2 to 10 moved the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by filing Writ Petition Nos.
Respondent Nos.
Their names were, therefore, removed from the roll of members.
That suit came to be dismissed on 9.21991.
1999 Supp 5 SCR 161 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. MAJMUDAR, J. Leave granted.
It is this companymon judgment of the learned Single Judge in two writ petitions moved by Respondent Nos 2 to 10 herein that resulted in two writ appeals on their part before the Division Bench of the High Court, these two writ appeals being Writ Appeal Nos.
3630 and 33463 of 1994 filed in the High Court by Respondent Nos.
In the meantime, some other members similarly situated challenged the validity of the Rule by filing Writ Appeal Nos 725 to 727 of 1992 which were dismissed by a Division Bench of me High Court on 4.3.1991 holding that the appellant society companyld number be subjected to writ jurisdiction.
substituted by Rule 7 A with effect from 303 1981, Though both the Rules are in part materia, the operative Rule 7 A , which has been struck down by the High Court in the impugned judgment, squarely falls for our companysideration.
Rule 7, which earlier stood on the Statute Book, was.
On 6th of June, 1961, the Hyderabad Societies Registration Act was repealed by the present Act of 1960 which came into force with effect from 6.6.1961.
In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant society regarding the impugned Rules, it is necessary to numbere a few relevant introductory facts.
The appellant society, therefore, became deemed to be registered under the present Act.
Background Facts The appellant society was earlier registered on 3.4.1958 under the provisions of the Hyderabad Societies Registration Act, 1958.
These Rules were, therefore, struck down.
An additional reason for striking down the Rules, according to the High Court, was the fact that the Roles were harsh in their operation.
2 to 10 herein came to be allowed against the companymon appellant Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society for short appellant society .
It is thereafter that the present Respondent Nos.
2 to 10 original writ petitioners in the two writ petitions before the High Court were admitted as ordinary members of the appellant society during the period from 1975 1979.
Some of the members, who according to the appellant society had ceased to be members of the society due to their default in payment of subscription within the prescribed time as laid down by the relevant Rule, challenged the said Rule 7 A in the Civil Court at Gulbarga.
The appellant societys companytention was that they became defaulters in payment of annual subscription for the relevant years and, therefore, ceased to be treated as ordinary members of the society and their membership automatically ceased as per earlier Rule 7 as well as the subsequent substituted Rule 7 A .
However, he did number pursue this point further and attacked the impugned judgment On merits.
At that time it was functioning in the territory of Ex Nizam State at Gulbarga, After the said territory became part of the Karnataka State, the Act became operative and governed the functioning of the appellant society.
3630 and 33463 of 1994 challenging the validity of Rule 7 A .
Both these appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution of India seek to challenge a companymon judgment arid order dated 25.3.1997 rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal Nos.
7486 and 7487 of 1996, whereby two Writ Petition Nos.
