CRUX of this Judgement :  Justice SHIVAPRAKASH & Justice A.S.Hakeem ; including 1\ 2 dozen higher-ups in Lokayukta ; are allottees of sites as members of this Society & as Lokayukta strenuously trying to wriggle out-of this case ; the Society has moved against their Power-to-investigate to High Court .CASE for CBI ? 
CRUX of this Judgement  of 1994:
Justice SHIVAPRAKASH

" and after the Society has executed the Relinquishment Deed relinquishing its right, title and interest over the roads, parks, playgrounds, open spaces etc; in the layout formed, in favour of the B.D.A.,   there was no question of "releasing the sites"    by the B.D.A.    for the purpose of allotment by the Society     since the layout in question is a   private layout formed by the Co-operative Society concerned."           Criminal Contempt by 867 Judges of this Judgment Judicial Facts:   BDA Admits in High Court:     Till date   neither BDA   has approved Lay-out nor Society Relinquished 100 Acres of Lands to BDA ; contrarily Society is selling away all C.A.Sites & alloting as sites to appease New HC Judges ; making BDA of which Portfolio is held by Chief Minister as Mute Spectator.    BANGALORE  into   SLUM  =  MNCs  Shouting Refresh  Bangalore    CBI  waiting for this CASE

" and after the Society has executed the Relinquishment Deed relinquishing its right, title and interest over the roads, parks, playgrounds, open spaces etc; in the layout formed,  in favour of the B.D.A.,   there was no question of "releasing the sites"    by the B.D.A.     for the purpose of allotment by the Society     since the layout in question is a    private layout formed by the Co-operative Society concerned."            Criminal Contempt by 867 Judges of this Judgment Judicial Facts:   BDA Admits in High Court:     Till date   neither BDA   has approved Lay-out nor Society Relinquished 100 Acres of Lands to BDA ; contrarily Society is selling away all C.A.Sites & alloting as sites to appease New HC Judges ; making BDA of which Portfolio is held by Chief Minister as Mute Spectator.    BANGALORE  into   SLUM  =  MNCs  Shouting Refresh  Bangalore    CBI  waiting for this CASE


I . L . R . 1994 KAR 2115

SHIVAPRAKASH . J

Karnataka State Judicial Employees' House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. vs State of Karnataka *

[ W.P. No. 18447 of 1994 dated 15th July 1994 ]

CIRCULAR BY COMMISSIONER FOR REGISTRATION & STAMPS DATED 17-05-1994. Release of site allotted in private layout sanctioned by BDA, each & every time & 'No objection certificate' from Registrar of Co-operative Societies, do not arise - Circular of no legal effect & liable to be struck down.

HELD:

[i] There is no provision in the Bangalore Development Authority Act enjoining that each and every time a site has to be allotted in a private layout sanctioned by the BDA, the said site has to be released by the BDA. Obviously, because sites in private layouts are never in the clutches of BDA and the question of BDA "releasing" the sites does not arise. Therefore, the condition stipulated in the Circular, cannot be legally sustained. [ Para - 5]

[ii] The other requirement of production of "No Objection Certificate" issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, also cannot be legally sustained since there is no provision of law requiring production of "No Objection Certificate" issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies before a document presented Sub-Registrar. [ Para - 6]

[iii] The Circular not published in the Gazette in terms of provisions of Section 22A of the Registration [Karnataka Amendment] Act, 1976 is of no legal effect.. The Circular does not disclose any intelligible different and also does not reveal any public policy being involved in issuing the said Circular. On this ground also the Circular has to be struck down. [ Paras - 8 & 9 ]

CASES REFERRED:

[1] W.P.No. 20898 OF 1990 DD 29-01-1993-

[2] ILR 1993 KAR 3103 - Bhaskar vs State [ Foll]
Mr. T. S. Ramachandra for Petitioner
Mr. V.B. Ganachar, HCGP for Respondents

O R D E R

Shivaprakash, J

[1] The petitioner is a House Building Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co0operative Societies Act.

[2] In this petition the petitioner-Society questions the legality and validity of the Circular dated 17-05-1994 issued by the Second respondent - the Commissioner for Registration and Stamps in Karnataka, copy of which is marked as Annexure -C. In the said circular, t is stated that the Government has issued instructions to 32 House Building C-operative Societies to allot sites to its members and that the Government in its letter dated 11-05-1994 has issued instructions to the concerned Sub-Registrars that whenever documents are presented by the aforesaid 32 Co-operative Societies the same shall be registered if only the produce the following documents:

  1. No objection certificate from Registrar of Co-operative Societies;

  2. Release certificate from the Bangalore Development Authority [ BDA for short]

[3] In the said Circular there is a warning to the concerned Sub-Registrars that if they were to register any document presented by the aforesaid 32 Societies without production of the above two Certificates, disciplinary action would be initated against them.

[4] This Court in W. P. 20898/90 [ DD. 29-01-1993] while considering the question of issue of Release certificate by the B.D.A. for the purpose of allotment by the Society, has ruled that after the formation of the layout in accordance with the layout sanctioned by the B.D.A. and after the Society has executed the Relinquishment Deed relinquishing its right, title and interest over the roads, parks, playgrounds, open spaces etc; in the layout formed, in favour of the B.D.A., there was no question of "releasing the sites" by the B.D.A. for the purpose of allotment by the Society since the layout in question is a private layout formed by the Co-operative Society concerned.

[5] There is no provision in the Bangalore Development authority Act enjoining that each and every time a site has to be allotted ina private layout sanctioned by the B.D.A., the said site has to be released by the B.D.A. Obviously, because sites in private layouts are never in the clutches of B.D.A. and the question of B.D.A. "releasing" the sites does not arise. Therefore, the condition stipulated in the Circular, as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, cannot be legally sustained. As a matter of fact, against the aforesaid Decision of a learned single Judge of this Court, the B.D.A. had preferred Writ Appeal in W. A. No. 394 of 1993 and the same was dismissed on 23-03-1993.

[6] The other requirement of production of "No Objection Certificate" issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, also cannot be legally sustained since no provision of law is brought to my notice requiring production of "No Objection Certificate" issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies before a document presented by the Co-operative Society is registered by the concerned Sub-Registrar.

[7] Sri. T. S. Ramachandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the impugned Circular has no legal force since the same is not notified in the Gazette in terms of the provision of Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1976. Section 22A of the said Act reads thus:

"22A. Documents registration of which is opposed to public policy: (1) The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare that the registration of any document or class of documents is opposed to public policy. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering officer shall refuse to register any document to which a notification issued under sub-section (1) is applicable. "

[8] This Court while considering an identical question in A. BHASKAR vs STATE OF KARNATAKA has ruled that Circulars which are not published in the Gazette in terms of the provisions of Section 22A of the Registration [Karnataka Amendment ] Act, 1976, is of no legal effect. It appears, the State Government had preferred Appeal against the said Ruling of a learned Single Judge of this Court and the same was dismissed in Writ Appeal Nos. 1283 to 1320 of 1994 [ DD 07-06-1994].

[9] The learned Counsel for the petitioner next contended that the impugned Circular is also bad in law as the same is violative of article 14 of the constitution of India. He submitted that among hundreds of Housing Co-operative Societies only 32 Societies of which the petitioner-Society is one, have been singled out for discriminatory treatment without any discernible basis. He submitted that any valid classification to stand the test of Article 14 of the constitution of India has to be based on intelligible differential having reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In the instant case, the Circular does not disclose any such intelligible differentia and also does not reveal any public policy being involved in issuing the said Circular. On this ground also the Circular has to be struck down.

[10] For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Circular is quashed.

[11] The Learned Government Pleader pleaded that while allowing the petition no costs be imposed. Despite Rulings of this Court, if the authorities concerned persist in issuing Circulars, in contumacious disregard of the law laid down by this Court, thus compelling the parties to file Writ Petitions putting them to unnecessary expenses. It is just and reasonable to impose costs.

[12] The authorities should realise that Judicial testing of statutory and administrative Regulations has a vital part to play not only in contesting individuals against abuse by officials but also in helping is make the official Regulations themselves enforceable if they are legal and valid.

[13] This Petition is allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 3000/-.

Top