IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  4272   OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C)No. 11006/2008)

Seshadripuram Educational Association ...Appellant(s)

Versus

V.Venkatesh & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

O R D E R

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  

-2-

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  

-3-

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.

                   ...................J.                (V.S. SIRPURKAR)

                  . ..................J.

                                 (B.S. CHAUHAN)

New Delhi, July 9, 2009.