majority of members have no grievance.
8. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this case does not merit exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
