SRI. SIDDESWAR EDUCATION SOCIETY, MORAB, AT: MORAB, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

SRI. B.R. SINGARI, RETIRED DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES AND ENQUIRY OFFICER, R/O: SINDHOLI, TQ: BELGAUM, BELGAUM.

P. RAJEEV S/O. PANDAPPA, AGE: 47 YEARS, MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY KUDACHI, (MLA) R/O: HARUGERI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. RAJASHEKAR BURJI, ADV. FOR R4; R3-SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED

18.07.2014 IN NO.G.SUM.NOO./30/81-82 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-L. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11491 WP No. 107530 of 2014 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

Heard learned counsel appearing petitioners, learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2 and also learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed this Court to quash the order dated 18.07.2014 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-L.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner before this Court while seeking the relief of writ of certiorari is that, the petitioner No.1 is an Education Society registered under the provisions of Karnataka Society Registration Act. Petitioners No.2 to 8 are elected office bearers of the petitioner No.1 Society. The Committee of the Management has been functioning smoothly. The Society is running Educational Institutions in different villages in Raibag Taluk. The Educational Institutions have been running smoothly - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11491 WP No. 107530 of 2014 and there is no allegation whatsoever against the present Committee of Management and Education Institutions. There is no dispute between the elected groups or the members of the Society, but some of the employees have been terminated by Management by following the procedure. The grant of approval salary of the employees under grant-in- aid is pending before the Government Management and the dismissed employees have filed their statement and the Government is yet to take decision. Such being the state of affairs, the respondent No.4, who is a sitting MLA of Kudachi constituency, the petitioners No.2 to 8 have not supported him in the election. Therefore, the respondent No.4 to take revenge against the petitioners, addressed a letter to the Education Minister requesting him to take steps to cover salary of the employees under grant-in-aid and to appoint an Administrator to the Society. Based on the letter issued by respondent No.4, the Education Minister - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11491 WP No. 107530 of 2014 made an endorsement on the letter and the authorities have taken steps on the basis of Minister’s letter and issued the impugned order. It is also contended the entire initiation of proceedings is erroneous only at the behest of respondent No.4 and appointment is made for enquiry. There is no situation arises to conduct the enquiry under Section 25 of the Act, as there is no dispute between the Management and there is no two groups in the management, every year accounts has been furnished and list of office bearers have been approved by the respondent No.2 for the current year vide Annexure-C and there is a dispute between the dismissed employees on the one hand and Management on the other hand and the entire dispute is pending consideration before Government.

4. Petitioners and dismissed employees are before the Government in a proceedings pending vide - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11491 WP No. 107530 of 2014 Annexure-F. Initiating proceeding under Section 25 of the Act is wholly arbitrary and unwarranted and also there is no application of mind. Respondent No.2 also not heard the petitioners before passing the impugned order and decision is taken behind the back of the petitioners and the same amounts to violation of Article 21.

The petitioners’ counsel also brought to notice of this Court Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. Counsel referring to this proviso would contend that 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. - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11491 WP No. 107530 of 2014

Counsel referring the said proviso also contends that none of the conditions have been fulfilled in order to initiate the enquiry. In support of his argument, he relied upon the judgment in the case of Joint Action Committee of AIR LINE Pilots’ Association of India (ALPAI) and Others vs. Director General of Civil Aviation and Others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 435 and brought to notice paragraph Nos.26, 27 and 28. Referring to these paragraphs, he contends that an authority vested with the power to act under the statute alone should exercise its discretion following the procedure prescribed therein and interference on the part of any authority even a senior official upon whom the statute does not confer any jurisdiction, is wholly unwarranted in law and violates constitutional scheme.

He also relies on judgment the case of Ramchandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by LRs and Others vs. Govind Joti Chavare and Others - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11491 WP No. 107530 of 2014 reported in (1975) 1 SCC 559, particularly paragraph No.25, wherein also proposition of law is laid down that where a power is given to do certain thing in certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.

He also relies upon the judgment in the case of Babu Verghese and Others vs. Bar Council of Kerala and Others reported in (1999) 3 SCC 422 particularly paragraph No.31, wherein proposition of law has been discussed and held that it is the basic principle of law settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all.

He also relied on judgment passed W.P.No.147447/2020 decided on 14.09.2021 and brought to notice discussion made in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 with regard to the administrative - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11491 WP No. 107530 of 2014 authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial reasons for its decision. He also brought to notice the discussion made by this Court referring the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bangalore Grain Merchants Association vs. District Registrar (ILR 2001 KAR 766) and contend that the decision must be of course be based on relevant factors, but there is no limitation as to sources.

The counsel would contend that the impugned order is passed at the instance of the letter addressed by the MLA to the Minister and hence the order is contrary to Section 25. The proceedings initated as per Annexure-L is on account of letter of MLA and decision is also arbitrary and there is no application of mind by respondent No.2 while passing such order.

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 would contend that the order has been - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11491 WP No. 107530 of 2014 passed by this Court in W.P.No.63731-732/2012 and brought to notice of this Court the direction to consider the proposal in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. He also brought to notice of this Court the order dated 18.07.2014 and submits that though a request is made to appoint an administrator, respondent No.2 has not passed any order for appointment of any administrator and only appointed a person to hold an enquiry and submit a report.

Learned counsel for respondent No.4 also reiterates the submission of learned AGA and brought to notice of this Court the very same judgments as well as the letter addressed by the MLA and so also paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of Annexure-F, Government proceedings dated 10.10.2013. He also contends that Annexure-L is very clear with regard to appointment of enquiry officer and also in Annexure-H, reference is made - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11491 WP No. 107530 of 2014 with regard to the observations made by this Court in passing the order too with regard administration of educational institution and request was made to appoint the administrator. Hence, respondent No.2 has not committed any error in passing the impugned order.

Having heard learned counsels for the parties, the relief sought for is quashing of Annexure-L. No doubt, a letter was addressed to the Minister vide letter dated 27.06.2013 as per Annexure-H, wherein request was made to release grant-in-aid fund and while requesting the same also a reference is made that internal dispute is there and the salary is not yet released in favour of the teachers and the matter is also pending before the Court and letter was addressed not to release the amount and reference was made with regard to W.P.No.63732/2012 and W.P.No.63748-766/2012 and direction was also given fixing four months period to release the salary - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11491 WP No. 107530 of 2014 and also request was made to appoint an administrator stating that till the disposal of the case and for education of the students as well as to make good of the salary to the teachers.

It is also important to note that in Annexure-L though reference is made with regard to appointment of administrator is concerned, while passing order, invoked Section 25 of the Act and also considering the letter addressed by the Assistant Commissioner, Education Department an enquiry officer is appointed to submit a detailed and clear report. The said letter is marked as Annexure-K dated 28.10.2013 wherein also a letter dated 24.07.2023 is referred and reference of Assistant Commissioner is also mentioned, wherein a reference is made with regard to appointment of administrator and enquiry is necessary.

Having considered all these material and record and also the judgments which have been brought to the - 13 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11491 WP No. 107530 of 2014 notice of this Court, an order has been passed. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioners also that section 25 is not applicable and section 25 is very clear that 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.

Having considered this provision also, it is very clear that the Registrar has got a power on its own motion and also has got power on the application of the majority of the members of the governing body and no such request is made and also of not less than one third of the members of the society made any request but Registrar can hold an enquiry or direct - 14 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11491 WP No. 107530 of 2014 some other person and no such circumstances is warranted. But the letter is addressed to the Minister by the MLA and MLA also made reference as per Annexure-H with regard to the matters are pending before the Court and with regard to the non-payment of salaries to the teachers and also request is made that till the matters are decided before the Court, an administrator has to be appointed and also correspondence was made between the internal department of education and also Government of Karnataka in terms of Annexure-F. it is brought to notice of this Court that reference is made in paragraph Nos.7 and 8 i.e Assistant Commissioner, Educational Department and here also the order impugned before the Court is only appointing a person for holding an enquiry and not for the appointment administrator appointment of administrator report is necessary for taking a decision and enquiry officer is appointed. - 15 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11491 WP No. 107530 of 2014

When such being the case, I do not find any force in the contention of the petitioners’ counsel that the power under Section 25 does not confirm to the Registrar to pass such an order. The serious allegations are made with regard to non-payment of the salary as well as the educational institution also brought into the grant-in-aid and letter is addressed to the Minister and the same is also referred to the Secretary to into the issues and having considered the judgment passed by this Court in terms of Annexure-D as well as the Annexure-F and so also the other internal correspondence between the educational department, decision was taken to hold an enquiry and the petitioners cannot anticipate that report goes against them and hence I do not find any ground to quash Annexure-L and there is an internal dispute in the institution and also issues are also came up before the Court and hence unless the issues involved in the institution are enquired into, the truth will not come out and hence I do not find - 16 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11491 WP No. 107530 of 2014 any ground to interfere with the decision taken in issuing Annexure-L and hence I do not find any merit in the petition to quash Annexure-L.