The appellant is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (for short, the said Act of 1960). By the impugned order passed in a petition filed by the first to seventh respondents, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to cancel the registration of the appellant Society under the provisions of the said Act of 1960.
2. It is the case of the appellant that M/s Value Design Private Limited, a builder and developer, constructed the apartment complex consisting of six blocks having 196 flats. The complex has various facilities such as swimming pool, club house, gymnasium, indoor game halls, parking space, walking track, etc. The case of the appellant is that no steps have been taken to form an Association of apartment owners by the developer under the provisions of the Karnataka Apartments Ownership Act, 1972 (for short, the said Act of 1972).
3. The case made out by the appellant is that in terms of the said Act of 1972, deeds of declaration by the owners were prepared. However, an Association of apartment owners as contemplated by the said Act of 1972 was not registered and therefore, a majority of the apartment owners came together and formed the appellant Association in order to maintain the residential complex and to give services to the owners of the apartments.
4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the objects of the appellant Association will fall in the categories covered by Section 3 of the said Act of 1960. He pointed out that the dominant purpose or object of forming the said Association is to administer, maintain and run the buildings and apartments constructed by the aforesaid developer. He submitted that in fact, the appellant has been collecting maintenance charges for maintaining the residential complex from a majority of the apartment owners, barring a few of the owners of the apartments who are opposing the appellant. He submitted that there is nothing wrong with the registration of the appellant Association under the said Act of 1960 and that if the impugned order is maintained, the members who have not paid the maintenance will go scot-free. Without prejudice to his contentions, he submitted that the first to seventh respondents must co-operate for formation of the Association as contemplated by the said Act of 1972.
5. We have given careful consideration to the submissions.
6. Section 3 of the said Act of 1960 reads thus:
3. Societies to which the Act applies.- The following societies may be registered under this Act, Societies established for, (a) the promotion of charity; (b) the promotion of education, science, literature, or the fine arts; (c) the promotion of sports; (d) the instruction and the diffusion of knowledge relating to commerce or industry or of any other useful knowledge; (e) the diffusion of political education; (f) the foundation or maintenance of libraries or reading rooms for general use among the members or open to the public, or of public museums and galleries of painting and other works of art; [(ff) the promotion of conservation and proper use of natural resources and scarce Infrastructural facilities like land, power, water, forest and such other resources and infrastructural facilities, as may be notified by the State Government from time to time.] (g) the collection of natural history, mechanical and philosophical inventions Or designs and Which intend to apply their profits, if any, or other income in promoting their objects and prohibit the payment of any dividend or distribution of any income or profits among their members. Even according to the case of the appellant, the dominant object for the formation of the appellant Association is to administer, maintain and run the building and apartments. Clauses 5.1 and 5.2 are, even according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the dominant objects of the Association, and they read thus: 5.1 To administer, maintain and run the building and apartments known as VDB Celadon No.23/3, 23/4, 26/1, Shivanahalli Hobli, Jakkur Road, Yelahanka, Bangalore 560064. 5.2 To Carry on the Day-to-day work relating to all aspects of the building, apartments, common areas, common facilities and common services therein;
7. On a plain reading of Section 3 of the said Act of 1960, it is clear that the object of administering, maintaining and running the buildings and apartments and to carry on the day-to-day work relating to all the aspects of the buildings/apartments, common areas and common facilities will not be covered by any of the clauses (a) to (g) of Section 3 of the said Act of 1960. Even according to the case of the appellant, Clauses 5.1 and 5.2 are its dominant objects. In fact, on the earlier date, we had granted time to the appellant to take instructions whether it proposes to apply for deletion of certain objects which are a part of the bye-laws of the appellant Association.
8. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on instructions, states that if the said two objects are deleted, the registration of the appellant under the said Act of 1960 cannot be maintained.
9. Thus, the main object of the appellant was to do something which could have been done by an Association formed in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of 1972. In fact, the documents of sale executed by the developer in respect of the flat/apartment contain a stipulation that the purchasers of the flats shall form an Association/Society/Condominium in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of 1972. That is how the learned Single Judge by modifying the impugned order dated 15th February, 2019, has clarified that steps can be taken to register the appellant Association under the provisions of the said Act of 1972.
10. Thus, after having perused the dominant objects of the appellant Association, we find that the said objects are not covered by Section 3 of the said Act of 1960, and therefore, the appellant could not have been registered under the said Act. We find no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge when he had proceeded to cancel registration of the appellant.
11. As observed by the learned Single Judge, the impugned order as well as this order will not prevent the persons who are members of the appellant Association from taking steps for formation and registration of an Association/Condominium under the provisions of the said Act of 1972 inasmuch as the sale deeds executed in favour of the apartment owners contemplate formation of such Association.
12. Subject to what is observed above, the writ appeals are dismissed. All pending applications do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE vgh*