Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The 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:
“10. 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
proposing to amend the memorandum of Association.
The 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 order.”
Shri 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
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.
In that 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.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(B.S. CHAUHAN) New Delhi, July 9, 2009.