City Families Association (R) Vs the District Registrar of Societies

CITY FAMILIES ASSOCIATION (R) R.K.TOWERS, WEST OF CHORD ROAD NO.475/476/477, 3RD FLOOR 2ND STAGE, 6TH PHASE BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 079. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REGISTERED UNDER THE KSR ACT 960.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SANNANNANVAR SHIVANANDA DUNDAPPA., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES 1ST RANGE, SAHAKARA SOUDHA SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003.

¶16

SMT. LALITHA PRAKASH EX-PRESIDENT CITY FAMILIES ASSOCIATION(R) R.K. TOWERS, WEST OF CHORD ROAD NO.475/476/477, 3RD FLOOR 2ND STAGE, 6TH PHASE BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.B RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:52739 WP No. 36890 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 15.11.2025 IN NO. DRB-1/SASAM/DURU91/2025-26 ISSUED BY R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-J.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent No.1. Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed.

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶28

a) Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned Notice dtd:15.11.2025 in No.DRB1/SaSam/Duru/91/2025-26 issued Respondent No.1 vide ANNEXURE-J. by

¶29

b) GRANT such other order or direction as deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶30

On a complaint filed by respondent No.2 with respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 has initiated an enquiry under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (for short hereinafter referred to as “KSR Act, 1960”), which is under challenge in these proceedings.

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:52739 WP No. 36890 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner by

¶35

relying upon 1980 Volume 30 of the Indian Law Reports 19 short notes 30 , is that no inquiry can be initiated under Section 25 of the KSR Act, 1960 without at least 1/3^rd of the members of society making such a representation to the Registrar.

¶36

The said decision does not hold the field any longer inasmuch as there are several decisions of this Court subsequently, where this Court has categorically held that, if a issue or a complaint is brought to the notice of the Registrar and if the Registrar were to apply his mind to the said complaint and initiate proceedings that would be sufficient compliance with Sub-section

¶37

(1) of Section 25 of the KSR Act, 1960.

¶38

To quote one of the decisions in W.P.No.201552 of 2023 in Lingasugur Taluk & Ors., vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors., dated 09.06.2023 more particularly para 12, 13 and 14 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference;

¶39

Page no.3 is retyped and replaced vide Court Order dated 02.02.2026

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:52739 WP No. 36890 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

12. In my considered opinion, sub-Section (1) of Section 25 of the Act can be segregated into three categories: (i) Firstly, Registrar on his own motion may institute enquiry; (ii) Secondly, the Registrar shall on the application of majority of the members of the Governing Body institute enquiry and (iii) thirdly, the Registrar shall on the application made by not less than 1/3rd of the members of the society institute enquiry.

¶44

13. In the latter two cases, no discretion is vested with the Registrar. On an application received in those two cases enquiry is mandatorily required to be instituted.

¶45

14. As regards first category, the Registrar may on his own motion institute an enquiry. It is the mean and purport of “on his own motion” which is up for consideration in the present matter. Merely because the third party were to submit a complaint, the Registrar cannot initiate an enquiry without application of his mind. If a complaint is received by the Registrar and if the Registrar on perusal of the said complaint were to be of the opinion that enquiry is to be instituted, then he can order to do so and when such an order is made by the Registrar, it can only be said to be on his own motion, since there is an independent application of mind by the Registrar.

¶46

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, all and necessary documents would be placed for consideration before the Registrar is placed on record.

¶47

If all the documents are so furnished, respondent No.1 is directed to complete the enquiry as

¶48

Page no. 4 is retyped and replaced vide Court Order dated 02.02.2026

¶49

5 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:52739 WP No. 36890 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

expeditiously as possible, preferably within 30 days

¶53

from date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶54

In that view of the matter, no grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed , reserving liberty to the petitioner to place their say and defence on record before the Registrar during the course of the

¶55

enquiry.

¶56

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶57

SR

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

¶59

Page no. 5 is retyped and replaced vide Court Order dated 02.02.2026

City Families Association (R) v. the District Registrar of Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Families Association (R) v. the District Registrar of Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. K K Enterprises Vs the Additional District Election Officer (South)

M/S Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Mr. Krishna Gopal Vijayvargiya

M/S. K. K. Enterprises Vs the Additional District Election Officer

M/S Madani Dawakhana, Vs State of Karnataka

Akhand Pratap Singh Manager (Electronics) Vs Member (Ans)

Slv Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka