Educational Association Vs. V. Venkatesh & Ors.  INSC 1189 (9 July
APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4272 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.
11006/2008) Seshadripuram Educational Association ...Appellant(s) Versus
V.Venkatesh & Ors. ...Respondent(s) ORDER Delay condoned.
Appeal is filed against the judgment of Division Bench of the Karnataka High
Court by which a direction is given to the Seshadripuram Educational
Association to consider the applications made to it for admitting the
respondents as life members of the Society. The concerned para runs like this:
We think it is just and proper for us to give a direction to the second
respondent to consider their application keeping in view the date of their
application was prior to the resolution passed on 6.5.2005 -2- proposing to
amend the memorandum of Association.
application seeking admission of them as life members of the society were earlier
to the proposed amendment to the Memorandum of Association and its approval
granted by the first respondent, therefore the appellants applications are
required to be considered by second respondent without reference to the amended
clause of the Memorandum of Association. In this regard the first respondent
must also see that necessary direction shall be issued to the second respondent
to consider their application by the second respondent in accordance with law
and dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of the
B.P.S. Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant firstly
argues that the High Court has committed an error of jurisdiction in
entertaining the writ petition under Art.226 seeking the direction to a private
society like the petitioner herein. We have seen the impugned judgment. The
High Court has relied on the reported decision in Anadi Mukta -3- Sadguru Shree
Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Ohers vs. V.R.Rudani
and others reported in AIR 1989 SC 1607. The ruling is not applicable here.The
society herein in entertaining or not entertaining the membership application
was not doing any statutory duty. The society is bound by its own bye-laws and
not by any other statutes in the matter of membership.. The Karnataka Society
Registration Act, 1960, does not provide for the membership of a particular
society or any rights thereof.
view, we do not think that the High Court was right in relying on Anadi Mukta
(supra) decision. It is now a settled law that unless a private society is
engaged in doing any public duty the writ petition against it would not be
maintainable. That is the only question involved. In that view, we set aside
the judgment of the High Court and the order of dismissal of the writ petition.
However, the appellants may pursue such remedy as is available to them in law.
appeal is disposed of accordingly.
...................J. (V.S. SIRPURKAR) .
..................J. (B.S. CHAUHAN)
July 9, 2009.
Pages: 1 2 3