Karnataka High Court
Sri Nethaji Educational Society And ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 2 July, 1996
Equivalent citations: ILR1996KAR3058, 1996(6)KARLJ762, 1997 A I H C 54
Author: Tirath Singh Thakur
Bench: Tirath Singh Thakur
ORDER Tirath Singh Thakur, J.
1. An order issued by the 4th respondent-Registrar of Societies, Kolar, in consequence of an enquiry conducted under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 is what has been brought under challenge in these Writ Petitions. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the controversy are as under:-
2. Sri Nethaji Educational Society, Malur is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. One Sri S. Venkatramana the founder President of the Society appears to have presented a petition before the Registrar making certain allegations as regards the affairs of the Society. On receipt of this representation the Registrar by his order dated 10.9.91 directed suo motu enquiry under Section 25 of the Act and on the basis of the findings recorded at the said enquiry passed the order impugned in these Writ Petitions. By the said order the Registrar held that the Committee headed by Sri S. Venkaramana and Sri M. Lakshmappa as President and Secretary thereof was the legally elected Executive Committee of the Society and directed that a special general body meeting of the Society be convened within one month from the date of the order to elect 7 members of the Executive Committee as per Bye-law 6 of the Bye-laws of the Society. Aggrieved by the conduct of the enquiry, the findings recorded therein and the consequential directions issued by the Registrar, the petitioners have come up with the present Writ Petitions for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order primarily on the ground that the Registrar had no power under Section 25 of the Act to conduct an enquiry on the basis of an application filed by some only of the members of the Society or to decide the rival claims made by the two factors before him.
3. I have heard Mr. Lakshminarayana, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the Government Advocate who has appeared for the respondents.
4. Mr. Lakshminarayana argued that the Registrar had initiated the enquiry in question on the basis of an application which was not admittedly filed by either the majority of the members of the governing body or by 1/3rd of the members of the Society as contemplated by Section 25. He urged that an enquiry made at the instance of the members of the governing body or members of the Society could be ordered only in case the same was filed by the bare minimum number of members prescribed by Section 25. The enquiry in question contended the Learned Counsel could not be treated to be suo motu as the same had been set into motion by reason of the representation made by Sri S. Venkataraman and not because of any information received or gathered by the Registrar from any independent source. Heavy reliance was placed by Mr. Lakshminarayana in support of his submission upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court in MAHILA SEVA SAMAJ AND ANR. v. REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES AND ORS., 1980(1) KLJ 327
5. Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 to the extent the same is relevant for our purpose reads thus:-
"Section 25. Enquiry by the Registrar, etc:-
(1) The Registrar may on his own motion and shall on the application of the majority of the members of the governing body or of not less than one-third of the members of the Society, hold an enquiry or direct some person authorised by him by order in writing in accordance with the rules made in this behalf to hold an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a registered society".
6. A bare reading of the above provision shows that the Registrar is competent to order an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a registered society on his own motion. This power, is discretionary for the Registrar may or may not institute such an enquiry depending upon his perception about the health of the Society and the efficiency of its working and financial affairs. The Registrar, however, is bound to institute such an enquiry in case an application is filed before him demanding the same by a majority of the members of the governing body or not less than one-third of the members of the Society. In any such case the Registrar has no discretion and the conduct of an enquiry becomes imperative. The question however is as to when can the Registrar be said to have directed a suo motu enquiry into the affairs of the Society. In particular, the question is whether the Registrar can exercise the suo motu powers of instituting an enquiry on receipt of information or material that may be written or oral or both. According to Mr. Lakshminarayana once an application is filed before the Registrar, his authority to direct a suo motu enquiry into the affairs of the Society would vanish, for according to him the Registrar would be justified in instituting any such enquiry on an application only in case the same has been signed by the requisite number of members as prescribed in Section 25. I however find no reason to subject the suo motu powers of the Registrar under Section 25 to any such limitation. The provisions of Section 25 do not in my opinion disable the Registrar from exercising the suo motu powers of directing an enquiry only because he has been approached by some only of the members of the Society or the governing body. Suo motu powers, can be exercised by the authority vested with such powers not only on its motion, but also on receipt of information or relevant material warranting exercise of such powers from any source. Such powers may be exercised on the basis of oral information available to the authority as also on the basis of any written material or representation made in that behalf. It that be the sweep of suo motu powers exercisable by a statutory authority as indeed it is, there is no reason why exercise of such powers can be subjected to any artificial restraints like the one canvassed by Mr. Lakshminarayana. The representation received by the Registrar, it is apparent was never treated to be an application under Section 25 made by either the majority of the members of the governing body or one-third of the members of the Society. This is so because in the office memorandum dated 10.9.1991, by which the enquiry was ordered, the Registrar has specifically stated that what is being directed is a suo motu. enquiry into the affairs of the Society. The position may have been different if the Registrar had issued an order directing an enquiry under a mistaken belief that the application filed before him obliged him to do so. In that case the order may have been open to challenge on the ground that the same is based on a mistaken impression as to the true ambit of the powers vested in the Registrar. This however is not the position in the instant case for it is apparent from a bare reading of the order dated 10.1.91 issued by the Registrar that the enquiry proposed into the affairs of the Society was suo motu. In the circumstances therefore merely because the suo motu proceedings got triggered off at the instance of one of the members of the governing body of the Society does not deprive the said proceedings of their suo motu character.
7. In MANILA SEVA SAMAJ AND ANR. v. REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES AND ORS. the facts were slightly different. That was a case where on receipt of an application the Registrar had passed an order directing the conduct of an enquiry under Section 25 of the Act. This Court after examining the order and the attendant" circumstances came to the conclusion that the power exercised was not suo motu. That is not the position in the present case. Here the order directing the proceedings itself specifically records that the same have been initiated in exercise of the suo motu powers of the Registrar. In the circumstances therefore reliance upon the aforesaid judgment is misplaced.
8. In the result, the enquiry conducted and the orders passed in consequence thereof by the Registrar do not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction so as to warrant interference. The Writ Petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.