Mr M S Krishnan Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:30099 WP No. 11687 of 2020

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11687 OF 2020 (GM-KSR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. M.S. KRISHNAN S/O LATE M.S. SUBRAMANIAN AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT "ANAND MAHAL" NO.5, RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT, 7^TH CROSS, LAKE VIEW ROAD, K.G. HALLI, BANGALORE - 560 015

¶9

MR. G. SURIYA NARAYANAN S/O LATE R. GOPALA KRISHNA IYER, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT B-404, VDB CELADON COMPLEX, JAKKUR ROAD, SHIVANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, YELAHANKA BANGALORE - 560 064.

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. PRABHU M., ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NO.1;

¶13

MS. NIHARIKA MALLAN, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NO.2)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES MULTINATIONAL BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.

¶16

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR FOR SOCIETIES 4^TH DIVISION, "SAHAKARA SINDHU" NO.146, 8^TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30099 WP No. 11687 of 2020

HC-KAR

MALLESHWARAM,

BANGALORE - 560 003.

MALLESHWARAM BHAKTHA BHAJANA MANDALI (REGD) NO.12, BEHIND CANARA BANK, B H C S 2^ND STAGE, 7^TH CROSS ROAD, CHANDRA LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 040 REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT MR. RANGANATHAN S.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. N. JAIPRAKASH RAO, CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.3;

¶24

SRI. SRINIVASA KUMAR M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.08.2020 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, 4^TH DIVISION, BANGALORE IN CASE NO.DRB4/SOR/NO.25-26/2018-19 PLACED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioners have challenged an order bearing

¶30

No.rDgï©-4/J¸ïMDgï/PÀ®A-25/2018-19 dated 12.08.2020 passed

¶31

by the respondent No.2 in terms of which, he dropped the suo

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30099 WP No. 11687 of 2020

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

motu proceedings under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (henceforth referred to as 'Act of 1960').

¶35

(i) The petitioners claim to be life members of the respondent No.3. The petitioners alleged that respondent No.3 was not maintaining the register of members as required under clause 5(c) of the Rules and Regulations of respondent No.3. They contend that despite their repeated communications and objections raised in monthly meetings, no efforts were taken by the President or the Secretary of respondent No.3 to prepare the inventory of the property of the respondent No.3 or maintaining any records relating to the old sponsored assets. They also alleged that the minutes of the Annual General Body meeting and the audited income and expenditure along with balance sheet was circulated only to a select members, which was objected by the petitioners in every meeting. The petitioners claimed that the activities of the respondent No.3 was conducted in an obscure manner and there were internal feuds amongst the members of the Managing Committee of respondent No.3, which resulted in accounts for the years 2017-18 to 2018-19 not being finalized. The petitioners alleged that the income tax returns of respondent No.3 was

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30099 WP No. 11687 of 2020

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

not filed since the year 2012-13 and the financial status of respondent No.3 was not reflected in the audited accounts of respondent No.3. They also alleged that the balance sheet and the annual list of governing body members were not filed as required under Section 13 of the Act of 1960. With these and other allegations, the petitioners, lodged a complaint before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 25 and 27A of the Act of 1960.

¶39

(ii) The cases against the respondent No.3 were all clubbed and referred to respondent No.2 for resolution. The respondent No.2 invoked the powers under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1960 to conduct suo motu enquiry and served notice to both the petitioners and respondent No.3 fixing the date of hearing as 12.02.2019. The President of the respondent No.3 on coming to know of the complaint and the notice issued by the respondent No.2 to hold suo motu enquiry, had hurriedly convened a meeting of the Managing Committee on 25.02.2019 without serving notice with agenda to the members of the respondent No.3. Later, respondent No.3 filed its objections to the complaint before the respondent No.2. In the meanwhile, respondent No.3 conducted Annual General Meeting on

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30099 WP No. 11687 of 2020

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

09.06.2019 without finalizing the accounts for the year 201718 and 2018-19 and without serving copy of the notice of Annual General Meeting to the members. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application before respondent No.2 on 27.05.2019 to stay the Annual General Meeting and respondent No.2 accordingly granted an order of stay. After a slew of applications filed before the respondent No.2, respondent No.3 filed an application questioning the maintainability of the complaint of the petitioners before the respondent No.2. The petitioners objected to the said application.

¶43

(iii) In the meanwhile, the suits filed by the petitioners in O.S.Nos.8520/2018 and 8521/2018 were dismissed as having become infructuous. However, the President of the respondent No.3 filed a review petitions and the Court allowed the said petitions on 24.01.2020, which the petitioners have challenged in a Miscellaneous First Appeal before this Court. Similarly, other life members had filed O.S.No.26606/2019 before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-58), Mayo Hall, Bengaluru and obtained an order of injunction restraining the respondent No.3 from operating the bank account of respondent No.3.

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30099 WP No. 11687 of 2020

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

(iv) The respondent No.3 in the application filed by him claimed that the petitioners are not members of the respondent No.3 and that the respondent No.2 could not have exercised suo motu jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the petitioners. The respondent No.2 after having conducted an enquiry entertained the application filed by respondent No.3 and closed the complaint filed by the petitioners and contemporaneously, directed respondent No.3 to conduct Annual General Meeting of the members for the year 2020-21 to elect the Managing Committee. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶47

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent No.2 had treated the complaint of the petitioners as suo motu information and had issued a notice to the respondent No.3 to conduct an enquiry as contemplated under Section 25 of the Act of 1960. He therefore, contends that respondent No.2 cannot now entertain a doubt about his powers to treat the information furnished by the petitioners to initiate suo motu proceedings. He therefore, contends that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is liable to be set at naught and a direction deserves to be issued to

¶48

7 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:30099 WP No. 11687 of 2020

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

respondent No.2 to consider the complaint based on the evidence adduced at the enquiry.

¶52

The learned High Court Government Pleader did not dispute that respondent No.2 had issued a notice to the respondent No.3 treating the information furnished by the petitioners for the purpose of enquiry under Section 25 of the Act of 1960.

¶53

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶54

The respondent No.2 having once proceeded with the enquiry and petitioners having adduced material before the respondent No.2 in support of the complaint, it was incumbent upon the respondent No.2 to decide the complaint on merits of the case. He could not have entertained the application filed by respondent No.3 to question the locus of the petitioners or that the respondent No.2 had no suo motu power to conduct an enquiry into the affairs of the respondent No.3. A Full Bench of this Court in Bangalore Grain Merchants Association vs District Registrar for Societies and another [ILR 2001

¶55

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:30099 WP No. 11687 of 2020

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

KAR 766] held that the Registrar is entitled to act on any information received by him or his office to initiate a suo motu enquiry. However, the Registrar should not act blindly but must apply himself to the information received and based on his satisfaction should decide upon the need to conduct an enquiry. In the instant case, the said stage is over and hence, the respondent No.2 cannot turn around and hold that he cannot entertain a suo motu enquiry. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioners on the ground of maintainability warrants interference.

¶58