- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29517 WP No. 35625 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 35625 OF 2018 (GM-KSR) BETWEEN: BRIGADE MILLENNIUM JACARANDA BLOCK APARTMENT OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, AN ASSOCIATION REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA APARTMENT OWNERSHIP ACT,1972 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT JACARANDA BLOCK, BRIGADE MILLENNIUM, 7TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS PRESIDENT, MR. RAM NARASIMHAN …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KAMALACHARAN S.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, NO.146, SAHAKARA SOUDHA, 2ND FLOOR, 3RD MAIN, 8TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003. 2. DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES 3RD ZONE, BENGALURU URBAN, NO.146, SAHAKARA SOUDHA, 2ND FLOOR, 3RD MAIN, 8TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003. 3. MR. HAMIDULLAH KHAN ENQUIRY OFFICER AND SENIOR INSPECTOR OF REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29517 WP No. 35625 of 2018 OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, 3RD ZONE, BENGALURU URBAN NO.146, SAHAKARA SOUDHA, 2ND FLOOR, 3RD MAIN, 8TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003. 4. SRI. VIJAY KUMAR MADA SON OF MARANNA MADA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT E-1205, JACARANDA BLOCK, BRIGADE MILLENIUM, J.P.NAGAR, 7TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560078. 5. SMT. ARUNA GOVIND WIFE OF SRI. GOVIND PERUMAL RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT E-305, JACARANDA BLOCK, BRIGADE MILLENIUM, J.P.NAGAR, 7TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560078. 6. SRI. RAMPRASAD KASTHURI SON OF GOPULYER KASTHURI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT E-1304, JACARANDA BLOCK, BRIGADE MILLENIUM, J.P.NAGAR, 7TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560078. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3; SMT. RESHMA THAMMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE NO.DRB- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29517 WP No. 35625 of 2018 3/SAM.NO./88/2017-18 DATED 05.07.2018 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged a notice bearing No.DRB- 3/Sam.No./88/2017-18 dated 05.07.2018 issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1960' for short). It has also challenged a notice bearing No.Sam.Sa.Sam.Hi.Ni.Enquiry:Section25/05/2018-19 dated 30.07.2018 issued by the respondent No.3 who was appointed as the enquiring officer by the respondent No.2. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that it is a society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1972' for short). It claimed that a deed of declaration dated 27.06.2018 was executed by the owners of the apartments which was duly registered. It contends that it has been functioning as an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29517 WP No. 35625 of 2018 association from the year 2008 under the provisions of Act, 1972. (ii) The petitioner contends that it received a notice dated 12.01.2018 from the office of respondent No.2 enclosing therewith a complaint dated 19.12.2017 by the residents of Brigade Millennium Jacaranda Block. The respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to hold a meeting with the complainants to resolve their grievances and report back to him within a week. The petitioner contends that it is not governed under the provisions of the Act, 1960 but it is governed under the provisions of the Act, 1972 and therefore the respondent No.2 has no authority or power of superintendence over the petitioner. Nonetheless, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 24.01.2018 requesting copies of the enclosures to the complaint submitted by the complainants/apartment owners. The respondent No.2 issued another notice dated 05.02.2018 directing the petitioner to hold a meeting. The petitioner therefore, issued a detailed reply dated 17.02.2018 informing the respondent No.2 that the respondent No.2 has no authority over it to issue a notice under the Act, 1960. The petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29517 WP No. 35625 of 2018 claimed that in the meanwhile it held meetings with the complainants to redress their grievances. The grievances of the complainants were thereafter placed before the special general body meeting held on 10.03.2018 which was also informed to the respondent No.2 on 28.02.2018. Thereafter, a meeting was held on 10.03.2018 where certain resolutions were passed and the same was communicated to the respondent No.2 vide letter dated 19.03.2018. However, the petitioner received another notice dated 05.07.2018 from the office of respondent No.2 that respondent No.2 proposed to conduct an enquiry under Section 25 of the Act, 1960. The petitioner again informed the respondent No.2 by a letter dated 14.07.2018 that the respondent No.2 has no power of superintendence over it. Nonetheless, the respondent No.3 caused a notice dated 30.07.2018 directing the petitioner to appear in-person on 17.08.2018. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging the validity of the proceedings initiated by the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is neither a society registered under the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29517 WP No. 35625 of 2018 provisions of the Act, 1960 nor a cooperative society registered under the Act, 1961 but is registered as an association under the provisions of the Act, 1972. He submits that the Act, 1972 provides for self governance of such association and no power is vested in the respondent No.2 to initiate proceedings under Section 25 of the Act, 1960. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner took the Court through the provisions of the Act, 1972 as well as the Act, 1960 and submitted that an association of apartment owners can be registered only under the Act, 1972 and not under the Act, 1960. He contends that even if it is assumed that the respondent No.2 has administrative superintendence over the petitioner, there is no case made out for exercise of power under the Act, 1960. He therefore, contends that the impugned notices issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 are liable to be quashed. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that the petitioner has not furnished a copy of the certificate registering it as an association under the provisions of the Act, 1972. He therefore, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29517 WP No. 35625 of 2018 submits that the respondent No.2 was justified in initiating proceedings under Section 25 of the Act, 1960. 5. A perusal of the documents enclosed with the writ petition shows that the petitioner was registered as an Apartment Owners Association under the provisions of the Act, 1972 on 27.06.2018. Once it is registered as an association under the Act, 1972, it is bound by the provisions of the Act, 1972. The competent authority under the Act, 1972 as defined under Section 3(i) of the Act, 1972 is the Registrar of Co- operative Societies as defined in the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The respondent No.2 is not the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and therefore, the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner purportedly in exercise of power under Section 25 of the Act, 1960 is illegal and colorable. 6. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no administrative control or superintendence over the petitioner and therefore, the impugned notices issued by them are liable to be set at nought on this short ground alone. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29517 WP No. 35625 of 2018 7. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently the impugned notice bearing No.DRB- 3/Sam.No.88/2017-18 dated 05.07.2018 (Annexure - A) issued by the respondent No.2 and the notice bearing No.Sam.Sa.Sam.Hi.Ni.Enquiry:Section 25/05/2018-19 dated 30.07.2018 (Annexure - B) issued by respondent No.3 are quashed. 8. The respondent No.2 is directed to henceforth not take up any proceedings against either the petitioner or any other association which are registered under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972. 9. It is, however, open for the members of the petitioner to avail any other remedy available in law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49