WP NO.

103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO.103712/2021 (GM-RES)

C/W.
WRIT PETITION NO.104100/2021

IN W.P. NO.103712/2021

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. MALLAPPA PUDAKALKATTI,

S/O. BALAPPA PUDAKALKATTI,
AGE 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
AND GENERAL BODY MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA), R/O. MADANBHAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD.

2. SRI. LINGARAJ SIRDESAI S/O.

SIDDARAJ SIRDESAI,
AGE 61 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA), R/O. SHRI KADASIDDESHWAR KRUPA,
NARAYANPUR, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
DHARWAD – 580003.

3. SRI. PALAX KATTISHETTAR,

S/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA KATTISHETTAR,
AGE 78 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
 :2: WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

R/O. ‘TOTAMMA’, C.B.NAGAR,

DHARWAD – 580001.

4. SRI. RAYAPPA PUDAKALKATTI,

S/O. BALAPPA PUDAKALKATTI,
AGE 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER
OF DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA), R/O. MADANBHAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD – 580011.

5. SRI. SUBHAS C. SAMATSHETTI,

S/O. C. SAMATSHETTI,
AGE 70 YEARS,
OCC; RETIRED AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. ADARSH NAGAR, SANKESHWAR – 591313

6. SRI. ULAVIBASAPPA ANGADI,

S/O. BALAPPA ANGADI,
AGE 64 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED AND
GENERAL BODY MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA),
R/O. # 126/2, SHIVALLI PLOT,
RAJNAGAR, 3RD CROSS,
DHARWAD – 580006

7. SMT. PREMALATA ANGADI,

W/O. ULAVIBASAPPA ANGADI,
AGE 56 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND GENERAL BODY
MEMBER OF DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. 126/2, SHIVALLI PLOT,
RAJNAGAR, 3RD CROSS, DHARWAD – 580006.

8. SMT. SAROJINI MOKASHI,

W/O. VIJENDRA MOKASHI,
AGE 63 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND GENERAL BODY
MEMBER OF DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
 :3: WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

(KARNATAKA)
R/O. STATION ROAD, MALAMADDI,
DHARWAD – 580007.

9. SRI. CHANNAPPA MATTI,

S/O. SHIVAMURTHEPPA MATTI,
AGE 76 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED AND GENERAL BODY
MEMBER OF DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. SAVADATTI MAIN ROAD,
M.J.NAGAR, DHARWAD – 580006.

10. SMT. SHASHIKALA MATTI,

W/O. CHANNAPPA MATTI,
AGE 63 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED AND
GENERAL BODY MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. SAVADATTI MAIN ROAD,
M.J.NAGAR, DHARWAD – 580006.

11. SRI. MOHAN SAVANUR,

S/O. PRABHU SAVANUR,
AGE 62 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED AND
GENERAL BODY MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. DEVGIRI, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

12. SRI. SHANTAVEERAPPA KOTTESHATTAR,

S/O. FAKKEERAPPA KOTTESHATTAR,
AGE 62 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED AND GENERAL
BODY MEMBER OF DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI
PRACHAR SABHA (KARNATAKA),
R/O. SAINT ROHINS NAGAR,
ANGOL, BELAGAVI – 590008.

13. SRI. BABU S. GOPALAPPANAVAR,

S/O. S. GOLAPPANAVAR,
AGE 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND
GENERAL BODY MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
 :4: WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

(KARNATAKA)
R/O. KASTURIMATA ROAD,
NEAR RURAL POLICE STATION,
BAGALKOT – 587101.
….PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. M.V.SHESHACHALA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

SRI. GANGADHAR J.M. FOR PETITIONERS)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

THE DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY,

2. DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA,

REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
THANIKACHALAM ROAD, THYAGARAYANAGAR,
CHENNAI – 5600017.

3. THE PRESIDENT,
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA,
THANIKACHALAM ROAD, THYAGARAYANAGAR,
CHENNAI – 600017,

4. DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA,

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
U.B.HILL, DHARWAD – 580001.

5. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR,

DHARWAD DISTRICT,
DHARWAD – 580001.

6. THE SPECIAL SECRETARY,

DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA,
U.B.HILL, DHARWAD – 580001.

…RESPONDENTS

(SMT. VIDYAWATI K., AAG ALONG WITH

 :5: WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R5;

SRI. M.B.NARAGUND SENIOR COUNSEL AND
ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR
SRI. M.B.HIREMATH AND
SRI. SANTOSH MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R4 & R6;
SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER, DATED 23.05.2020 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3
BEARING NO.PRESIDENT/PROC/001/ 2020-21/027.

IN W.P. NO.104100/2021

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. SIDDARTHA SHARMA,

S/O. S.S.SHARMA,
AGE ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCC: EXECUTIVE MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR
SABHA (KARNATAKA)
R/O. 2ND CROSS, AKKAMMA BLK,
SADASHIVA NAGAR, BENGALURU.

2. MEHABOOBALI HALAGI,
S/O. MAHMAD HUSEN,
AGE 54 YEARS,
OCC: GENERAL BODY MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR
SABHA (KARNATAKA)
R/O. MALATESH NAGAR,
GUTTAL, HAVERI – 581108.

3. SRI. CHANNABASAPPA MALLAPPA KODIHALLI,

S/O. MALLAPPA KODIHALLI,
AGE 54 YEARS,
OCC: GENERAL BODY MEMBER OF
 :6: WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR

SABHA (KARNATAKA), R/O. HALERITTI,
YALAGACH, HAVERI – 581213,

4. SRI. SAVITRI B,
W/O. B. BAKKAPPA,
AGE 66 YEARS,
OCC: GENERAL BODY MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA) R/O. # 1862/2A,
LAXMI NARASHIMA KRUPA,
4TH MAIN, VINOBA NAGAR,
DAVANAGERE – 577006.

5. SRI. ABDULHAMID I. BELLARY,

S/O. IBRAHIMSAB BELLARY,
AGE 63 YEARS,
OCC: GENERAL BODY MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR
SABHA (KARNATAKA),
R/O. H.NO.44, SAMEER MANZIL,
SARVODAYA COLONY,
GADAG – 582101.

6. SRI. NAGESH YAKKUNDI,

S/O. REVAPPA YAKKUNDI,
AGE 44 YEARS, OCC: GENERAL BODY MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. 572 a/9, MAHANTESH CHAWL,
BAILHONGAL (RURAL)
BAILHONGAL – 591102.

7. SRI. KOTRAPPA BYALI,

S/O. BASAPPA BYALI,
AGE 77 YEARS, OCC: EXECUTIVE MEMBER
OF DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR
SABHA (KARNATAKA),
R/O. GUDNEPPAN MATH ROAD,
GAVISIDDESHWAR NAGAR,
KUKNOOR, KOPPAL – 583232.

8. SRI. SAMUD A. BAIG,

 :7: WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

S/O. ABDUL, AGE 53 YEARS,

OCC: GENERAL BODY MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. H.NO.3419/A,
HOSPETH GALLI, GOKAK RURAL,
BELAGAVI – 591307.

9. SRI. GURUVANGOUDA BUDAGATTI,

S/O. MALINGANAGOUDA BUDAGATTI,
AGE 60 YEARS, OCC: EXECUTIVE MEMBER
OF DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. 7669/21, NARAYANPUR ONI,
KAMALAPUR, DHARWAD – 580008.

10. SRI. SURESH KASHYAP,

S/O. SUBBA RAO,
AGE 77 YEARS, OCC: GENERAL BODY MEMBER
OF DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. 699, 17TH MAIN ROAD,
JNANABHARATI, 2ND BLOCK,
MARIYAPPAN PALYA,
BENGALURU SOUTH,
BENGALURU-560056.

11. SMT. SHARADA SHARMA,

W/O. S. SHARMA,
AGE 70 YEARS, OCC: GENERAL BODY MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. 19, VALLABHA NIKETHANA,
KUMARA PARK EAST,
NEAR GANDHI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU-560001.

12. SRI. D.N.BASAVARAJA,

S/O. NANJAPPA,
AGE 67 YEARS, OCC: GENERAL BODY
MEMBER OF DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
 :8: WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

R/O. SIDDALINGESHWAR NAGAR,

BOGADI, 2ND STAGE, MYSORE,
MYSORE – 570026.

13. SRI. B.P.SHIVA KUMAR,

S/O. LATE K.B. PARASHIVA MURTHY,
AGE 52 YEARS, OCC: GENERAL BODY MEMBER
OF DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA), R/O. 395/4,
VEENA SHAMANNA ROAD,
FORT MOHALLA,
MYSORE – 570004.

14. SRI. K.S.SHIVAMURTHY,

S/O. LATE SIDDAPPA,
AGE 54 YEARS,
OCC: GOVERNING BODY MEMBER OF
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR
SABHA (KARNATAKA)
R/O. KETHOHALLI, MAYAGANAHALLI
POST, RAMANAGAR TALUK,
KASABA HOBLI,
RAMANAGAR – 562128.

15. SMT. MANGALA S.

W/O. GURUSWAMY N.,
AGE 61 YEARS, OCC: GENERAL BODY MEMBER
OF DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. MANJUNATH NILAYA, 1ST CROSS,
VINAYAKA NAGAR, NES BADAVANE,
MALAVALLI, MANDYA – 571430.

16. SRI. HIREMATH RUDRAYYA,

S/O. GANGADHAR HIREMATH,
AGE 49 YEARS, OCC: GENERAL BODY
MEMBER OF DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA
(KARNATAKA)
R/O. KUNDAGOL.
….PETITIONERS

(SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE)

 :9: WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

THE DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

2. DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA,

REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
THANIKACHALAM ROAD,
THYAGARAYANAGAR,
CHENNAI-600017.

3. THE PRESIDENT,
DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR
SABHA, THANIKACHALAM ROAD,
THYAGARAYANAGAR,
CHENNAI – 600017,

4. DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA,

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
U.B.HILL, DHARWAD – 580001.

5. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR,

DHARWAD DISTRICT,
DHARWAD 580001.

6. THE SPECIAL SECRETARY,

DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA,
U.B.HILL, DHARWAD-580001.

…RESPONDENTS

(SRI. VIDYAVATHI K., AAG FOR

SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R5;
SRI. M.B.NARAGUND, SENIOR COUNSEL AND
ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR
SRI. M.B.HIREMATH, SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA TATA BANGI,
AND SRI. SANTOSH MALIGAWAD, ADVOCATES FOR
R2 TO R4 & R6)
 : 10 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER, DATED 23.05.2020 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3,
BEARING NO.PRESIDENT/PROC/001/ 2020-21/027 (ANNEXURE-Q).

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

IN WP No.103712/2021

1. The petitioners are before this Court, seeking for the

following reliefs:

(i) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of

certiorari to set aside the impugned order, dated
23.05.2020 passed by the respondent No.3 bearing
No.President/Proc/ 001/2020-21/027 (Annexure-Q).
(ii) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari to set aside the impugned order, dated
23.05.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 bearing
No.Karyalaya/4-2/2020-21/030 (Annexure-R).
(iii) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari to set aside the impugned order, dated
08.06.2020 passed by the respondent No.3 bearing
No.Karyalaya/4-2/2020-21/49 (Annexure-S).
(iv) Declare that enrollment of new members by the 2nd and
6th respondent is illegal, void ab initio (Annexure-T).
(v) Grant such other relief this Hon’ble Court deem it proper
in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioners claim to be members of the Dakshina

Bharata Hindi Prachar Sabha (Karnataka), Dharwad. The

 : 11 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

grievance of the petitioners is that an administrator has

been appointed by the Dakshina Bharata Hindi Prachar

Sabha which is not permissible, and thereafter the

administrator has taken several actions which is also not

permissible. In the Petition, it is stated and contended

that:

2.1. Dakshina Bharata Hindi Prachar Sabha (Central

Sabha) was established in the year 1918 at

Madras(presently known as Chennai) by Sri.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the father of our

nation with the object of propagating the Hindi

language in the southern states.

2.2. The said Central Sabha was initially registered under

the Indian Act of 1860, 1816, in the year 1927 with

its headquarters, in then Madras now Chennai.

 : 12 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

2.3. Various provincial Hindi Prachar Sabhas had been

established in the non-Hindi-speaking southern states

like Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and

Karnataka.

2.4. The subject matter of the present proceeding being

that of Karnataka where the Karnataka Provincial

Hindi Prachar Sabha, Dharwad was registered under

the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (for short ‘BPT

Act’) on 17.11.1970.

2.5. Upon the BPT Act being repealed, the Dakshina

Bharata Hindi Prachar Sabha (Karnataka) Dharwad,

came to be registered under the Karnataka Societies

Registration Act, 1960 (for short ‘KSR Act’) on

27.07.2006 and it is this society that is carrying its

activities within the State of Karnataka.

2.6. The petitioner’s Sabha has four types of members i.e.

namely (i) Samrakshakas, (ii) Poshakas, (iii)

 : 13 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

Ajeevana Sadasyas, (iv) Samanya Sadasyas and the

overall functioning of the Karnataka Sabha is

discharged by the Vyavasthapika Samiti (Governing

Body) and the Karyakarini Samiti (Executive Body)

and the said society has been functioning on that

basis.

2.7. This being so, a request for conducting an election

was received on 19.12.2019, an election officer was

appointed, thereafter a General Body meeting was

held on 18.12.2019, elections were conducted on

26.02.2019 for the period of 2020-2024. The Office

bearers having been elected on 01.03.2020, their

names were notified as such.

2.8. It is thereafter, that on 23.05.2020, the Central

Sabha who had no superintendence power over the

Karnataka Sabha had issued a show-cause notice

 : 14 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

alleging that there are various infirmities and

violations of the bye-laws.

2.9. The Secretary of the Karnataka Sabha has replied to

the same contending that there is no violation,

despite which the President of the Central Sabha had

directed the General Secretary to take over the

administration of the Karnataka Provincial Sabha and

has appointed a Special Secretary namely Sri.

S.B.Hinchigeri, to the Karnataka Provisional Sabha

until further orders vide the impugned order dated

23.05.2020 by allegedly exercising power under Rule

28 of the Central Sabha Constitution.

2.10. Subsequent thereto, the President of the Central

Sabha constituted an Advisory Committee vide order

dated 08.06.2020, to ensure the smooth functioning

of the Dharwad Sabha. It is both the above orders,

which are challenged by the petitioners herein.

 : 15 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

2.11. In furtherance of the aforesaid two orders, the 2nd

and 6th respondents i.e. the General Secretary and

the Special Secretary have sought to enroll members

in the Dharwad Sabha, which is not proper and

correct as they have no right or authority to enroll

such members and it in this back ground that the

aforesaid three aspects have been challenged in WP

No.103712/2021 seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

In W.P.No.104100/2021.

3. This petition has been filed by certain other members of

the Dharwad Sabha on the very same basis as that in

W.P.No.103712/2021 and similar reliefs are sought in this

petition also, except for an additional prayer seeking for a

declaration that the Central Sabha had no power to set

aside the election conducted by the Dharwad Sabha as

done vide order dated 23.05.2020.

 : 16 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

4. Initially, when the matter had come up on 13.09.2021,

while issuing emergent notice, the operation of the orders

dated 23.05.2020 and 08.06.2020 had been stayed.

5. On appearance, the respondents filed a vacate stay

application, as also statement of objections to the writ

petition in W.P.No.103712/2021.

6. In the vacate stay application, it is contended that;

6.1. The writ petition is not maintainable, the writ petition

has been filed after a prolonged delay of 15 months

from the date of the order in respect of cancellation of

election and appointment of Special Officer, the delay

by itself is a good ground for dismissal of the petition.

6.2. The election was declared void by the Central Sabha

on the ground of fraud and mis-representation,

inasmuch as the requirements of the bye-laws and

 : 17 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

constituent documents have been violated, hence it

was within the purview of the Central Sabha in terms

of the Para 28 of the bye-laws to take necessary

action.

6.3. The Sabhas are not state within the meaning of

Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore

the writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be

dismissed.

6.4. There has been mis-representation of facts, the

special officer has already taken charge on

23.05.2020 in the presence of the Office bearers who

have been elected in the election on 26.02.2020. The

said office bearers have handed over the charge to

the Administrator/Special Officer, the petitioners who

are the members cannot challenge the same as the

elected members who had been superseded have not

challenged the election being declared void, then the

 : 18 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

ordinary members also cannot challenge the order

dated 23.05.2020 or 08.06.2020.

6.5. On account of interim order passed the operation and

management of the Dharwad Sabha had come to a

standstill and therefore, interim order needs to be

vacated.

7. In the statement of objections filed by respondent Nos.2 to

4 & 6 in W.P.No.103712/2021, averments and contentions

as raised in the vacate stay application have been

reiterated. Apart there from, it is further contended that:

7.1. the Central Sabha has the powers to take over the

control over the Provincial Sabhas, exercise control

and superintendence over the Provincial Sabhas, the

Central Sabha was well within its right to appoint a

Special Officer.
 : 19 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

7.2. The registration of the Provincial Sabha under the

KSR Act is only for the purpose of easy

management/Administration.

7.3. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 having been recognized

as Institution for National Importance and an Act

having been passed in that regard, the Provincial

Sabhas have to act in terms of the bye-laws provided.

7.4. The dispute between the parties regarding the control

and affairs of the society in terms of the bye-laws

thereof, the remedy is by filing of a civil suit and not

by approaching a writ court. On this basis, it is

contended that the petitions are liable to be

dismissed.

8. Sri. M.V.Sheshachala, learned Senior Counsel instructed by

Sri. Gangadhar J.M, appearing for the petitioners in

W.P.No.103712/2021 submitted that:

 : 20 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

8.1. Bye-law No.28 of the Central Sabha is not applicable

to the Dharwad Sabha which is registered under the

provisions of KSR Act, subsequent to such registration

it is the KSR Act and the constituent documents of

the Dharwad Sabha which would be applicable to the

Dharwad Sabha.

8.2. Any action that is required to be taken would have to

be in terms of the KSR Act.

8.3. Any person if at all aggrieved, would have to

approach the concerned authorities in terms of KSR

Act. The said Act cannot be by-passed by the Central

Sabha in the manner as done in the present case

upon the registration of the Dharwad Sabha under

the KSR Act, it is only KSR Act, which would be

applicable to the Dharwad Sabha.

 : 21 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

8.4. Once the Dharwad Sabha is registered under the KSR

Act, the Central Sabha cannot claim to have any

superintendence power over the Dharwad Sabha, in

as much as the Dharwad Sabha has an independent

existence under the KSR Act, even though earlier the

Dharwad Sabha and the other Regional Sabhas have

been established by the Central Sabha, with the

registration under the KSR Act, the umbilical cord has

been cut and thereafter the Dharwad Sabha has an

independent existence from that of the Central

Sabha.

8.5. In terms of Section 24 of the Karnataka General

Clauses Act, the Central Sabha cannot exercise any

powers over the Karnataka Sabha. The Central Sabha

had been registered under the Act of 1860, 1860

which has been repealed in terms of Section 31 of the

KSR Act. Therefore, insofar as the Dharwad Sabha is

concerned, the Central Sabha which is registered

 : 22 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

under the Act of 1860, as a society does not exist any

longer, the Central Sabha exists only, if at all, in

terms of the Act of 1964, whereunder the Dakshina

Bharata Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras, has been

declared as an Institution of National Eminence.

8.6. Subsequent thereto the only power and authority that

could be exercised by the said Sabha is only

regarding the grant of certification and nothing else.

Therefore, the Central Sabha cannot claim any

administrative superintendence as sought to be done

in the present case.

8.7. He refers to Section 25 and Section 26(A) of the KSR

Act to contend that the KSR Act, is self-contained and

it is only in terms of these provisions that any action

on the basis of any complaints could have been

instituted and not dehors these provisions.

 : 23 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

8.8. He submits by referring to Entry 32 of List 2 of the 7th

Schedule of the Constitution that the registration of

any organization or association would be within the

State’s purview being a State subject and it is for this

reason that upon the Constitution coming into force,

the different States promulgated their own Act of

1860, whereunder the Central Act of 1860 has been

repealed.

8.9. This Court would have to exercise the power of

judicial review and under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, this Court could issue direction,

order or writs to any person or authority.

8.10. The fundamental rights of the petitioners herein being

infringed upon by the arbitrary actions on the part of

the respondents, this Court would be required to

allow the writ petitions and pass orders in terms of

 : 24 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

the relief sought for. He relies on the following

decisions

8.11. State of West Bengal and others Vs. Committee

for Protection of Democratic Rights, West

Bengal, and others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC

571 more particularly paragraph Nos.51, 57, 59, 68

thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy

reference.

51. The Constitution of India expressly confers

the power of judicial review on this Court and the
High Courts under Article 32 and 226 respectively.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the very
soul of the Constitution - the very heart of it - the
most important Article. By now, it is well settled that
the power of judicial review, vested in the Supreme
Court and the High Courts under the said Articles of
the Constitution, is an integral part and essential
feature of the Constitution, constituting part of its
basic structure. Therefore, ordinarily, the power of
the High Court and this Court to test the
Constitutional validity of legislations can never be
ousted or even abridged. Moreover, Article 13 of the
Constitution not only declares the pre- constitution
laws as void to the extent to which they are
inconsistent with the fundamental rights, it also
prohibits the State from making a law which either
takes away totally or abrogates in part a
fundamental right. Therefore, judicial review of laws
is embedded in the Constitution by virtue of Article
13 read with Articles 32 and 226 of our Constitution.
 : 25 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

57. As regards the power of judicial review

conferred on the High Court, undoubtedly they are,
in a way, wider in scope. The High Courts are
authorized under Article 226 of the Constitution, to
issue directions, orders or writs to any person or
authority, including any government to enforce
fundamental rights and, "for any other purpose". It
is manifest from the difference in the phraseology of
Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution that there is
a marked difference in the nature and purpose of
the right conferred by these two Articles. Whereas
the right guaranteed by Article 32 can be exercised
only for the enforcement of fundamental rights
conferred by Part III of the Constitution, the right
conferred by Article 226 can be exercised not only
for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but "for
any other purpose" as well, i.e. for enforcement of
any legal right conferred by a Statute etc.

59. In Dwarkanath's case (supra), this

Court had said that Article 226 of the Constitution is
couched in comprehensive phraseology and it ex
facie confers a wide power on the High Court to
reach injustice wherever it is found. This Article
enables the High Courts to mould the reliefs to meet
the peculiar and extra-ordinary circumstances of the
case. Therefore, what we have said above in regard
to the exercise of jurisdiction by this (2004) 5 SCC 1
Court under Article 32, must apply equally in
relation to the exercise of jurisdiction by the High
Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution.

68. Thus, having examined the rival

contentions in the context of the Constitutional
Scheme, we conclude as follows:

(i) The fundamental rights, enshrined in Part III of

the Constitution, are inherent and cannot be
extinguished by any Constitutional or Statutory
provision. Any law that abrogates or abridges such
rights would be violative of the basic structure
doctrine. The actual effect and impact of the law on
the rights guaranteed under Part III has to be taken
 : 26 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

into account in determining whether or not it

destroys the basic structure.

(ii) Article 21 of the Constitution in its broad

perspective seeks to protect the persons of their
lives and personal liberties except according to the
procedure established by law. The said Article in its
broad application not only takes within its fold
enforcement of the rights of an accused but also the
rights of the victim. The State has a duty to enforce
the human rights of a citizen providing for fair and
impartial investigation against any person accused
of commission of a cognizable offence, which may
include its own officers. In certain situations even a
witness to the crime may seek for and shall be
granted protection by the State.

(iii) In view of the constitutional scheme and the

jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 32
and on the High Courts under Article 226 of the
Constitution the power of judicial review being an
integral part of the basic structure of the
Constitution, no Act of Parliament can exclude or
curtail the powers of the Constitutional Courts with
regard to the enforcement of fundamental rights. As
a matter of fact, such a power is essential to give
practicable content to the objectives of the
Constitution embodied in Part III and other parts of
the Constitution. Moreover, in a federal constitution,
the distribution of legislative powers between the
Parliament and the State Legislature involves
limitation on legislative powers and, therefore, this
requires an authority other than the Parliament to
ascertain whether such limitations are transgressed.
Judicial review acts as the final arbiter not only to
give effect to the distribution of legislative powers
between the Parliament and the State Legislatures,
it is also necessary to show any transgression by
each entity. Therefore, to borrow the words of Lord
Steyn, judicial review is justified by combination of
"the principles of separation of powers, rule of law,
the principle of constitutionality and the reach of
judicial review".
 : 27 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

(iv) If the federal structure is violated by

any legislative action, the Constitution takes care to
protect the federal structure by ensuring that Courts
act as guardians and interpreters of the Constitution
and provide remedy under Articles 32 and 226,
whenever there is an attempted violation. In the
circumstances, any direction by the Supreme Court
or the High Court in exercise of power under Article
32 or 226 to uphold the Constitution and maintain
the rule of law cannot be termed as violating the
federal structure.

(v) Restriction on the Parliament by the

Constitution and restriction on the Executive by the
Parliament under an enactment, do not amount to
restriction on the power of the Judiciary under Article
32 and 226 of the Constitution.

(vi) If in terms of Entry 2 of List II of The

Seventh Schedule on the one hand and Entry 2A and
Entry 80 of List I on the other, an investigation by
another agency is permissible subject to grant of
consent by the State concerned, there is no reason
as to why, in an exceptional situation, court would be
precluded from exercising the same power which the
Union could exercise in terms of the provisions of the
Statute. In our opinion, exercise of such power by
the constitutional courts would not violate the
doctrine of separation of powers. In fact, if in such a
situation the court fails to grant relief, it would be
failing in its constitutional duty.

(vii) When the Special Police Act itself provides

that subject to the consent by the State, the CBI can
take up investigation in relation to the crime which
was otherwise within the jurisdiction of the State
Police, the court can also exercise its constitutional
power of judicial review and direct the CBI to take up
the investigation within the jurisdiction of the State.
The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution cannot be taken away, curtailed or
diluted by Section 6 of the Special Police Act.
Irrespective of there being any statutory provision
 : 28 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

acting as a restriction on the powers of the Courts,

the restriction imposed by Section 6 of the Special
Police Act on the powers of the Union, cannot be
read as restriction on the powers of the
Constitutional Courts. Therefore, exercise of power of
judicial review by the High Court, in our opinion,
would not amount to infringement of either the
doctrine of separation of power or the federal
structure.

8.12. Once the Pranteeya Sabha has been registered under

the provisions of the KSR Act, it is the provisions of

the KSR Act, which would apply and the Central

Sabha cannot exercise any superintendence power. In

this regard, he relies upon the following decisions:

8.13. Calcutta Municipal Corporation Vs. Pawan K.

Saraf, reported (1999) 2 SCC 400 more

particularly, paragraph No.10 thereof, which is

reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

10. When the statute says that certificate shall

supersede the report it means that the report would
stand annulled or obliterated. The word "supersede"
in law, means "obliterate, set aside, annul, replace,
make void or inefficacious or useless, repeal", (vide
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edn.). Once the
Certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory
reaches the court the Report of the Public Analyst
 : 29 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

stands displaced and what may remain is only a

fossil of it.

8.14. State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Singhara Singh and

others, reported in AIR 1964 SC 358, more

particularly paragraph No.8, which is reproduced

hereunder for easy reference:

8. The rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor is well

recognized and is founded on sound principle. Its
result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do
an act and has laid down the method in which that
power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the
doing of the act in any other manner than that which
has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is
that if this were not so, the statutory provision might
as well not have been enacted. A magistrate,
therefore, cannot in the course of investigation record
a confession except in the manner laid down in
Section 164. The power to record the confession had
obviously been given so that the confession might be
proved by the record of it made in the manner laid
down. If proof of the confession by other means was
permissible, the whole provision of s. 164 including
the safeguards contained in it for the protection of
accused persons would be rendered nugatory. The
section, therefore, by conferring on magistrates the
power to record statements or confessions, by
necessary implication, prohibited a magistrate from
giving oral evidence of the statements or confessions
made to him.

8.15. A Krishnamurthy and Anr. Vs. State of

Karnataka & others reported in ILR 1979 KAR.

 : 30 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

1944, more particularly paragraph No.20, which is

reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

20. It has to be seen, therefore, whether the

impugned order is unsustainable in view of this
violation of the procedural requirements of the
statutory provisions referred to above. In this context
it is necessary to examine whether the provision-
Section 25(2)(c) (iii) of the Act and Rule 8(5) of the
Rules-are mandatory or merely directory. In this
connection the following observations of the learned
Author S.A. de Smith in Judicial Review of
Administrative Act (iii) Edition at page 122 may be
noted:

"The law relating to the effect of failure to comply

with procedural requirements resembles an
inextricable tangle of loose ends. Although it would
be futile to attempt to unravel or cut all the knots, it
is possible to state the main principles of
interpretation that the courts have followed and to
illustrate their application in a few settings.

When Parliament prescribes the manner or form in

which a duty is to be performed or a power
exercised, it seldom lays down what will be the legal
consequences of failure to observe its prescriptions.
The courts must therefore formulate their own
criteria for determining whether the procedural rules
are to be regarded as mandatory, in which case
disobedience will render void or voidable what has
been done, or as directory, in which case
disobedience will be treated as an irregularity not
affecting the validity of what has been done (though
in some cases it has been said that there must be
"substantial compliance" with the statutory
provisions if the deviation is to be excused as a
mere irregularity). Judges have often stressed the
impractibility of specifying exact rules for the
assignment of a procedural provision to the
appropriate category. The whole scope and purpose
 : 31 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

of the enactment must be considered, and one must

assess 'the importance of the provision that has
been disregarded, and the relation of that provision
to the general object intended to be secured by the
Act,' Furthermore, much may depend upon the
particular circumstances of the case in hand.
Although 'nullification is the natural and usual
consequence of disobedience,' breach of procedural
or formal rules is likely to be treated as a mere
irregularity if the departure from the terms of the
Act is of a trivial nature, or if no substantial
prejudice has been suffered by those for whose
benefit the requirements were introduced, or if
serious public inconvenience would be caused by
holding them to be mandatory, or if the court is for
any reason disinclined to interfere with the set or
decision that is impugned,"

Section 27A of the Act, which was

incorporated in the Act by Act No. 26 of 1965 confers
extraordinary powers on the State Government. It
enables the State Government to remove the
executive or governing bodies of Societies registered
under the Act and appoint administrators, though for
a temporary period. The Registrar is conferred with
powers to probe into the affairs of the societies and to
make a report to the Government. When the
Government removes a Managing Committee and
appoints an Administrator it purports to have done so
in public interest. Consequences of such action
particularly on the Managing Committee or office
bearers of such a Society are far reaching. Some
times it may even entail actions in Courts of law both
civil and criminal-against them. Therefore, the law
has provided that the Society concerned should be
communicated with the result of the enquiry. This is
evidently with the intention to provide the office
bearers of the Society with a further opportunity of
making representations either with the Registrar or
the Government, as the case may be, on the adverse
remarks, if any, found in the report before they
proceed to take further action against the Society.
 : 32 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

Therefore, the aforesaid provisions are not merely

directory, and they are, in my opinion, mandatory.

8.16. A.S.Kupparaju Vs. General Secretary, Raju

Kshatriya Welfare Association, reported in ILR

1990 KAR. 3721, more particularly paragraph

Nos.9, 10, and 25, which are reproduced hereunder

for easy reference:

9. We are satisfied that the learned Judge

correctly analysed the import of Section 25 of the
Act and reached the right conclusions. The fault if
any is in a coma missing after 'suo motu' in para 8
before "when an application is made". That way one
may misread the order to mean "suo motu when the
application is made". That becomes clear when the
learned Judge clearly states 'whether a suo moto
enquiry should be ordered or not' in the following
sentence. In other words the learned Judge has
enumerated correctly the three occasions on which
the Registrar is directed to hold an enquiry. They
are:

"(i) suo motu or on his own;

(ii) when an application is made by the majority of

the members of the governing body of the society,
and

(iii) when an application is made by not less than

one-third of the members of the society."

10. The significant feature to notice in the exercise

of the power to hold an enquiry or direct the holding
of an enquiry is in the employment of the
expressions "may" and "shall" in the language of
Section 25(1) of the Act. May, occurring just before
 : 33 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

"on his own" clearly indicates the directory nature.

That is, if and when he acts on his own upon or with
reference to information or material gathered by
him from whatever source or sources, he has the
discretion to hold or not to hold an enquiry or direct
the holding of it or not holding it by person
authorized by him. On the other hand, if it is a case
falling either under the second or the third occasion
indicated by us, that discretion is taken away by the
Legislature and the Registrar is mandated to hold
the enquiry or direct the holding of it by person
authorised by him. For this reason in Rule 8 of the
Rules reference is made to the application that is
required to be made relating to the latter two
occasions when the power is to be exercised.

25. What remains for us to decide is

whether the petitioner is entitled to the second relief
restraining the Registrar from acting upon the
impugned report. In our opinion that prayer does not
survive for consideration because we have held that
the report in question is liable to be quashed.

8.17. The writ petition is maintainable since the

Administrator now appointed though under the

Central Sabha is discharging the administrative

functions, the Sabha carries on important public

activities inasmuch as it is involved in the

dissemination of the Hindi language, the Sabha

performing important activities which are required to

be so performed by the Government, the respondent

 : 34 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

No.2 is a State or would qualify to be an

instrumentality of State discharging public functions

and as such be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of

this Court. In this regard, he relies upon the decision

passed in Nagappa Pradhani Vs. The State of

Karnataka, 2008 (1) Kar. LJ 635, more

particularly paragraph Nos.6, 9 and 10 thereof, which

are reproduced hereunder for easy reference.

6. Respondents who were served by notice,

entered appearance. State is represented by Sri
Khureshi, learned Government Advocate and
respondents 2 and 3 by Sri Kukkaje Ramakrishna
Bhat, advocate. Statement of objections have been
filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. An
application is also moved on behalf of respondents 2
and 3 seeking for vacating the interim order of stay
contending inter alia that the writ petition itself is
not tenable; that the respondent-society is not
‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12; that the
administrator, being a substitute for the
management of a private society, while so
functioning, cannot elevate the institution to the
status of State and therefore, the writ petition is to
be dismissed outright. It is also contended that
assuming the society is State, even then, writ
petitioners should have availed for the statutory
remedies and for this reason also, writ petition
should not be entertained and when there is no
prima facie ground even to maintain the writ
petition, the petitioners are not entitled for interim
order and the interim order requires to be vacated
and the writ petition dismissed.
 : 35 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

9. Submission of Sri Khureshi, learned

Government Advocate is that the provisions of the
Karnataka Education Act governs the functioning of
the 3rd respondent-institution and it is open to the
petitioner to avail of the statutory remedies
provided under this Act and therefore, the writ
petition should not be entertained.

10. While this question as to Whether the 3rd

respondent – society is state or otherwise within the
meaning of Article 12 does pose some difficulty and
prima facie it appears, the 3rd respondent – society
may not readily answer the test for calling it state
just because some financial assistance it had
received from the State Government, I find the
power exercised by the administrator who has been
appointed to perform the role of managing the
affairs of a society under Section 27A of the KSR
Act, 1960 being by a statutory functionary whose
actions can be reviewed by this Court even under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and for this
reason, this writ petition is entertained and the
matter is taken up for disposal.

8.18. The decision of the Kerala High Court dated

09.03.2021 in W.P.(C) No.22385/2015,

[K.P.Haridas Vs. The Dakshina Bharat Hindi

Pracharasabha] more particularly paragraph No.10

thereof.
 : 36 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

10. Taking into account the facts emerging from

the pleadings and arguments of the counsel on
either side, this Court is of the opinion that the writ
petition can be disposed of directing the respondents
to conduct elections to the 2nd respondent-Dakshina
Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Kerala, WP(C)
No.22385/2015 expeditiously and in a time bound
manner. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to prepare
a provisional voters list within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Election to the Vyavasthapika Samiti of the 2nd
respondent-Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha,
Kerala should be conducted within a period of six
months thereafter.

8.19. By relying on the above, he submits that, the Hon’ble

Kerala High Court, has exercised its jurisdiction in the

writ petition filed against the Kerala Pranteeya Sabha

which could also be done by this Court in the present

matter as regards the Karnataka Pranteeya Sabha.

8.20. As regards the delay and laches, he submits that, the

orders questioned herein dated 23.05.2020 and

08.06.2020, the delay in questioning the same would

not adversely effect the merits of the matter since the

Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application

 : 37 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

No.665/2021 between In Re Cognizance for

extension of limitation Vs. XXXX, has passed an

order on 23.09.2021, taking into consideration the

prevailing COVID-19 pandemic and extended the

period of limitation, therefore, the said order would

enure to the benefit of the petitioner. He relies upon

the paragraph Nos.1 to 4 of the said order which are

reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

1. Due to the outbreak of COVID-19

pandemic in March, 2020, this Court took Suo Motu
cognizance of the difficulties that might be faced by
the litigants in filing petitions/ applications/ suits/
appeals/ all other proceedings within the period of
limitation prescribed under the general law of
limitation or under any special laws (both Central
and/or State). On 23.03.2020, this Court directed
extension of the period of limitation in all
proceedings before the Courts/Tribunals including
this Court w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further orders.

2. Considering the reduction in

prevalence of COVID-19 virus and normalcy being
restored, the following order was passed in the Suo
Motu proceedings on 08.03.2021:

"1. In computing the period of limitation for

any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the
period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand
excluded. Consequently, the balance period of
limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall
become available with effect from 15.03.2021.
 : 38 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

2. In cases where the limitation would

have expired during the period between
15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021,notwithstandingthe
actual balance period of limitation remaining, all
persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days
from 15.03.2021.Inthe event the actual balance
period of limitation remaining, with effect from
15.03.2021, is greater than 90days,thatlonger
period shall apply.

3. The period from 15.03.2020 till

14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing
the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and
29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,
Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act,2015
and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other
laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for
instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which
the court or tribunal can condone delay) and
termination of proceedings.

4. The Government of India shall amend

the guidelines for containment zones, to state.
"Regulated movement will be allowed for medical
emergencies, provision of essential goods and
services, and other necessary functions, such as,
time bound applications, including for legal
purposes, and educational and job-related
requirements."

3. Thereafter, there was a second surge in

COVID-19 cases which had a devastating and
debilitating effect. The Supreme Court Advocates
on Record Association (SCAORA) intervened in the
Suo Motu proceedings by filing Miscellaneous
Application No.665 of 2021 seeking restoration of
the order dated 23.03.2020. Acceding to the
request made by SCAORA, this Court passed the
following order on 27.04.2021:

"We also take judicial notice of the fact that

the steep rise in COVID-19 Virus cases is not
 : 39 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

limited to Delhi alone but it has engulfed the entire

nation. The extraordinary situation caused by the
sudden and second outburst of COVID-19 Virus,
thus, requires extraordinary measures to minimize
the hardship of litigant-public in all the states. We,
therefore, restore the order dated 23rd March,
2020 and in continuation of the order dated 8th
March, 2021 direct that the period(s) of limitation,
as prescribed under any general or special laws in
respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings,
whether condonable or not, shall stand extended till
further orders.

It is further clarified that the period from

14th March, 2021 till further orders shall also stand
excluded in computing the periods prescribed under
Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and
(c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe
period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings,
outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can
condone delay) and termination of proceedings.

We have passed this order in exercise of our

powers under Article 142 read with Article 141 of
the Constitution of India. Hence it shall be a
binding order within the meaning of Article 141 on
all Courts/Tribunals and Authorities."

4. In spite of all the uncertainties about another

wave of the deadly COVID-19 virus, it is imminent
that the order dated 08.03.2021 is restored as the
situation is near normal.

8.21. He submits that, once the Societies Act, 1960 came

to be repealed by the KSR Act, 1960, the Central

Sabha which was registered under the Act of 1860,

 : 40 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

1860 ceased to be in existence and the KSR Act,

1960 superseded the Act of 1860, 1860. In this

regard, he relies upon a decision in the case of State

of Orissa and another Vs. M/s. M.A.Tulloch and

Co., reported in AIR 1964 SC 1284, more

particularly paragraph No.20, which is reproduced

hereunder for easy reference:

20. We must at the outset point out that there is a

difference in principle between the effect of an expiry of a
temporary statute and a repeal by a later enactment and
the discussion now is confined to cases of the repeal of a
statute which until the date of the repeal continues in force.
The first question to be considered is the meaning of the
expression 'repeal' in s. 6 of the General Clauses Act-
whether it is confined to cases of express repeal or whether
the expression is of sufficient amplitude to cover cases of
implied repeals. In this connection there is a passage in
Craies on Statute Law, Fifth Edition at pages 323 and 324
which appears to suggest that the provisions of the
corresponding s. 38 of the English Interpretation Act were
confined to express repeals. On page 323 occurs the
following:

"In Acts passed in or since 1890 certain savings are

implied by statute in all cases of express repeal, unless a
contrary intention appears in the repealing Act", and on the
next page:

"It had been usual before 1889 to insert provisions

to the effect above stated in all Acts by which express
repeals were effected. The result or' this enactment is to
make into a general rule what had been a common
statutory form, and to substitute a general statutory
 : 41 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

presumption as to the effect of an express repeal for the

canons of construction hitherto adopted."

There is, however, no express decision either in

England or, so far as we have been able to ascertain, in the
United States on this point. Untrammeled, as we are, by
authority, we have to inquire the principle on which the
saving clause in s. 6 is based. It is manifest that the
principle underlying it is that every later enactment which
supersedes an earlier one or puts an end to an earlier state
of the law is presumed to intend the continuance of rights
accrued and liabilities incurred under the superseded
enactment unless there were sufficient indications-express
or implied-in the later enactment designed to completely
obliterate the earlier state of the law. The next question is
whether the application of that principle could or ought to
be limited to cases where a particular form of words is used
to indicate that the earlier law has been repealed. The
entire theory underlying implied repeals is that there is no
need for the later enactment to state in express terms that
an earlier enactment has been repealed by using any
particular set of words or form of drafting but that if the
legislative intent to supersede the earlier law is manifested
by the enactment of provisions as to effect such
supersession, then there is in law a repeal notwithstanding
the absence of the word 'repeal' in the later ,statute. Now,
if the legislative intent to supersede the earlier law is the
basis upon which the doctrine of implied repeal is founded
could there be any incongruity in at- tributing to the later
legislation the same intent which s. 6 presumes where the
word 'repeal' is expressly used. So far as statutory
construction is concerned, it is one of the cardinal principles
of the law that there is no distinction or difference between
an express provision and a provision which is necessarily
implied, for it is only the form that differs in the two cases
and there is no difference in intention or in Substance. A
repeal may be brought about by repugnant legislation,
without even any reference to the Act intended to be
repealed, for once legislative competence to effect a repeal
is posted, it matters little whether this is done expressly or
inferentially or by the enactment of repugnant legislation. If
such is the basis upon which repeals and implied repeals
are brought about it appears to us to be both logical as well
 : 42 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

as in accordance with the principles upon which the rule as

to implied repeal rests to attribute to that legislature which
effects a repeal by necessary implication the same
intention as that which would attend the case of an express
repeal. Where an intention to effect a repeal is attributed to
a legislature then the same would in our opinion, attract
the incident of the saving found in s. 6 for the rules of
construction embodied in the General Clauses Act are, so to
speak, the basic assumptions on which statutes are
drafted. If this were the true position about the effect of
the Central Act 67 of 1957 as the liability to pay the fee
which was the subject of the notices of the demand had
accrued prior to June 1, 1958 it would follow that these
notices were valid and the amounts due thereunder could
be recovered notwithstanding the disappearance of the
Orissa Act by virtue of the superior legislation by the Union
Parliament.”

8.22. The Administrator/Special Secretary or the Advisory

Committee cannot enroll any new members and even

if it is assumed that, the appointment of the

Administrator is valid, such appointment is for a

temporary period, needless to say the elections would

have to be carried out. During this time, there cannot

be the enrollment of the new members by the

Administrator, since the Administrator has no power

to enroll such new members. In this regard, he relies

upon the decision in the case of Maharudrappa

 : 43 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

Sirse Vs. State of Karnataka and others, reported

in 1999 (4) KLJ 346, more particularly, paragraph

Nos.5, 6 & 7 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder

for easy reference:

5. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Counsel

for the appellant, contended that in spite of a
specific prayer made in the writ petition, the learned
Single Judge has not given direction to the
Administrator not to enrol any new members and
taking advantage of the absence of the said
direction, the Administrator is enroling new
members, which is not permissible under law and
has not conducted the election to the Managing
Committee within a period of 3 months fixed by the
learned Single Judge. In support of his contention
that an Administrator has no power to enrol new
members, he relied upon a decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of K. Shantharaj and Another v
M.L. Nagaraja and Others, wherein it was held that
"it is beyond the power of an Administrator
appointed in supersession of the Managing
Committee, to enrol new members while exercising
the powers under the provisions of Sections 30 and
30-A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act,
1959 (Act No. 11 of 1959), he can organise election
process in accordance with the Act, Rules and Bye-
laws of the Society. In para 5, at page 2926, of the
above decision, it is observed as follows:

"It would be clear from the language of these

provisions that the Administrator or Special Officer,
subject to control of any of the functions of the
Society, and in the interest of the Society take such
action as is necessary for proper functioning of the
Society as per law. He should conduct elections as is
enjoined thereunder. In other words, he is to
conduct election with the members as on the rolls
 : 44 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

and by necessary implication, he is not vested with

power to enroll new members of the Society".

6. He also relied upon another decision of the

Supreme Court in the case of T. Ramegowda v R.
Krishnamurthy and Others, wherein it was held that
"enrolment of new members done by the Special
Officer while exercising the powers under Section
30-A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act,
1959 is without jurisdiction. In view of the above
rulings of the Supreme Court, we agree with the
contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant
that the 3rd respondent has no power to enrol new
members to the Society and that he has to conduct
the elections to the Managing Committee of the
members as on the rolls by the date 4-10-1996 of
his first appointment as an Administrator on
supersession of the then existing Managing
Committee. We, therefore, find it necessary to give
a direction in this regard to the 3rd respondent-
Administrator. Since the period of 3 months fixed,
for holding the election to the Managing Committee,
by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order
has expired, we find it necessary to extend the said
period till 6-4-1999.

7. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. All

the steps taken to enrol new members by the 3rd
respondent-Administrator are declared as null and
void. The direction given to the 3rd respondent-
Administrator to hold the election to the Managing
Committee of the Society and thereafter to hand-
over administration to the elected body by issue of a
writ of mandamus, is confirmed. Respondent 3-
Administrator is further directed not to enrol any
new members and to conduct the election to the
Managing Committee of the Society with the
members as on the rolls by the date of his initial
appointment, on supersession of the then existing
Managing Committee i.e., 6-10-1996 in accordance
with the provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws of
the Society, by 6-4-1999 and to handover
 : 45 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

administration to the newly elected Managing

Committee. No costs.

8.23. Relying on the above it is submitted that the Writ

Petitions are to be allowed and the reliefs sought for

granted.

9. Sri. Sunil Desai, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners in W.P.No.104100/2021 while adopting the

arguments of learned Senior Counsel Sri. M.V.Sheshachala,

would further submit that;

9.1. In the present petitions the notice said to be issued

by the Central Sabha on 12.05.2020 at Annexure-L is

only issued to Secretary and not to the elected

members or to the other Office bearers.

9.2. If at all, the said notice had to be issued to all the

elected members, the same not having been issued to

 : 46 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

them the said notice would not be binding or

applicable to the elected members.

9.3. The Dharwad Sabha election has been carried out in a

proper manner and if at all any one is aggrieved by

the same, the remedy would be under Section 15 of

the KSR Act, 1960.

9.4. The Central Sabha has no power to interfere in

elections which have been held in a proper and

required manner. If at all anybody is aggrieved by the

same, only an election petition could be filed

challenging the election duly held, Central Sabha has

no power to declare an election as null and void.

9.5. The notice has been issued under the instructions of

the President of the Central Sabha so also the order

dated 23.05.2020 and the same has not been issued

by the Vyavasthapaka Samiti of the Central Sabha

 : 47 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

and as such, neither the notice nor the order are in

consonance with the bye-laws of the Central Sabha.

9.6. The exercise of power by the President alone is not

permissible and on this ground the order dated

23.05.2020 is required to be set aside.

9.7. Assuming that an Administrator has been appointed

without conceding as regards the validity of such

appointment, the Administrator so appointed should

not enroll any new members, the

Administrator/Special Officer along with the Advisory

Committee has in terms of Annexure-T to the writ

petition in W.P.No.104100/2021, recommended to

the Central Sabha the enrollment of several hundreds

of people as members of the Dharwad Sabha and has

in fact enrolled such persons in terms of Annexure-T.

 : 48 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

9.8. This enrollment would have to be declared as null and

void, since the Administrator would not have any

power to enroll members.

9.9. In this regard, he relies upon the decision in Jt.

Registrar of Co-operative Societies Vs.

T.A.Kuttappan, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 127,

more particularly portion of paragraph No.7 and 8

which are extracted hereunder for easy reference:

7. If we carefully analyse the provisions of the

Act, it would be clear that the Administrator or a
Committee appointed while the Committee of
Management of the Society is under supersession
cannot have the power to enroll new members
and such a question ought not to be decided
merely by indulging in an exercise on semantics
in ascertaining the meaning of the expression
have "power to exercise all or any of the
function.". Whether an authority is discharging a
function or exercising a power will have to be
ascertained with reference to the nature of the
function or the power discharged or exercised in
the background of the enactment. Often we do
express that functions are discharged or powers
exercised or vice versa depending upon the
context of the duty or power enjoined under the
law if the two expressions are inter-changeable.
What is necessary to bear in mind is that nature
of function or power exercised and not the
manner in which it is done. Indeed this Court,
while considering the provisions of Section 30-A
 : 49 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

of the Karnataka Act, which enabled a Special

Officer appointed to exercise and perform all the
powers and functions of the Committee of
Management or any officer of the Cooperative
Society (and not merely functions), took the view
that the Administrator or a special officer can
exercise powers and functions only as may be
required in the interests of the Cooperative
Society. In that context, it was stated that he
should conduct elections as enjoined under law,
that is, he is to conduct elections with the
members as on the rolls and by necessary
implication, he is not vested with power to enrol
new members of the society. We may add that a
Cooperative Society is expected to function in a
democratic manner through an elected Committee
of Management and that Committee of
Management is empowered to enrol new
members. Enrolment of new members would
involve alteration of the composition of the
society itself and such a power should be
exercised by an elected Committee rather than by
an administrator or a Committee appointed by the
Registrar while the Committee of Management is
under supersession. This Court has taken the
view, it did, bearing in mind these aspects,
though not spelt out in the course of the
judgment. Even where the language of Section
30-A of the Karnataka Act empowered a special
officer to exercise and perform all the powers and
functions of Committee of Management of a
Cooperative Society fell for consideration, this
Court having expressed that view, we do not
think, there is any need to explore the difference
in the meaning of the expressions "have power to
exercise all or any of the functions of the
Committee" in the Act and "exercise all or any of
the functions of the Committee" in the Karnataka
Act as they are not different and are in substance
one and the same and difference in language will
assume no importance. What is of significance is
that when the Committee of Management of the
Cooperative Society commits any default or is
 : 50 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

negligent in the performance of the duties

imposed under the Acts, rules and the bye-laws,
which is prejudicial to the interest of the society,
the same is superseded and an administrator or a
Committee is imposed thereon. The duty of such
a Committee or an administrator is to set right
the default, if any, and to enable the society to
carry on its functions as enjoined by law. Thus,
the role of an administrator or a Committee
appointed by the Registrar while the Committee of
Management is under supersession, is, as pointed
out by this Court, only to bring on an even keel a
ship which was in doldrums. If that is the
objective and is borne in mind, the interpretation
of these provisions will not be difficult.

8. Thus, we are of the view that this Court in

K.Shantharaj's case [supra] took the view that an
administrator or a special officer in the Karnataka
Act is not vested with the power to enrol new
members of the Cooperative Society in this
context. While reiterating that view in regard to
the Kerala Act, we afford further reasons to
support the said view and dismiss these appeals,
though for reasons different from those expressed
by the High Court. However, in the circumstances
of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs.

9.10. K.Shantharaj and Another Vs. M.L.Nagaraj and

others, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 37, more

particularly paragraph No.8 and 9 thereof which are

extracted hereunder for easy reference:

8. Shri Santosh Hedge, learned senior counsel,

contends that since the Administrator has power to
conduct elections, by necessary implication, he has
power to update the electoral lists by either
 : 51 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

enrolling the new members or substituting the legal

representatives of the members in accordance with
the bye-laws; therefore, he has power to enroll the
members. We find that there is no force in the
contention. The power of Administration given
under the statute to conduct elections should be
confined within the parameters set under the
relevant provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws.
The division Bench has minutely and carefully gone
into all the questions and agreed with the learned
single judge that the Administrator has no power to
enroll new members; but he has the powers to
organise election process in accordance with the
provisions of the Act, the rules and the bye-laws of
the society. In that view of the matter, we think
that the High Court has not committed any error of
law warranting interference.

9. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

However, we confirm the direction issued by the
learned single Judge for enrollment of new
members by the board or the Board of Directors, as
the case may be, in accordance with the bye- law
No.15 and dispose them of No costs.

9.11. M.G.Doddegowda and others. Vs. State of

Karnataka and others, reported in (2002) SCC

online Karnataka 547, more particularly paragraph

No.3 thereof which are extracted hereunder for easy

reference:

3. The Administrator was appointed on the

report of the 3rd respondent-District Registrar in
which it is stated that general body meeting and
elections have not been conducted. This Court has
already held that enrolment of members by the
 : 52 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

Administrator is not valid. In view of the law so

laid down by the Apex Court in (1998) 2 SCC 267
(sic), the members enrolled by the Administrator
to various categories is null and void.

9.12. By relying upon the above, he submits that the Apex

Court as also this Court have held that an

Administrator cannot enroll members and if at all any

elections have to be held, the elections have to be

held with the members on the rolls as on the date on

which the Administrator had been appointed. This

being an alternative argument to the contention that

the Central Sabha could not have superseded the

Dharwad Sabha.

10. Sri. M.B.Naragund, learned Senior Counsel and Additional

Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents instructed

by Sri. Mrutyunjaya Tata Bangi, Sri. Mallikarjunswamy B.

Hiremath and Sri. Santosh Malligwad submitted that:

 : 53 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

10.1. There is a long history in the establishment of the

Prachar Sabhas, inasmuch as Hindi not being a

prevalent language in the southern States, the father

of the nation felt that the southern States also ought

to adopt Hindi and in order to familiarize Hindi

language in the southern States, at the instance of

the father of the Nation, the Daskshina Bharata Hindi

Prachar Sabha, Madras was established in the year

1927.

10.2. This Sabha came to be known as the Central Sabha

and the Central Sabha not being able to discharge all

the activities by itself constituted Pranteeya Sabhas

which were based on the regional language, namely

for the Tamil speaking area, for Malayalam speaking

area, for Kannada speaking area and last for the

Telegu speaking area.

 : 54 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

10.3. Though at the time when Pranteeya Sabhas had been

established there were no States as such like Tamil

Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, the

establishment of Pranteeya Sabha was on the

language basis, so that the persons of a particular

language could easily propagate Hindi in that

particular area.

10.4. It is only a matter of coincidence that subsequently

the States were organized on a regional language

basis after independence.

10.5. The Pranteeya Sabha being a creature of the Central

Sabha would be bound and would come within the

superintendence of the Central Sabha.

10.6. A perusal of the constitution of the Central Sabha and

that of the Pranteeya Sabha would indicate that,

similar language and similar clauses have been used

in both the documents.

 : 55 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

10.7. The kind of members of the Pranteeya Sabha and

that of the Central Sabha are more or less the same

inasmuch as the Central Sabha has Samrakshas,

Poshakas, Ajeevan Sadasyas, Samanya Sadasyas, the

Dharwad Sabhas has Samrakshas, Poshakas, Ajeevan

Sadasyas, Samanya Sadasyas.

10.8. The management of the Central Committee is by the

Vyavasthapak Samiti, which is similar situation for the

Dharwad Sabha.

10.9. The Karyakarini Samiti of Central Sabha is composed

of 29 members, which also comprises of 12 members

of four sets of three members each from the different

territories or Provincial Sabhas.

10.10. As regards membership, he submits that the

membership to the Dharwad Sabha, upon the

fulfillment of certain criteria, can be made only upon

 : 56 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

admission by the Central Sabha to anyone class of

membership on the basis of recommendation of the

Karyakarini Samiti of Dharwad Sabha. Thus, he states

that, there cannot be a direct membership to the

Dharwad Sabha, but only a recommendation made by

the Dharwad Sabha to the Central Sabha and it is

only on the approval by the Central Sabha that a

person could become a member of the Dharwad

Sabha.

10.11. The manner in which the bye-laws have been

formulated would indicate the intimate connection

between the Dharwad Sabha and the Central Sabha,

inasmuch as the Logo of the Central Sabha has been

made use of in Annexure-C produced along with the

petition which is the constitution and rules and

regulation of the Dharwad Sabha and there is a

reference made that the Dharwad Sabha is an

institution of national importance by an Act No.14 of

 : 57 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

1964, which would necessarily entail that the

recognition under the Act of 1964 would apply to the

Dharwad Sabha, which would not be the case unless

the Dharwad Sabha is part of the Central Sabha.

10.12. By referring to the various provisions of the bye-laws,

he submits that, the Central Sabha has been defined

under Rule 3 (D), a member has been defined under

Rule 3(E) to be a member admitted by a Central

Sabha.

10.13. The office bearers have also been defined under Rule

3(I) and under Rule 3(J). A Sachiv/Karyadarshi

(Secretary) is stated to be one appointed by the

Central Sabha to the Dharwad Sabha.

10.14. By referring to the aims and objects more particularly

Rule 4(B), he submits that one of the aims and

objects of the Dharwad Sabha is to aid and assist the

 : 58 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

Central Sabha for the fulfillment of its objects in

Karnataka.

10.15. On the basis of the above, he submits that the

Dharwad Sabha though registered under the KSR Act

is not independent of the Central Sabha. The

registration under the KSR Act is only for the purpose

of proper administration. The administration is

required to be carried out in terms of the bye-laws,

which requires constant interaction and approval by

the Central Sabha.

10.16. The dispute in the present case is as regards the

elections having been held to the Vyavasthapaka

Samiti of the Dharwad Sabha.

10.17. Bye-law 7 of Dharwad Sabha relates to the said

election and the said bye-law clearly denotes the

manner in which the elections have to be held as also

the representativeness of each district and or each

 : 59 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

class of membership in the Vyavasthapaka Samiti,

this requirement under bye-law Rule 7 has been

completely violated in the elections held on

26.02.2020, inasmuch as there are 9 representatives

for the Belagavi District and 9 representatives for

Dharwad District, when in fact there could have been

only one representative for each of these districts. By

allowing nomination for such an election with such

number of persons, the purpose and ambit of Rule 7

has been lost.

10.18. It is this violation that has resulted in the Central

Sabha exercising powers under Rule 28 of the Bye-

laws of the Central Sabha, which permit the Central

Sabha to question the Pranteeya Sabha like the

Dharwad Sabha and in pursuance thereto, a notice

dated 12.05.2020 had been issued pointing out the

various discrepancies, in reply the Dharwad Samiti on

19.05.2020 requested for time on the ground of

 : 60 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

prevalent Covid situation which was refused by the

Central Sabha on 20.05.2020, contending that when

elections could be held, reply could be given.

10.19. On 21.05.2020, the Dharwad Sabha replied stating

that the elections have been conducted in accordance

with law, without giving any scope for lapses. Since

no proper reply had been given, proceedings of the

Central Sabha were conducted and in the said

proceedings, it was decided that the powers under

Rule 28 would be invoked and it was in pursuance

thereto that the order dated 23.05.2020 had been

passed. Therefore, he submits that the exercise of

powers by the Central Sabha is proper and correct.

10.20. He relies upon the decision in the case of

G.R.Bhagavanta Goudar Vs. The Registrar,

Uchcha Siksha Aur Sodh Sansthan (Post

Graudate and Research Insititute), Dakshin

 : 61 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, reported in 1998 (1)

KLJ 719, more particularly paragraph No.6 thereof

which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

6. Section 2 of the Societies Act provides

for drawing of Memorandum of Association and
framing of the rules of the society for the purpose of
management of its affairs. This Section reads as
under;-

“Memorandum of Association.- The Memorandum of

association shall contain the following things (that is
to say) – the name of the society;

The object of the society;

The names, address, and occupations of the

governors, council, directors, committee or other
governing body to whom, by the rules of the
society, the management of its affairs is entrusted.

A copy of the rules and regulations of the society,

certified to be a correct copy by not less than three
of the members of the governing body, shall be filed
with the memorandum of association”

10.21. By relying on the same he submits that the Sabha

has to conduct its affairs in accordance with the rules

and regulations of the Sabha, the bye-laws of the

Dharwad Sabha, Andhra Pradesh Sabha as also the

Kerala Sabha are identical to each other, which would

 : 62 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

also establish the superintendence of the Central

Sabha over the Pranteeya Sabha.

10.22. By referring to the order passed by the Government

of India, in No.F/83/D.I.(L) dated July 1986, he

submits that the power under Rule 28 has also been

accepted by the Central Government and it is

thereafter that the amendment was notified on

15.07.1986 and it in pursuance thereto bye-law 28 is

applicable.

10.23. On the basis of the above, he submits that, the excise

of power by the Central Sabha is proper and correct

and the appointment of Special Secretary as also the

advisory committee being proper and correct, the writ

petition has to be dismissed.

10.24. The Special Secretary and advisory Committee are in

process of conducting the elections and the elections

 : 63 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

would most probably be conducted within a period of

six months from now.

10.25. For all the above reasons he submits that both the

Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed.

11. Learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the state is

only a formal party to these proceedings. The dispute is

between the Pranteeya Sabha and the Central Sabha and

the members thereof and the State has got nothing to do

with it.

12. Heard Sri. M.V.Sheshachala, learned Senior Counsel,

instructed by Sri. Gangadhar J.M, learned counsel for the

petitioner in W.P.No.103712/2021, Sri. Sunil S. Desai for

the petitioner in W.P.No.104100/2021 and Sri.

M.B.Naragund, learned Additional Solicitor General and

Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 in

W.P.No.103712/2021 and respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 6 in

 : 64 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

W.P.No.104100/2021, instructed by Sri. Mrutyunjaya Tata

Bangi, Sri. Mallikarjunaswamy B. Hiremath. I have perused

the papers and bestowed my attention to all the

submissions made.

13. The points that arise for my determination are :

1. Whether the present dispute and/or the reliefs

can be sought for by way of a writ petition and
or that the Writ Petition is not maintainable on
account of the Sabha’s not being State?

2. Whether the delay caused in filing of the above

petition would require this Court not to exercise
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, requiring dismissal of the writ petition?

3. Whether on the repeal of the Central

Registration Act, 1960, by Section 31 of KSR
Act, 1960, a Society registered under the Act of
1860 can claim benefits of either the first or
second proviso to Section 31 of KSR Act, 1960?

4. Whether the Central Sabha has any

superintendence power over the Dharwad
Sabha and can Rule 28 of the Central Sabha be
exercised in respect of Dharwad Sabha?, If so,
as the powers under Rule 28 been properly
exercised by the Central Sabha?

5. Whether once the Dharwad Sabha is registered

under the KSR Act, 1960, the appointment of an
 : 65 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

Administrator or otherwise would be only under

the KSR Act, 1960?

6. Whether the Administrator/Special Officer

and/or the Advisory Committee can enroll new
members subsequent to their appointment?

7. What order?

14. I answer the above points as under

15. Answer to Point No.1: Whether the present dispute

and/or the reliefs can be sought for by way of a writ
petition and or that the Writ Petition is not
maintainable on account of the Sabha’s not being
State?

15.1. The object of the Central Sabha is as under:

3. the object of the Sabha is to spread knowledge of

Hindi as specified in Article 351 of the Indian
Constitution, in the areas in South India were Tamil,
Telugu, Malayalam and Kannada are spoken.

15.2. The functions of the Central Prachar Sabha in terms

of Annexure-A to the writ petition which is been

approved by the Government of India are as under:

4. For the due fulfillment of its object, the

Sabha shall have power:

(a) To work for the promotion, development and

advancement of Hindi language, Hindi Literature
 : 66 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

and Devanagari Script, in India and foreign

countries, and for that purpose wherever necessary
to propagate the South Indian languages also;
(b) To produce, print and publish literature in
Hindi, other Indian Language and English;
(c) To arrange for the holding to examinations
through the medium of Hindi language for teaching
Hindi and other languages and to confer degrees,
diplomas and other academic distinctions for the
same;
(d) To establish and maintain schools, colleges
and other institutions for instructions in Hindi
language and Hindi literature and for training of
Hindi teachers and also to affiliate schools, colleges
and other institutions for its examinations;
(e) To affiliate institutions having for their object
the promotion of Hindi language and Hindi
literature;
(f) To award honorary degrees and other
academic distinctions to persons who may have
rendered distinguished service to the cause of
Hindi;
(g) To institute and award prizes (Paritoshiks) to
distinguished scholars in Hindi;
(h) To promote and encourage research in Hindi
language and Hindi literature;
(i) To receive gifts, grants, donations or
benefactions from the Govt. and to receive
bequests, donations to transfer of movable and
immovable properties from testators, donors or
transferors, as the case may be;
(j) To deal with any property belonging to or
vested in the Sabha in such manner as the Sabha
may deem fit for advancing the objects of the
Sabha;
(k) To raise funds or borrow money, on the
security of the property of the Sabha or otherwise,
for the purpose of the Sabha;
 : 67 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

(l) To perform such other functions as may be

deemed necessary by the Sabha for advancing the
cause of Hindi language and Hindi literature or as
may be necessary, incidental or conducive to the
performance of all or any of the above functions.

15.3. Article 351 of the Constitution reads as under:

351. Directive for development of the Hindi

language: It shall be the duty of the Union to promote
the spread of the Hindi language, to develop it so that it
may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements
of the composite culture of India and to secure its
enrichment by assimilating without interfering with its
genius, the forms, style and expressions used in
Hindustani and in the other languages of India specified in
the Eighth Schedule, and by drawing, wherever necessary
or desirable, for its vocabulary, primarily on Sanskrit and
secondarily on other languages

15.4. The object of the Sabha is apparently to spread the

knowledge of Hindi as specified in Article 351 by

performing the functions as stated above.

15.5. The Sabha is stated to have been established in

pursuance of the directions of Sri. Mohandas

Karamchand Gandhi, the Father of Nation, the

 : 68 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

avowed objective is for propagation of Hindi in non-

Hindi speaking area.

15.6. Sri. M.B.Naragund, learned counsel for the

respondents has contended that, a writ petition is not

maintainable since the Sabha is not a State.

15.7. The Apex Court in the case of Andi Mukta Sadguru

Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti

Mahotsav Samarak Trust and others Vs.

V.R.Rudani and others, reported in 1989 (2) SCC

691 at paragraph No.22 has held as under:

“22. Here again we may point out that

mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the
duty to be enforced is not imposed by the statute.
Commenting on the development of this law,
Professor de Smith states : "To be enforceable by
mandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to
be one imposed by statute. It may be sufficient for
the duty to have been imposed by charter, common
law, custom or even contract."" We share this view.
The judicial control over the fast expanding maze of
bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be
put into watertight compartment. It should remain
flexible to meet the requirements of variable
circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy
which must be easily available 'to reach injustice
 : 69 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

wherever it is found'. Technicalities should not come

in the way of granting that relief under Article 226.
We, therefore, reject the contention urged for the
appellants on the maintainability of the writ petition.”

15.8. The Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Ahluwalia Vs.

State of Punjab and ors, reported in 2012 (12) SCC

331, at paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 has held as under:

12. We have considered the submissions

made by the learned counsel for the parties. In our
opinion, in view of the judgment rendered by this
Court Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas
Swami Suvarna Mahotsav Smarak Trust there can be
no doubt that even a purely body, where the State
has no control over its internal affairs, would
amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution, for issuance of a writ
of mandamus. Provided, of course, the private body is
performing public functions which are normally
expected to be performed by the State authorities.

13. In the aforesaid case, this Court was

also considering a situation where the services of a
Lecturer had been terminated who was working in the
college run by the Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree
Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav
Smarak Trust. In those circumstances, this Court has
clearly observed as under: (V.R. Rudani case 4, SCC
pp. 700-701, paras 20 & 22)

"20. The term 'authority' used in Article 226, in

the context, must receive a liberal meaning unlike the
term in Article 12. Article 12 is relevant only for the
purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights under
Article 32. Article 226 confers power on the High
Courts to issue writs for enforcement of the
fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental rights.
The words 'any person or authority' used in Article
 : 70 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

226 are, therefore, not to be confined only to

statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the
State. They may cover any other person or body
performing public duty. The form of the body
concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant
is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The
duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation
owed by the person or authority to the affected party.
No matter by what means the duty is imposed, if a
positive obligation exists mandamus cannot be
denied.

22. Here again we may point out that

mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the
duty to be enforced is not imposed by the statute.
Commenting on the development of this law,
Professor de Smith states: 'To be enforceable by
mandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to
be one imposed by statute. It may be sufficient for
the duty to have been imposed by charter, common
law, custom or even contract.'8 We share this view.
The judicial control over the fast expanding maze of
bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be
put into watertight compartment. It should remain
flexible to meet the requirements of variable
circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy
which must be easily available 'to reach injustice
wherever it is found'. Technicalities should not come
in the way of granting that relief under Article
226.We, therefore, reject the contention urged for the
appellants on the maintainability of the writ petitions”

The aforesaid observations have been repeated and

reiterated in numerous judgments of this Court
including the judgments in Unni Krishnan J.P. Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (1993) 1 SCC
645 and Zee Telefils Ltd Vs. State of India, reported
in (2005) 4 SCC 469 brought to our notice by the
learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Parikh.”
 : 71 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

15.9. The function and object of the Sabha is in effect to

discharge the obligation of the State under Article 351

of the constitution, thus it is discharging a public

function, furthermore the fact that certification is

provided to the persons who take the examination of

the Sabha and such certification is recognised by all

institutions of the State for purposes of employment

etc., The object and nature of functions discharged by

the Sabha and also on account of the fact that the

Sabha is declared by the Parliament as an Institution

of national importance.

15.10. What is to be seen here is as to whether the Dakshina

Bharata Hindi Prachar Sabha performs any actions

which are public in nature, admittedly the Sabhas

both the Central and the State have an object of

implementing the requirement of Article 351 of

Constitution of India. Upon propagating Hindi as a

 : 72 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

language in the South of India, the certification is also

given to successful candidates. The elections are held

to the committees across all districts of the Southern

Sates.

15.11. In the above background, I am of the considered

opinion that, a writ petition would be maintainable

since any action taken by the Institution of national

importance would have to be subjected to judicial

review, the said actions of such an Institutions would

have to satisfy the requirements of law and stand test

of the constitution, more particularly Article 14

thereof.

15.12. In view of the above, I answer Point No.1 by holding

that, the Dakshina Bharatha Hindi Prachar Sabha is

amenable to judicial review by way of a Writ Petition

and thus the present writ petitions are maintainable.

 : 73 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

16. Answer to Point No.2: Whether the delay caused in filing

of the above petition would require this Court not to
exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, requiring dismissal of the writ petition?

16.1. The contention of Sri. M.B.Naragund Learned Senior

Counsel if that what has been challenged are the orders

dated 23.05.2020 and 08.06.2020 by filing the above writ

petitions in W.P.No.103712/2021 on 28.09.2021 and

W.P.No.104100/2021 on 21.10.2021 respectively.

16.2. He therefore, submits that, the said orders having been

challenged after a long gap of over 16 months, the

present writ petition is hit by the principles of delay and

latches and as such, the writ petitions are required to be

dismissed.

16.3. Per contra, Sri. M.V.Sheshachala, learned Senior Counsel

would submit that, on account of the orders passed in

Miscellaneous Application No.665/2021 by the Apex Court

on 23.09.2021, the limitation period has been extended

and as such, the writ petition is not barred by limitation

 : 74 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

and this Court would be required to consider the petitions

on merits.

16.4. In my considered opinion, the order passed by the Apex

Court is only with regard to the extension of the limitation

period that does not in any way defer the filing of any

proceedings or petitions seeking emergent reliefs, the

courts being open and functioning there was no need for

the petitioners to have waited for such a long period of

time to challenge the orders they should have approached

this Court at the earliest.

16.5. Admittedly, there is a delay of more than 16 months in

filing the writ petitions. During the intervening 16 months,

there are various actions that have happened equities

which have been created which cannot be undone. Hence,

I am of the considered opinion that the delay though not

requiring the dismissal of the writ petition would have to

be taken into considering while dealing the same on

merits.
 : 75 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

17. Answer to Point No.3: Whether on the repeal of the Act

of 1860, by Section 31 of KSR Act, 1960 a Society
registered under the Act of 1860 can claim benefits of
either the first or second proviso to Section 31 of KSR
Act, 1960?

17.1. Section 31 of the KSR Act, reads as under:

31. Repeal and savings – The Mysore Act of 1860,

1904 (Mysore Act No.III of 1904), as in force in the
Mysore rea, the Act of 1860, the Mangalore and Kollegal
Area and the Coorg District and the Public Act of 1860,
1350 Fasli (Hyderabad Act I of 1350 Fasli), as in force in
the Gulbarga Area are hereby repealed;

Provided that every society registered under any of the

repealed enactments shall be deemed to be registered
under this Act;

Provided further that subject to the preceding proviso the

provisions of Section 6 of the [Karnataka] General Clauses
Act, 1899, shall be applicable in respect of the repeal of
the said enactments and Sections 8 and 24 of the said Act
shall be applicable as if the said enactments had been
repealed and re-enacted by this act.

17.2. Section 8 and 24 of the Karnataka General Clauses

Act, 1999, read as under:

8. Construction of references to repealed

enactments – Where this Act, or [any Mysore Act or
Karnataka Act] made after the commencement of this
Act, repeals or re-enacts, with or without
modification, any provision of a former enactment,
then references in any other enactment or in any
instrument to the provision so repealed, shall, unless
 : 76 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

a different intention appeared, be construed as

references to the provisions so re-enacted.

24. Continuation of order, etc., issued

under enactments repealed and re-enacted –
Where, any enactment is, after the commencement of
this Act, repeal and re-enacted with or without
modification, then, unless it is otherwise expressly
provided, any [appointment, notification] order,
scheme, rule, form or bye-law, made or issued under
the repealed enactment, shall so far as it is not
inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted, continue
in force and be deemed to have been made or issued
under the provisions so re-enacted unless and until it
is superseded by any appointment, notification,
order, scheme, rule, form or bye-law made or issued
under the provisions so re-enacted.

17.3. By referring to Section 31 extracted above Sri.

M.V.Sheshachala, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the petitioner would submit that, since the Act of

1860, has been repealed by Section 31 of the KSR

Act, the Central Sabha which has been registered

under the Act of 1860, is no longer in existence in the

State of Karnataka and therefore, the said Central

Sabha can also not be recognised in the State of

Karnataka by this Court or otherwise.

 : 77 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

17.4. The 1860 Act had been promulgated for the purpose

of improving the legal conditions of the societies

established for promotion of Literature, Science or

Fine Arts or for the diffusion of useful knowledge or

for charitable purposes and provided for registration

of such societies.

17.5. Needles to say that, when the Act of 1860 has

brought into force, the Constitution was not in force.

It is only on the Constitution coming into being that in

terms of Entry 32 of List 2 of the VIIth Schedule,

registration of any organization or Society has been

brought under the said Entry 32, thereby empowering

the States to pass legislations relating to registration

of any organization or association. It is in pursuance

thereof, that in the year 1960, the KSR Act, 1960 was

brought into force and in terms of Section 31 thereof,

 : 78 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

the Act of 1860 was repealed insofar as the State of

Karnataka is concerned.

17.6. The said repeal does not in essence repeal the

enactment itself, but only provides that the same

would not be applicable in the State of Karnataka.

Perusal of Section 31 extracted herein above would

make it clear that the societies registered under any

of the repealed enactments shall be deemed to be

registered under the KSR Act.

17.7. This gives rise to an anamoly, on the one hand, any

society registered under the Act of 1860 would be

deemed to be registered under the KSR Act, however,

what would happen if the society registered under the

1860 Act is not based out of Karnataka or that it is

not having the registered offices in Karnataka, but in

another State.
 : 79 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

17.8. In such a situation, it cannot be said that a society

which is registered under the Act of 1860, having its

registered offices for example in Madras, as in this

case, is deemed to be registered under the KSR Act,

since if that be so all the compliances required to be

done under the KSR Act would have to be carried out

by such a society in the State of Karnataka including

filing of the necessary documents with the Registrar

of Societies in the State of Karnataka.

17.9. Admittedly, no such filing has been made nor is the

Central Sabha brought within the purview of the KSR

Act to claim the benefit of the first proviso to Section

31. Thus, in my considered opinion the contention of

Sri. M.B.Naragund learned Senior Counsel that the

Central Sabha would have to be recognised in the

State of Karnataka as that registered under the KSR

Act is untenable and is liable to be rejected.

 : 80 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

17.10. The second proviso to Section 31 provides that the

provisions of Section 6, 8 and 24 of the [Karnataka]

General Clauses Act, 1899, shall be applicable. In

terms whereof there is a deeming provision as if the

said enactments had been repealed and re-enacted

by KSR Act.

17.11. For the same reasons as discussed with reference to

1st provisio the 2nd provisio would also not be

applicable to a society which had been registered

outside the State of Karnataka.

17.12. Both the first and second proviso would have been

applicable only if the society which is registered under

the 1860 Act, were to comply with the requirements

of the KSR Act within the State of Karnataka. Thus

Section 31 perse would not apply to the present fact

situation.
 : 81 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

17.13. Thus I answer point No.3 by holding that on the

repeal of the Act of 1860, by Section 31 of the KSR

Act, 1960, a society registered under the Act of 1860

cannot be deemed to be registered under the Act of

KSR Act, 1960, unless the same were to have its

registered office in Karnataka and has complied with

all the requirements of the KSR Act. As a corollary the

Central Sabha registered in Tamil Nadu cannot be

deemed to be registered within the state of

Karnataka.

18. Answer to point No.4: Whether Central Sabha has any

superintendence power over the Dharwad Sabha and can
Rule 28 of the Central Sabha be exercised in respect of the
Dharwad Sabha? If so, as the powers under Rule 28 been
properly exercised by the Central Sabha?

18.1. It is not in dispute that the Central Sabha had been

established in the year 1927 in Madras. It is also not

in dispute that for better administration of the Central

Sabha and achieving objects of the Central Sabha

 : 82 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

various Pranteeya Sabhas were established in

southern India on the basis of the language prevalent

in different areas. It cannot be disputed that when

the Pranteeya Sabhas were sought to be established

there were no states as such in existence like Tamil

Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka or Andra Pradesh. In view

thereof, taking into account the prevalent local

languages different Pranteeya Sabhas were

established one each for the Kannada, Telugu and

Malayali speaking areas and the central Sabha took

care of the Tamil speaking area.

18.2. Thus, Pranteeya Sabhas were established on the

basis of the language prevalent in that particular

area. Insofar as the Kannada speaking area is

concerned a Pranteeya Sabha was established in

Dharwad in the year 1935, which would take care of

the Kannada speaking areas. It is only after the State

 : 83 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

of Karnataka was established and on the repeal of the

Act of 1860, that the Dakshina Bharata Hindi Prachar

Sabha (Karnataka), Dharwad which was a Pranteeya

Sabha for Kannada speaking area was registered

under the KSR Act.

18.3. A perusal of Annexure-C to the writ petition in

W.P.No.103712/2021 which is the Constitution and

Rules and Regulations of the Dharwad Sabha

indicates that it was established in the year 1935 and

is recognised as an Institution of national importance

by Act No.14 of 1964. It also uses the logo of Hindi

Prachara Sabha i.e. Central Sabha.

18.4. An examination of the bye-laws of the Central Sabha

and the Karnataka Pranteeya Sabha would also be

required to be made.

18.5. The objects and functions of the Central Sabha in

terms of Rule 3 and 4 are as under:

 : 84 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

Object:

3. The object of the Sabha is to spread knowledge of

Hindi as specified in Article 351 of the Indian Constitution,
in the areas in South India were Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam
and Kannada are spoken.

4. Functions: For the due fulfillment of its object, the

Sabha shall have power:

(a) to work for the promotion, development and

advancement of Hindi language, Hindi Literature
and Devanagari Script, in India and foreign
countries, and for that purpose wherever necessary
to propagate the South Indian languages also;

(b) to produce, print and publish literature in Hindi,

other Indian Language and English;

(c) to arrange for the holding to examinations through

the medium of Hindi language for teaching Hindi
and other languages and to confer degrees,
diplomas and other academic distinctions for the
same;

(d) to establish and maintain schools, colleges and

other institutions for instruction in Hindi language
and Hindi literature and for training of Hindi
teachers and also to affiliate schools, colleges and
other institutions for its examinations;

(e) to affiliate institutions having for their object the

promotion of Hindi language and Hindi literature;

(f) to award honorary degrees and other academic

distinctions to persons who may have rendered
distinguished service to the cause of Hindi;

(g) to institute and award prizes (Paritoshiks) to

distinguished scholars in Hindi;
 : 85 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

(h) to promote and encourage research in Hindi

language and Hindi literature;

(i) to receive gifts, grants, donations or benefactions

from the Govt. and to receive bequests, donations
to transfer of movable and immovable properties
from testators, donors or transferors, as the case
may be;

(j) to deal with any property belonging to or vested in

the Sabha in such manner as the Sabha may deem
fit for advancing the objects of the Sabha;

(k) to raise funds or borrow money, on the security of

the property of the Sabha or otherwise, for the
purposes of the Sabha;

(l) to perform such other functions as may be deemed

necessary by the Sabha for advancing the cause of
Hindi language and Hindi literature or as may be
necessary, incidental or conducive to the
performance of all or any of the above functions.

18.6. The aims and objects of the Dharwad Sabha in terms

of Rule 4 is as under:

(a) To spread knowledge of Hindi as specified in article

351 of the Constitution of India.
(b) To aid and assist the Central Sabha for the
fulfillment of its objects in Karnataka.
(c) To promote and propagate Hindi and Hindi
Literature in Devanagari Script.
(d) To promote Hindi through translation from Kannada
to Hindi, from Konkani to Hindi and vice-versa or
through other regional languages.
(e) To develop Hindi so that it may serve as a link
language or as a medium of expression for all the
elements of composite culture and promote integrity
of India.
 : 86 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

(f) To establish, adopt and maintain schools, colleges

and other Institutions for instruction in Hindi
language and Hindi literature and to promote
education of all kinds.
(g) To do any other measures conducive to the
propagation of the Hindi.
(h) To establish, adopt and maintain, Professional
Colleges like Engineering, Medical etc., and Para
Medical Colleges, Diploma and Allied Courses, where
Hindi also could be taught without prejudice to the
prescribed curriculum of the concerned University or
Authority.
(i) The benefits of the Sabha shall be open to all
irrespective of caste, creed or religion.
(j) To raise funds and carry on propaganda.
(k) To constitute “Zilla Hindi Prachar Samities”
(l) To render all help financial or otherwise to
recognized Hindi Prachar Associations.
(m) To impart Tuition for the different Hindi
examinations of the Central Sabha.
(n) To conduct Hindi Examinations of the Central
Sabha, entrusted to the Sabha.
(o) To conduct Hindi Vidyalayas.
(p) To print and publish the necessary propaganda
literature for the propagation of Hindi.
(q) To work for the introduction of Hindi in educational
institutions and
(r) To accept all such means which are conducive to
fulfill the objects of the Sabha.
(s) It is hereby agreed upon by all members of
Daskshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha (Karnataka)
Dharwad society/association that no child labour of
any form specially, domestic child labour, will be
employed in the premises of the Sabha complexes
and in apartments, homes residences, either owned
or rented.
(t) The Sachiv is authorized to correspond with the
Registering Authorities.
(u) Any income of the Sabha shall not be distributed
among the members of the Sabha and shall be
utilized only for the purpose of the aims and objects
of the Sabha.
 : 87 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

18.7. The object and function of the Central Sabha is

provided under Rule 3 and Rule 4. The aims and

objections of the Karnataka Sabha is at bye-law No.4.

A comparison of both the said provisions would

indicate that essentially the aim and object is one and

the same. Except that the Karnataka Sabha has its

operations only in Karnataka. Both the Central Sabha

and State Sabha are working towards promotion,

development and advancement of Hindi language.

They conduct examination through the medium of

Hindi language, establish and maintain schools and

colleges, award Honorary Degrees, etc.,

18.8. What is of importance is that, one of the objects of

the Dharwad Sabaha in terms of Rule 4 (b) is to

assist the Central Sabha in its fulfillment of its objects

in Karnataka. Thus, the link between the Central

 : 88 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

Sabha and the Dharwad Sabha continued even after

registration of the Dharwad Sabha under the KSR Act.

18.9. The membership of the Central Sabha in terms of

Rule 6 is as under:

Membership:

6. All persons of eighteen years of age and above, who

subscribe to the object of the Sabha, and who pay
either donations or subscriptions and satisfy the
other conditions prescribed below may be admitted
by the Karyakarini Samiti on the recommendations
of the concerned pranteeya Sabhas to the several
classes of membersip of the Sabha mentioned
hereunder:

(a) Samrakshaks : -- Those who pay to the

Sabha a single donation of not less than Rs. 5,000/-

(b) Poshaks : -- Those who pay to the Sabha a

single donation of not less than Rs. 1,000/-

(c) Ajeevan Sadasyas : -- Those who pay to the

Sabha a single donation of not less than Rs. 250/-

(d) Sadharan Sadasyas : -- Those who pay a

subscription of not less than Rs. 10/- annually.

PROVIDED the membership of Sadharan Sadasyas

shall not lapse if he does not pay annual
subscription in time along with the form prescribed
and numbered by the central Sabha. In case of new
enrolment, from with fee should be received in the
Central Sabha on or before 31st March.

PROVIDED further a Sadharan Sadasya shall neither

 : 89 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

i have a right to vote not contest for election to the

Vyavasthapak Samiti if, at the time of election the
subscription of the Sadasya is in arrears;

PROVIDED further that the membership of a

Sadharan Sadasya shall cease if his annual
subscription remains in arrears for two consecutive
years.

Sammanya Sadasyas :- The Karyakarini Samiti may

enroll any person as a Sammanya Sadasya of the
Sabha, with his consent, if in its opinion, the
interests of the Sabha would be advanced thereby,
provided however, that the number of this class of
members shall not exceed 15 at any one time.

18.10. The Membership of the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha in

terms of Rule 5 is as under:

5) MEMBERSHIP:

Any person of 21 years of age & above, who

is competent to contract and not otherwise ineligible
and who subscribes to the objects and functions of
the Sabha and who pays either donations or
subscriptions and satisfy the other conditions
prescribed below may be admitted by the Central
Sabha to any one class of Membership mentioned
below on the recommendation ofthe Karyakarini
Samiti of the Sabha.

(a) SAMRAKSHAKAS: Those who pay to

the Central Sabha a single donation of not less than
Rs. 5,000/-

(b) POSHAKAS : Those who pay to the

 : 90 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

Central Sabha a single donation of not less than

Rs.1,000/-

(c) AJEEVANA Sadasyas : Those who pay

to the Central Sabha a single donation of not less
than Rs. 250/ -

(d) SAMANYA Those who pay subscription

of not less than Rs. 10/-. annually.

Any member who is in arrears of subscription

shall not be eligible either to vote or to contest the
election. The membership may be renewed by the
Karyakarini Samiti on application and on payment of
arrears.

18.11. Under the Central Sabha, the membership is of

Samrakshaks, Poshaks, Ajeevan Sadasyas, Sadharan

Sadasyas, Sammanya Sadasyas. Under the Karnataka

Sabha, the membership is of Samrakshakas,

Poshakas, Ajeevan Sadasyas, Sammanya.

18.12. A person can become a member of the Central Sabha

if a person has attained 18 years of age, subscribes

to the object of the Sabha, pays donations and

subscriptions and on satisfying certain other

conditions may be admitted to membership by the

 : 91 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

Karyakarini Samithi on the recommendation of the

concerned Pranthiya Sabha to the several classes of

membership. Thus, it is only if the concerned Sabha

were to recommend a person to be a member of the

Central Sabha, then Karyakarini Samithi of Central

Sabha can admit a person to membership. In the

absence of recommendation by the concerned

Pranthiya Sabha, no person can be admitted to

membership of Central Sabha.

18.13. For a person to be a member of the Pranthiya Sabha

of Karnataka, a person has to attain 21 years of age,

to be competent to contract and subscribe to the

objects and functions of the Sabha, pays the

donations and subscriptions and upon satisfying the

conditions may be admitted by the Central Sabha to

any one class of membership of the Pranteeya Sabha

on the recommendation of the Karyakarini Samithi of

 : 92 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

the Sabha. Thus, a person could be a member of the

Pranteeya Sabha only if the Karyakarini Sabha would

recommend his or her membership to the Central

Sabha and the Central Sabha admits him or her to

membership. In the absence of the Central Sabha,

admitting a person to membership no person can

become a member of the Pranthiya Sabha. To put it

otherwise it is only the Central Sabha which can

admit a person to be a member of the Pranteeya

Sabha.

18.14. Functions of the Central Sabha are discharged in

terms of Rule 5 by the following bodies:

1. Nidhipalak Mandal,
2. Vyavasthapak Samiti
3. Karyakarini Samiti,
4. Siksha Parishad and
5. Uchcha Siksha Aur Shodh Sansthan

18.15. The functions of the Dharwad Sabha in terms of Rule

6 are discharged by the following bodies:

 : 93 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

(1) Vyavasthtapika Samiti (Governing Body)

(2) Karyakarini Samiti (Executive Committee)

18.16. The nomenclature of the governing body and the

executive committee is also more or less one and the

same, except for a spelling change on the basis of

local language. This would also indicate the close

nature in which the Central Sabha and the local

Sabha are administered.

18.17. The composition of the Vyavasthapak Samiti of the

Central Sabha in terms of Rule 7 is as under:

Vyavasthapak Samiti Composition :

7. (1) There shall be a Vyavasthapak Samiti

for the Sabha with the functions hereinafter
specified. This shall consist of :

(a) The President, the First Vice-President, the

Second Vice-President & the Treasurer;

(b) Members of the Nidhipalak Mandal;

(c) Sammanya Sadasyas;

(d) Each of the four Pranteeya Sabhas and the

City of Madras shall be entitled to elect
representatives to the Vyavasthapak Samiti from and
 : 94 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

out of the Samrakshaks, Poshaks and Ajeevan

Sadasyas who have been members of the Central
Sabha for a period of three years before the date of
announcement of the election to the Vyavasthapak
Samiti, as may be prescribed in the bye-laws
regarding election matters, and who reside within
the areas of the Pranteeya Sabhas concerned or the
city of Madras, as the case may be, at the rate of
one for every 6 members subject to a maximum of
20 for each Pranteeya Sabha and 10 for the city of
Madras.

(e) Members of the Siksha Parishad;

(f) Three representatives of each of the

Pranteeya Sabhas nominated by the Karyakarini
Samiti of the Pranteeya Sabha concerned from
among the members thereof;

(g) Each of the four Pranteeya Sabhas and

the City of Madras shall be entitled to elect
representatives to the Vyavasthapak Samiti from and
out of the Ten Rupee members who have members
for a period of three years continuously before the
date of announcement of the aforesaid election and
who reside within the area of the Pranteeya Sabha
concerned, or the City of Madras, as the case may
be, at the rate of one for ten members subject to a
maximum of ten for each Pranteeya Sabha and five
for the City of Madras.

(2) The members elected or nominated to the

Vyavasthapak Samiti under clauses 7 (1), (a), (d),
(e), (f) and (g) above, shall vacate their membership
on the expiry of three years from the date of their
election, provided that they will continue in office will
new members are elected.
 : 95 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

18.18. The composition of Vyavasthapika Samiti of the

Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha in terms of Rule 7 is as

under:

7) VYAVASTHAPIKA SAMITI: (Governing

Body) Composition, election and term;

(A) There shall be a Vyavasthapika Samiti for the

Sabaha of not more than 95 members of which 90
members shall be elected from different category of
members of the Sabha as detailed below : The Sachiv
shall be an ex officio member of the Vyavasthapika Samiti.
The Vyavasthapika Samiti shall be the General Body and
an ultimate authority

a) Fifty members elected from the constituency of

Ajeevan Sadasyas, Poshakas and Samrakshakas;

b) One member elected from each district from the

constituency of Sadharana Sadasyas;

c) One member elected from each district from the

constituency of Pramanit Pracharak;

d) Five Sanmanya Sadasyas nominated by the

Karyakarini Samiti;

e) The Office bearers elected by the Karyakarini Samiti

shall be the Office bearers of the Vyavasthapika Samiti.

(B) The election to the Vyavasthapika Samiti shall

be by means of simple majority by the respective
constituency. A person who is otherwise eligible may
contest from any one of the constituencies in which he is a
voter. However, a person who is a voter already in more
than one constituency shall have option to contest or to
vote from any one.
 : 96 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

(C) The term of Office of Vyavasthapika Sarniti shall be

five years from the date of election provided that it shall
continue to hold office until the election of a new
Vyavasthapika Sarniti. Provided further that any vacancy
caused owing to resignation, illness, death or otherwise
shall be filled in by co-option for the remaining period.

(D) The Sabha shall have an emblem prescribed

hereunder.

18.19. In terms of Rule 7(1)(d), each of the Pranteeya

Sabha and the City of Madras are entitled to elect

representatives to the Vyavasthapak Samiti. Further

more, 03 representatives of each Pranteeya Sabha

would be nominated to the Karyakarini Samiti of the

Central Sabha. This would again necessarily establish

the intimate connection between the Dharwad Sabaha

and the Central Sabha. It cannot be contended that,

there are two different entities.

18.20. The functions and powers of Vyavasthapaka Samiti of

Central Sabha in terms of Rule 7 is as under:

Functions and Powers :

 : 97 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

7. The functions and powers of the Vyavasthapak

Samiti shall be as follows :-

(a) To consider and pass the Annual Report of the work of

the Sabha, the audited statement of accounts and the
balance sheet.

(b)To consider and pass the budget and also to appoint an

auditor for the ensuing year.

(c) To elect the President, First Vice-President, Second

Vice-President, Treasurer and other members of the
Karyakarini Samiti and of such other bodies of the Sabha
as are prescribed hereinafter.

(d) To lay down the general policy of the Sabha from time
to time.

(e) To institute degrees on the recommendation of the

Karyakarini Samiti.

(f) To deal with all such matters as may be referred to it

by the Nidhi Palak Mandal, Karyakarini Samiti, Siksha
Parishad and Uchcha Siksha Aur Shodh Sansthan.

(g) To alter or amend any of the rules of the Sabha,

provided that no alteration or addition to any rule shall be
made unless two-thirds of the members present at the
meeting vote in favour of it and the meeting at which it is
taken up for consideration was convened on a notice of
fourteen clear days specifying the changes sought to be
made.

(h) To generally discharge all the functions of the Sabha

hereinbefore mentioned and, in particular to borrow
money and to acquire, hold and dispose property whether
movable or immovable.
 : 98 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

18.21. The functions and powers of Vyvasthapika Samiti of

the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha in terms of Rule 8 is as

under:

8. Functions and powers of Vyavasthapika Samiti:

(a) To consider the annual report and audited accounts

of the Sabha.
(b) To consider and pass the budget.
(c) To appoint an auditor for the ensuing year.
(d) To lay down the general policy of the Sabha from
time to time and to deal with all such matters as
may be referred to it by the Karyakarini Samiti.
(e) To alter, extend or abridge the constitution of the
Sabha on the recommendation by the Karyakarini
Samiti.
(f) To elect the members of the Karyakarini Samiti when
the election is due.

18.22. The functions and powers of Vyavasthapaka Samiti of

the Central Sabha in terms of Rule 7 and the

functions and powers of Vavastapika Samiti of the

Dharwad Sabha in terms of Rule 8 thereof are similar

if not identical.
 : 99 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

18.23. The composition of Karyakarini Samiti of the Central

Sabha in terms of Rule 16 of the Central Sabha is as

under:

Karyakarini Samiti Composition :

16. (a) There shall be a Karyakarini Samiti consisting of not

more than 29 members to carry on the
administration of the Sabha composed as hereinafter
provided.

(1) The President of the Sabha :

(2) The First Vice-President, the Second Vice

President and the Treasurer to be elected at its
ordinary meeting from among its members by the
Vyasthapak Samiti; PROVIDED that the treasurer
shall be a resident of Madras city ;

(3) The Managing Trustee of the Sabha;

(4) Twelve members of the Vyavasthapak Samiti

comprising four sets of three such members to be
elected from among the members of the
Vyavasthapak Samiti by such members residing in
the territorial jurisdiction of each of the four
provincial Sabhas:

(5) One member of the Vyavasthapak Samiti to be

elected from among its members by such members
residing in Madras City:

(6) One representative of the Ministry of Education

of the Govt. of India:

(7) Not more than four members to be nominated by

the President of the Sabha from among the persons
the Karyakarini in the list Samiti;
 : 100 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

(8) The Chairman of the Siksha Parishad:

(9) Four members of the Siksha Parishad to be

elected by the members among themselves, from
each of the four provinces including Madras City
except the province to which the Chairman belongs:

(10) The Pradhan Sachiv.

(b) The Bank accounts of the Sabha shall be operated by

the joint signatures of the Pradhan Sachiv and the
Treasurer: PROVIDED that under special
circumstances, the Karyakarini Samiti may, by
resolution and with the approval of the First Vice
President authorise any other member or members
of the karyakarini Samiti to operate the accounts in
the place of the Pradhan Sachiv or Treasurer, or both
of them, for reason to be recorded in writing.

18.24. The composition of Karyakarini Samiti (Executive

Committee) in terms of Rule 9 thereof, is as under:

9) KARYAKARINI SAMITI: (EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE)

Composition and Election:

(a) There shall be a Karyakarini Samiti of not more than

Twenty five members of which 22 shall be elected by the
members of
Vyavasthapika Samiti from among themselves specified
here under:

(b) Four members shall be elected from the Head

Quarters. Out of that three shall be elected from the
members at Head Quarters other than Pracharaks and one
shall be elected by pracharaks at Head Quarters:
 : 101 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

(c) Fourteen members shall be elected other than Head

Quarters excluding pracharaks:

(d) Four members shall be elected from Pracharaks

other than Head Quarters:

(e) The election of members under sub-clauses (c) and

(d) above shall not exceed two for each district.

f) The Karyakarini Samiti at its first meeting shall elect the

office bearers from among its members provided that the
Karyadhyaksha and Koshadhyaksha shall be a resident of
Dharwad. The Adhyaksha shall be a resident of the place
other than the head quarters. The Sachiv shall be an ex
officio member of the Karyakarini Samiti. Any vacancy
caused either owing to resignation, illness, death or
otherwise shall be filled in by co-option by the Karyakarini
Samiti for the remaining period.

(g) The terms of the Karyakarini Samiti shall be co

terminus with the Vyavasthapika Samiti.

18.25. In terms of Rule 16(a)(4), four sets of three members

of the Provincial/Pranteeya Sabha are to be members

of Karyakarini Samiti of the Central Sabha.

18.26. In terms of Rule 16(a)(9), four members of Siksha

Parishad are to be elected by members of each of the

Pranteeya Sabha. Thus, even the Karyakarini Sabha

 : 102 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

of the Central Sabha comprises of members from the

Pranteeya Sabha.

18.27. The functions of Karyakarini Samiti of the Central

Sabha in terms of Rule 19 is as under:

Functions:

19. The functions of the Karyakarini Samiti shall be as

follows:

(a) To carry on the work of the Sabha in accordance

with the policy laid down by the Vyavasthapak Samiti.

(b) To frame the budget of the Sabha every year and

forward it to the Nidhipalak Mandal for scrutini.

(c) To place it before the Vyavasthapak Samiti for its

saction, along with the recommendation of the Nidhipalak
Mandal, if any.

(d) To arrange to prepare the annual report and audited

statements of accounts and present them to the
Vyavasthapak Samiti at its annual meeting.

(e) To control direct and supervise all the different

activities of the Sabha.

(f) To permit deviations in the budget sanctioned by the

Vyavasthapak Samiti, in such manner as may be
necessary: PROVIDED, however, that such diviations do not
involve additional expense of more than Rs. 5,000/- for the
year or violate any specific direction given by the
Vyavasthapak Samiti, or the terms of any donation.

(g) To frame bye-laws not inconsistent with the object and

 : 103 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

rules of the Sabha, for the conduct of its work and to alter
or amend them from time to time.

(h) To sanction purchase and sale of movable property not

exceeding Rs. 10,000/- in any one transaction; PROVIDED
that any single transaction of movable property exceeding
Rs. 10,000/+ in value shall require the prior approval of
the Vyavasthapak Samiti.

18.28. The functions of Karykarini Samiti of the Dharwad

Sabha in terms of Rule 10 is as under:

10) FUNCTION OF KARYAKARINI SAMITI AND

POWERS OF KARYAYAKARINI SAMITI-

(a) The Karyakarini Samiti shall be responsible to the

day to day administration.

(b) The Karyakarini Samiti shall ordinarily meet once in

three months at the head office of the Sabha or at any
other place as may be determined by the Karyakarini
Samiti. If necessary, the Sachiv shall have power to
convene the meeting earlier in consultation with the
Karyadhyaksha. The Karyadhyaksha may authorise the
Sachiv to transact any business of the committee by
circulation. Such decision shall be placed before the next
meeting of the Karyakarini Samiti for consideration.

(c) A notice of 7 clear days shall ordinarily be given for a

meeting of the Karyakarini Samiti except in case of
emergency.

(d) The Quorum for the meeting of the Karyakarini

Samiti whether ordinary or special shall be eight.

(e) The Karyakarini Samiti shall have power to remove

any member from the rolls of the Sabha provided that the
 : 104 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

presence of such members is found detrimental to the

interest of the Sabha.

(f) The Karyakarini Samiti may by resolution of 2/3

majority of the members present and voting press the
Central Sabha to recall/ transfer the sachiv.

(g) To raise funds or borrow money on the security of the

property of the Sabha for the purpose of the Sabha.

18.29. The functions of the Karyakarini Samiti of the Central

Sabha and the State Sabha are similar if not identical.

18.30. In terms of Rule 3(j) Sachiv (Karyadarshi) is defined

to be a person appointed by Central Sabha :

3(j) ‘Sachiv’ (Karyadarshi) means Sachiv (Secretary)

appointed by the Central Sabha.

18.31. The functions of Sachiv are in terms of Rule 12(D) of

the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha, which are reproduced

hereunder:

D) Sachiv

(i) Shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Sabha;

(ii) Shall be fully responsible to the Karyakarini Samiti
and Vyavasthapika Samiti;
(iii) Shall be the custodian of papers, files, documents,
movable and immovable properties of the Sabha ;
 : 105 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

(iv) Keep money of the Sabha in the Bank or Banks as

may be determined by the Karyakarni Samiti ;
(v) Shall be the custodian of the emblem of the Sabha;
(vi) Correspond on behalf of the Sabha;
(vii) Shall convey meeting of Vyasthapika Samiti and
Karyakarini Samiti in consultation with the Adyaksha and
Karyadhyaksha as the case may be;
(viii) Shall operate Bank A/c. subject to countersignature
by the Karyadhyaksha or Koshadhyaksha as resolved by
the Karyakarini Samiti;
(ix) Carry out the directions of the office bearers,
Vyavsthapika Samiti and Karyakarini Samiti;
(x) Shall represent the Sabha in all legal proceedings.
The Sachiv shall sue or be sued in the name of the Sabha;
(xi) Shall be the convener of any subcommittee

18.32. The Sachiv of the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha is

appointed by the Central Sabha who shall be the

Chief Executive Officer of the Central Sabha,

custodian of papers, files, documents, custodian of

Emblem who would have the power to convene

meeting, operate bank accounts, represent the Sabha

in all legal proceedings, etc., This would again

establish the superintendence and control that the

Central Sabha has over the Dharwad Pranteeya

Sabha.
 : 106 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

18.33. The Definition clause of the rules of the Dharwad

Pranteeya Sabha are reproduced hereunder:

(3) Definitions: In these rules unless the contexts

otherwise requires:
(a) ‘Sabha’ means Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar
Sabha, (Karnataka) a registered society.
(b) ‘Constitution’ means the rules and regulations of
the Sabha.
(c) 'Rule' means Rule of the constitution of the Sabha
(d) 'Central Sabha' means Dakshina Bharat
Hindi Prachar Sabha, Thyagaraya Nagar,
Chennai - 600 017
(e) 'Member' means any person admitted by the
Central Sabha on the recommendation of the
Executive Committee of the Sabha.
(f) 'Karnataka' means the areas comprised in the
states of Karnataka & Goa, Daman and Diu, as
specified in the first schedule of the Constitution of
India.
(g) 'Pramanit Pracharak' means a person enrolled as
such by the Central Sabha.
(h) "Year' means a financial year commencing from 1st
day of April to 31st day of March (both days
inclusive)
(i) 'Office Bearers' means the Adhyaksha
(President), Karyadhyaksha (Working President), and
Koshadhyaksha (Treasurer) and includes Acting
Adhyaksha, Acting Karyadhyaksha and Acting
Koshadhyaksha.
(j) 'Sachiv' (Karyadarshi) means Sachiv (Secretary)
appointed by the Central Sabha.
(k) 'Sabha Employee' means the paid employee of the
Sabha & includes teaching & non-teaching staff
working in the Institutions run by the Sabha.
 : 107 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

18.34. In terms of Rule 3(d) of the Dharwad Sabha, the

Central Sabha has been defined. In terms of 3(e) a

member means a person admitted as such by the

Central Sabaha. In terms of 3(g), Pramanit Pracharak

is a person as such enrolled by the Central Sabha. In

terms of 3(j), a Sachiv is one who is appointed by the

Central Sabaha.

18.35. The cross references made in the definition clause to

the Central Sabha also indicates intimate connection

of the Central Sabha and the Dharwad Pranteeya

Sabha.

18.36. Rule 28 of the Central Sabha provides as under:

Pranteeya Sabhas:

28. The Karyakarini Samiti may whenever necessary,

establish Pranteeya Sabhas for expanding its work in areas
where Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam and Kannada are spoken.
PROVIDED that the city of Madras shall remain under the
direct charge of the Central Sabha.

The Central Sabha, when it is satisfied that any

 : 108 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

provincial branch has failed in properly carrying the

functions of the provincial branch or is not functioning
properly due to any internal dispute the Central Sabha shall
have the powers to take over the administration of the
provincial Sabha or suspend the constitution of the
Provincial Sabha and take necessary steps to manage the
work of the Provincial
Sabha PROVIDED the procedure laid down in bye-laws is
followed.

18.37. In terms of Rule 28 above, the Pranteeya Sabhas are

treated more or less like Branches of the Central

Sabha though registered separately and the Central

Sabha would exercise powers of superintendence and

on determining that the provincial Branch is not

functioning properly, the Central Sabha has a power

to takeover the administration of the provincial

Sabha.

18.38. The above being various bye-laws applicable to the

Central Sabha and the Pranteeya Sabha in

Karnataka/Dharwad, the submission of Sri.

M.V.Sheshachala, learned Senior Counsel appearing

 : 109 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

for the petitioner is that on the Dharwad Pranteeya

Sabha being registered under the KSR Act, the

umbilical cord with the Central Sabha has been cut

and therefore, the Central Sabha cannot exercise any

superintendence power over the Pranteeya Sabha and

or exercise the powers under Rule 28 of the Central

Sabha.

18.39. The above Rules had been so formulated at the time

of registration under the KSR Act the said Rules which

have been extracted hereinabove clearly and

categorically establish the relation and cross-relation

between the Central Sabha and Pranteeya Sabha.

18.40. The Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha though registered

subsequently makes use of the Logo of the Central

Sabha. It describes itself as an Institution of national

importance under the Act No.14 of 1964 and claims

to be established in the year 1935.

 : 110 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

18.41. Firstly, the usage of Logo would establish a close

relationship with the Central Sabha, the reference to

the recognition as an Institution of national

importance can only refer to the Central Sabha, the

aspect of being established in the year 1935 can only

relate to the fact of the Central Sabha establishing

the Pranteeya Sabha.

18.42. A perusal of the Rules and Regulations indicates that,

the Central Sabha has in fact been defined under

Section 3(d), a Member is defined under Section 3(e)

to be a person admitted by the Central Sabha on the

recommendation of the executive committee of the

Sabha, Paramanit Pracharak has been defined under

Section 3(g) to be a person enrolled as such by the

Central Sabha, Sachiv has been defined under Section

3(j) to mean Sachiv (Secretary) appointed by the

Central Sabha. Thus, there are several references

 : 111 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

made in the definition clause itself which refers to the

Central Sabha it is in this background that the

submission of Shri. M.V.Sheshachala, learned Senior

Counsel that with the registration and formulation of

rules and regulations of the Dharwad Sabha the

umbilical cord has been cut has to be tested. If at all,

the umbilical cord had been cut, there would be no

reference to the Central Sabha and or the above

factors as detailed above.

18.43. One of the aims and objects of the Dharwad

Pranteeya Sabha under Rule 4(b) is to aid and assist

the Central Sabha for the fulfillment of its objects in

Karnataka, thereby incorporating all the aims and

objects of the Central Sabha into the Pranteeya

Sabha.

18.44. In terms of Rule 5 extracted above, a person may be

admitted to be a member of Dharwad Pranteeya

 : 112 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

Sabha by the Central Sabha to any one class of

membership by the Karyakarini Samiti of the

Pranteeya Sabha i.e. to say without the Central

Sabha admitting to membership no one could become

a member of the Pranteeya Sabha. The nomenclature

of different classes of members is also more or less

identical except a little bit of tweaking taking into

consideration the local language.

18.45. In the Central Sabha there is a membership class

called Samrakshaks but in the Dharwad Pranteeya

Sabha it is called Samrakshakas. In the Central

Sabha there is a class of membership called Poshaks

but in the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha they are called

Poshakas. In the Central Sabha there is a class of

membership called Ajeevan Sadasyas, but in the

Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha they are called Ajeevana

Sadasyas. In the Central Sabha there is a class of

membership called Sadharan Sadasyas but in the

 : 113 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha they are called as

Samanya.

18.46. The nomenclature of the governing body and

executive committee is also more or less identical. In

the Central Sabha, the governing body is called as

Vyavashtapak Samiti and in the Dharwad Pranteeya

Sabha it is called as Vyavashtapika Samiti. The

executive committee of the Central Sabha is known

as Karyakarini Samiti which is the same in Dharwad

Pranteeya Sabha where it is called as Karyakarini

Samiti.

18.47. There are various other similarities in the functions,

nomenclature, etc., in both the institutions. In the

aforesaid circumstances, I am unable to accept the

contention of Sri. M.V.Sheshachala that the umbilical

cord between the Central Sabaha and the Dharwad

Pranteeya Sabha has been cut. There are enough and

 : 114 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

more cross references and inter relation between

both the organizations which would lead to an

irresistible and irrefutable conclusion that both of

them form part and parcel of one single organiaation,

the Dharwad Sabha being only a branch though

registered under a different enactment.

18.48. In view thereof, Rule 28 which has been extracted

herein above, which relates to Pranteeya Sabha

would apply to the Pranteeya Sabha and the Central

Sabha can always exercise its rights under the said

Rule 28.

18.49. Rule 28 provides that if the Central Sabha is satisfied

that any provincial Branch/Pranteeya Sabha has failed

to properly carryout the functions or is not carrying

out the functions properly, the Central Sabha could

takeover the administration of the

 : 115 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

provincial/Pranteeya Sabha and take steps to manage

the work of the provincial/Pranteeya Sabha.

18.50. The operation and management of the Central Sabha

and the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha are intertwined

and the Dharwad Sabha having been established by

the Central Sabha, by exercising powers under Rule

28, the administration could be taken over.

18.51. When there is a specific provision like Rule 28, I am

of the considered opinion that the Central Sabha

would have superintendence power over the Dharwad

Sabha.

18.52. The above aspects being provided under Rules of

Central Sabha and the said power can be exercised

by the Central Sabha.

 : 116 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

18.53. The question that then arises is whether the exercise

of such power now made under Rule 28 can be said

to be proper in the circumstances of the case.

18.54. Sri. M.B.Naragund, learned Senior Counsel for the

Central Sabha submitted that there is a blatant

violation of the constitution document of the Dharwad

Pranteeya Sabha, inasmuch as Rule 7(b),(c),(d) as

also Rule 15 above are grossly violated.

18.55. A perusal of Rule 7(b) provides that one member

from each district in Karnataka would have to be

elected from the constituency of the Sadharan

Sadasyas, whereas, Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha has

some of the districts which has a representation of 9

persons, there was over representation from Belagavi

and Dharwad districts, which could not be done, the

representation has to be restricted to one person per

district from and out of Sadharan Sadasyas.

 : 117 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

18.56. One member was required to be elected from each

district from the constituency of Pramanith

Pracharaks which also has been violated.

18.57. Apparently voters list has also not been prepared or

published which is a violation of the constitution

document.

18.58. Rule 15 which prohibits an employee of the Sabha to

contest an election as also been violated inasmuch as

there are several staff members who have contested

the elections.

18.59. It is in the above background that the Central Sabha

had on 12.05.2020 written to the Secretary of the

Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha bringing these several

violations to the notice of the said secretary and

called upon for a reply to be furnished within seven

 : 118 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

days, failing which the Central Sabha would be

constrained to initiate legal and appropriate action.

18.60. The Dharwad Pranteeya Sabaha had replied on

19.05.2020 stating that, there are numerous

information sought for and since there is a COVID-19

pandemic which is prevalent requested time till

situation becomes normal for a detailed reply to be

issued. The Central Sabha had immediately on

20.05.2020 replied stating that this is only a ruse to

delay the matter and had called upon the Pranteeya

Sabha to furnish the details within seven days. This

was replied on 21.05.2020 by the Pranteeya Sabha

contending that the elections have been held in

accordance with law and there are no lapses.

18.61. It is on receipt of such a vague reply that on

23.05.2020 a proceeding of the Central Sabha was

held, wherein, the elections conducted to the

 : 119 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

Vyavasthapika Samiti of the Karnataka Pranteeya

Sabha, Dharwad, for the period 2020-2024 was

declared as null and void. The Pranteeya Sabaha was

superseded and an administrator was to be

appointed. In furtherance thereof, on 23.05.2020 an

order was issued by the Central Sabha appointing a

Special Secretary of the Karnataka Pranteeya Sabha

with various powers as an Administrator to administer

the Dharwad Sabha and on 08.06.2020 an Advisory

committee of three members was appointed to advise

the Special Secretary.

18.62. In the above background I’am of the considered

opinion that the Central Sabha having powers under

Rule 28 has followed the due procedure, issued

notice, considered the reply given by the Pranteeya

Sabha and orders have been passed, which cannot be

faulted with.
 : 120 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

18.63. The Central Sabha having superintendence power

over the Dharwad Sabha in terms of Rule 28, such

power has been properly exercised. In the above

background, I answer point No.4 by holding that, the

Central Sabha has superintendence power over the

Dharwad Sabha and can exercise powers under Rule

28 of the Central Sabaha in respect of Dharwad

Sabha. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion

that the power under Rule 28 has been properly

exercised by the Central Sabha and the appointment

of the Special Secretary is proper and correct.

19. Answer to Point No.5: Whether once the Dharwad

Sabha is registered under the KSR Act, 1960, the
appointment of an Administrator or otherwise would
be only under the KSR Act, 1960?

19.1. As answered in point No.4, the Central Sabha would

have superintendence power over the Dharwad Sabha

in terms of Rule 28 which has been exercised.

 : 121 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

19.2. I have also held in answer to point No.4 that the

operation and management of the Central Sabha and

the Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha are intertwined and

the Dharwad Sabha having been established by the

Central Sabha, by exercising powers under Rule 28,

the administration could be taken over. The above

aspects being provided under Rules of Central Sabha

and the said power having been exercised by the

Central Sabha, I have opined above that the said

exercise of power is proper and correct.

19.3. The contention of Sri. M.V.Sheshachala, learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that,

since the Dharwad Sabha is registered under the KSR

Act, the appointment of an Administrator or otherwise

would have to be made under the KSR Act. Section

25 of of the KSR Act, reads as under:

 : 122 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

Section 25: -Meetings of the managing committee:-

25. Enquiry by the Registrar, etc.-(1) The Registrar

may on his own motion and shall on the application of the
majority of the members of the governing body or of not
less than one-third of the members of the society, hold an
enquiry or direct some person authorised by him by order
in writing in accordance with the rules made in this behalf
to hold an enquiry into the constitution, working and
financial condition of a registered society.

(2) The Registrar or the person authorised by him under

sub-section

shall have the following powers, namely, (a) he shall, at all

reasonable times, have free access to the books, accounts,
documents, securities, cash and other properties belonging
to or in the custody of the society and may summon any
person in possession or responsible for the custody of any
such books, accounts, documents securities, cash or other
properties to produce the same at any place at the
headquarters of the society or any branch thereof;

(b) he may summon any person who, he has reason to

believe, has knowledge of any of the affairs of the society
to appear before him at any place at the headquarters of
the society or any branch thereof and may examine such
person on oath;

(c) (i) he may, notwithstanding anything contained in this

Act or in any rule or regulation prescribing the period of
notice for a general meeting of the society, require the
governing body of the society to call a general meeting at
such time and place at the headquarters of the society or
any branch thereof and to determine such matters as may
be directed by him. If the governing body of the society
refuses or fails to call a meeting, he shall have power to
call it himself;

(ii) any meeting called under sub-clause (i) shall have all
the powers of a general meeting called under the rules or
regulations of the society and its proceedings shall be
regulated by such rules or regulations;
 : 123 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

(iii) when an enquiry is made under this section, the

Registrar shall communicate the result of the enquiry to the
society concerned.

19.4. Section 27(A) of the KSR Act, reads as under:

27-A. Appointment of Administrator-

Notwithstanding anything in this Act ,-

(1) (a) where any society on account of the pendency of

litigation or otherwise has not held or is unable to hold
the annual general meeting; or

(b) where the term of office of the members of the

governing body of a society has expired and a new
governing body has not for
any reason been constituted; or

(c) where on a report made by the Registrar or

otherwise, on enquiry, the State Government considers it
necessary in public interest so to do, the State
Government may, by order published in the official
Gazette, appoint an Administrator for such society for
such period, not exceeding six months, as may be
specified in the order to manage the affairs of the society;

Provided that for reasons to be recorded in writing,

the State Government may, by like order, 1[extend either
prospectively or retrospectively, the said period] by any
further periods not exceeding six months at a time, so
however subject to the provisions of clause (5), the
aggregate period shall not extend beyond "[four years];

(2) the expenditure incurred by the State Government

towards the salary and allowances of the Administrator
shall be paid to the State Government from out of the
funds of the society;
 : 124 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

(3) on the appointment of the Administrator under

clause (1) and during the period of such appointment the
governing body of the society shall cease to exercise any
powers and perform and discharge any functions or duties
conferred or imposed on it by this Act, or its
memorandum of association or the rules and regulations
or any other law and subject to any directions which the
State Government, may from time to time issue, all such
functions or duties shall be performed or discharged by
the Administrator;

(4) the Administrator shall, before the expiry of the

period of his appointment take necessary action to
convene the general body meeting of the society and hold
elections for the constitution of the governing body;

(5) if the Administrator is not, for reasons beyond his

control, able to convene the general body meeting or
inspite of such meeting being convened, the general body
fails to elect the governing body, the Administrator shall
forthwith send a report to the State Government, who
may pass such orders as are considered necessary, either
extending the period of appointment of the Administrator
for a further period or if satisfied that public interest so
requires, for the dissolution of the society;

(5-A) the State Government may, if it thinks fit, appoint

an Advisory Council to advise and assist the administrator
appointed under sub-section (1) in the exercise of the
powers and performance and discharge of the duties and
functions conferred or imposed on him under this Act. The
members of the Advisory Council shall hold office during
the pleasure of the State Government];

(6) where an order of dissolution is passed under sub-

section (5) the assets of the society shall vest in and the
liabilities shall devolve on the State Government.]
 : 125 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

19.5. The enquiry under Section 25 is provided for where a

majority of the members of the governing body or not

less than 1/3rd members of the society request for

holding an enquiry then the Registrar shall hold such

an enquiry.

19.6. In the present case, it is the election of the Pranteeya

Sabha which is in violation of the constituent

documents of the Central sabha and the Pranteeya

Sabha. The Central Sabha is not a member of the

Pranteeya Sabha, but as a superintendence power.

19.7. In the event of any inter-se membership dispute, the

remedy under Section 25 can be availed of by such

members. In the present case, the position of the

Central Sabha not being that of the member, but

being that of superintendence over the Pranteeya

Sabha, I am of the considered opinion that Section 25

of KSR Act would not be applicable to the facts and

circumstances, the Central Sabha could independently

 : 126 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

exercise its rights under Rule 28 of the Central

Sabha.

19.8. Insofar as the appointment of an Administrator under

Section 27(A) is concerned, the right of appointment

of such an Administrator can be exercised when an

Annual General Meeting was not held due to a

litigation or the term of the governing body having

expired, no new governing body has been elected or

on the basis of the report submitted by the Registrar

of the societies after enquiry.

19.9. In the present case, as again observed above, in

terms of Rule 28, the Central Sabha could takeover

the administration of the provincial Sabha, suspend

the constitution of the Provincial Sabha and take

necessary steps to manage the work of the Provincial

Sabaha. In pursuance thereof, a Special Secretary is

appointed by the Central Sabha, who would

 : 127 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

administer the Pranteeya Sabha with the aid and

advise of the Advisory Committee.

19.10. The action taken by the Central Sabha in pursuance

of Rule 28 is different than though provided for under

Section 25 or Section 27(A) of the KSR Act, 1960.

19.11. Merely because there is a presence of Section 25 and

27(A) in the KSR Act, it would not negate the powers

of the Central Sabha under Rule 28 of its bye-laws.

19.12. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that, the

Central Sabha can always invoke powers under Rule

28 of the bye-laws of the Central Sabha and any

qualifying members could invoke the remedy under

Section 25 of KSR Act. Both these powers and

remedies operate in different situation and are

independent of each other.

 : 128 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

19.13. Hence, I answer point No.5 holding that irrespective

of the registration of the Dharwad Sabha under the

KSR Act, 1960, the Central Sabha could always

exercise powers under Rule 28 of the Central Sabha

and appoint an Administrator. This being a

independent right of the Central Sabha, the members

of Dharwad Sabha could always exercise their right

for enquiry under Section 25 which operates in a

different field.

20. Answer to Point No.6: Whether the

Administrator/Special Officer and/or the Advisory
Committee can enroll new members subsequent to
their appointment?

20.1. Sri. Sunil Desai, learned counsel, by relying upon

T.A.Kuttappan’s case, K. Shantaraj case and

M.G.Doddegowda’s case, (Supra) has sought to

contend that, no new member could be enrolled by

the Special Secretary and or the Advisory Committee

 : 129 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

and that the elections when held would have to be

held with the current members.

20.2. The nature and methodology of membership has been

detailed herein above. No person can be made a

member of the Pranteeya Sabha like that of the

Dharwad Sabha without the approval of the Central

Sabha. The Karyakarini Samiti of the Pranteeya

Sabha can only recommend for a membership. It is

only the Central Sabha which admits a person to be a

member.

20.3. Though Sri. M.B.Naragund, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the Central Sabha would contend that,

since the Administrator has been appointed under

Rule 28 and not under Section 27(A) of the KSR Act,

the aforesaid decisions relied upon by Shri. Desai

would not be applicable, I am of the considered

opinion that the net effect and result of the Central

 : 130 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

Sabha exercising powers under Rule 28 is a takeover

of the management and appointment of the

Administrator though called the Special Secretary to

administer the affairs of the Dharwad Pranteeya

Sabha who would in essence be performing the role

of an Administrator.

20.4. In such a situation, I am of the considered opinion

that, pending elections being held in accordance with

bye-laws and constitutional documents of the

Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha, the principles laid down

by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions would

clearly apply to the Administrator appointed by the

Central Sabha as that would have been applicable to

the Administrator appointed by the State Government

under Section 27 (A) of the KSR Act.

20.5. Hence, I answer point No.6 by holding that the

Administrator/Special Secretary and or the Advisory

 : 131 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

Committee cannot enroll new members until the

election process is completed.

21. What order:

21.1. W.P.No.103712/2021 and W.P.No.10400/ 2021 are

partly allowed.

21.2. The prayer seeking for setting aside the order dated

23.05.2020 and 08.06.2020 are rejected.

21.3. It is declared that the Central Sabha can exercise

superintendence power over the Pranteeya Sabha, in

terms of Rule 28 of the bye-laws of the Central

Sabha.

21.4. The Special Secretary/Advisory Committee is

restrained from enrolling new members to the

Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha, until election process is

completed with the existing members as on the date

 : 132 : WP NO.103712/2021 C/W
WP NO.104100/2021

of appointment of the Administrator/Special Secretary

i.e., 23/05/2020.

21.5. The enrollment if any subsequent to the appointment

of the Special Secretary is set aside which could

however to be reconsidered by Karyakarini

Committee when it comes in existence after the

elections.

21.6. The Administrator/Special Secretary and the Advisory

committee are directed to complete the election

process strictly in accordance with the byelaws of the

Dharwad Pranteeya Sabha within a period of six

months from the date of receipt of the certified copy

of this order.

Sd/-
JUDGE

*Svh/-