Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1065 (KAR)

G. P. Shantha Kumar v. District Registrar

2013-09-06

A.S.BOPANNA

body2013
ORDER A.S. Bopanna, J.—Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 has entered caveat, hence there is no need to issue notice. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 12.06.2013 impugned at Annexure-F to the petition. By the said order, the Registrar acting under Section 25 of the Karnataka Registration Act has accepted the proceedings for consideration at the instance of the second respondent. 2. The petitioner while assailing the said action of the respondent No. 1 would firstly contend that the respondent No. 1 was not justified in initiating proceedings under Section 25 of the Act. Secondly, it is contended that when there are contentious issues with regard to the management of the society, the Registrar cannot decide such complicated question and as such the authorities have to relegate the parties to an appropriate Court and the proceedings as has been presently initiated should not have been taken into consideration. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention would rely on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Aboobaker Musaliar Vs. Distt. Registrar (G), Kozhikode and Others reported in (2004) 11 SCC 247 to contend that the Registrar ought not to have entertained the present proceedings. Therefore, the challenge made by the petitioner to the order dated 12.06.2013 is to be accepted and the entire proceedings before the respondent No. 1 is to be set aside and the parties should be relegated to an appropriate Court is the contention. 4. Having noticed the contentions putforth, insofar as the scope of consideration under Section 25 of the Act and the nature of proceedings to be held, there can be no dispute at this juncture as to when the same could be considered as suo-motu proceedings or otherwise inasmuch as that question has already been settled by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bangalore Grain Merchants Association Vs. The District Registrar for Societies and Another, (2001) 1 KCCR 292 . Therefore the question for consideration is as to whether in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order passed by the respondent No. 1 is to be set aside or not. The District Registrar for Societies and Another, (2001) 1 KCCR 292 . Therefore the question for consideration is as to whether in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order passed by the respondent No. 1 is to be set aside or not. In this regard, it is to be noticed that the respondent No. 2 claiming to be the Secretary of the society has approached the Registrar and had indicated that the returns said to have been filed at an earlier instance as per Annexure-C4 dated 19.04.2013 in fact was not signed by the respondent No. 2 and as such has requested the Registrar to accept the subsequent returns which was filed on 24.05.2013 as at Annexure-D. It is in that circumstance, the respondent No. 1 has presently registered the same under Section 25 of the Act and has directed notice to the parties so as to consider that aspect of the matter. 5. If the factual position in the instant case is taken into consideration, the same is not similar to the one which had arisen in the case referred above, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered an issue where the decision had already been taken and the contentious issues could not have been decided. In the instant case, at this juncture all that is required to be noticed by the Registrar in the process of enquiry is the two returns which are filed before it land to come to a conclusion which one of them is genuine and a valid returns filed by the Secretary, more particularly when both the returns are stated to have been filed with the signature of respondent No. 2 in the present circumstance when the respondent No. 2 is disowning the earlier returns filed. This certainly is within the purview of the respondent No. 2 to come to a conclusion in accordance with law. 6. If there are any other contentious issues, certainly the parties would thereafter have the same resolved in an appropriate forum. Since, at this juncture the order impugned herein dated 12.06.2013 is only at the initial stage of registering the dispute and proceeding further with the matter, I see no reason to interfere with the order. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of. Since, at this juncture the order impugned herein dated 12.06.2013 is only at the initial stage of registering the dispute and proceeding further with the matter, I see no reason to interfere with the order. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of. All contentions are left open to be urged before the Registrar.