GOUSEMOHAMMAD v. SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY BAGALKOT)

Judgment

2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BAGALKOT DISTRICT, BAGALKOT.

THE ENQUIRY OFFICER, SHRI. M. S. SINDOOR, F. D. A., OFFICE OF THE D. R. C. S., BAGALKOT.

3. KHWAZA BANDANAWAJ S/O. LALSAB BAGEWADI, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9358 WP No. 104203 of 2025 HC-KAR (CLAIMING AS PRESIDENT AL-MEEZAN EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY BAGALKOT) AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT – 587 103.

4. SMT. RUKSANA W/O. AYUBKHAN BAGEWADI, (CLAIMING AS VICE PRESIDENT-1) AL-MEEZAN EDUCATIONAL A AND SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY BAGALKOT, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT – 587 103.

5. RAFEEQUE S/O. LALSAB HANAMASAGAR, (CLAIMING AS VICE PRESIDENT -2 AI MEEZAN EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY BAGALKOT, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT – 587 103.

6. MOHAMMED GOUS S/O. HASANSAB TUMBARMATTI, (CLAIMING AS CHAIRMAN AL-MEEZAN EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY BAGALKOT), AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT – 587 103.

7. ANWAR HUSSAIN S/O. HASHIMPEERA MAKANDAR, (CLAIMING AS GENERAL SECRETARY, AL-MEEZAN EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFAR SOCIETY BAGALKOT) AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT – 587 103.

8. BABUSAB S/O. GOUSSAB TUMBBARMATTI, (CLAIMING AS JOINT SECRETARY-1 AL-MEEZAN EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY BAGALKOT) AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT – 587 103.

9. ABDULREHAMAN SAIDUSAB BAGAWAN, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9358 WP No. 104203 of 2025 HC-KAR (CLAIMING AS JOINT SECRETARY-2 AL-MEEZAN EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY BAGALKOT) AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT – 587 103.

10. MAINUDDIN S/O. LALSAHEB BAGEWADI, (CLAIMING AS TREASURER AL- MEEZAN EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY BAGALKOT) AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT – 587 103. (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. MRUTYUNJAY S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R10) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED

16.05.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO. DRBGK/SUN/NOND/A-MI.Ye.So.Ve.So.Ba/2025-26, COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-G. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1, BY WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TO RECOGNIZE THE COMMITTEE HEADED BY PETITIONERS AS LEGAL AND THE SAID COMMITTEE EXISTS TILL 05.12.2026 AS PER ANNEXURE-C. DECLARE BY APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION HOLDING THAT THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AS CLAIMED BY THE RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 10 AS PER ANNEXURE-D IS NULL AND VOID IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9358 WP No. 104203 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: I. II. A writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the impugned communication dated 16.05.2025 issued by the Respondent No.1 in No. DRBGK/Sun/Nond/A- MI.Ye.So.Ve.So.Ba/2025-26, Copy of which produced herein as per Annexure-G. Direct the Respondent No.1, by writ of Mandamus, to recognize the committee headed by Petitioners as legal and the said committee exists till 05.12.2026 as per Annexure-c. III. Declare by appropriate writ, order or direction holding that the committee of Management as claimed by the Respondent Nos. 3 to 10 as per Annexure-D is null and void; IV. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction as deemed fit and proper be issued.

2. The short grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.1-District Registrar of Societies, has blindly accepted the report submitted by his delegate, who had been delegated the task of conducting an enquiry under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (for short ‘KSR Act’). - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9358 WP No. 104203 of 2025 HC-KAR

3. The submission of Shri S.B.Hebballi., learned counsel the petitioner impugned communication at Annexure-G dated 16.05.2025, the Registrar has blindly forwarded the report of the enquiry officer to the society without any application of mind, inasmuch as, it was required for the Registrar to, after having applied his mind, either accept or reject the enquiry report. The Registrar cannot act as a postman to forward the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer.

4. Shri Mrutyunjaya S.Hallikeri, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 10, would submit that the enquiry has been conducted. The fact that the Registrar has forwarded it to the society would itself imply that the Registrar has applied his mind, accepted the report, and forwarded it to the society for its comments. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9358 WP No. 104203 of 2025 HC-KAR

5. Heard Sri S.B. Hebballi., learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mrutyunjaya S.Hallikeri., learned counsel for the respondent No.3 to 10.

7. Perused the papers. The short question that would arise for consideration in the present matter is: i. Whether the Registrar of Societies in pursuance of an enquiry held by his delegate, appointed by him under subsection (1) of Section 25, be required to just forward the enquiry report as received or is it required for the Registrar to apply his mind, accept the report and then forward it to the society in terms of clause (3) in Section 25(2)(C)(iii) ?

7.1. It is not in dispute that the Registrar has appointed an enquiry officer and the enquiry officer has submitted a report. The power of the Registrar to appoint an enquiry officer - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9358 WP No. 104203 of 2025 HC-KAR being a delegate is also not in issue. The report submitted by the delegate is also not an issue in the present matter.

7.2. What is in issue is the communication made by the Registrar to the society of the report submitted by the enquiry officer. The scheme of Section 25 of the KSR Act provides for the Registrar, on his own motion, or on an application of the majority of members of the governing board, or of not less than 1/3rd of the members of the society, to enquire or direct some person authorised by him by order in writing to conduct such enquiry.

7.3. It is in pursuance thereof that an enquiry officer has been appointed, and upon enquiry being conducted, a report has been submitted to the Registrar.

7.4. In terms of Section 25 (2)(C)(iii), the result of the enquiry has to be communicated to the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9358 WP No. 104203 of 2025 HC-KAR society concerned vide Annexure-G dated

16.05.2025.

7.5. A perusal of Annexure-D indicates that apart from reproducing the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer and recording the findings of the enquiry officer, there is no independent application of mind made by the Registrar.

7.6. The fact that the Registrar can appoint any other person authorised by him in writing to conduct the enquiry does not mean that the enquiry made by such a person automatically accepted by the Registrar. The person conducting the enquiry is only a delegate of the Registrar and does not substitute the Registrar himself.

7.7. Once, an enquiry has been made, it would be for the Registrar to apply his independent mind to the enquiry report and either accept - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9358 WP No. 104203 of 2025 HC-KAR or reject the said report, and if the report is rejected, a re-enquiry could also be ordered by the Registrar.

7.8. In that view of the matter, I answer the above point raised by holding that the Registrar of Societies in pursuance of an enquiry held by his delegate, appointed by him under subsection (1) of Section 25, cannot as a postman forward the enquiry report as received to the society, the registrar has to apply his mind, accept the report and then forward it to the society in terms of clause (3) in Section 25(2)(C)(iii).

7.9. In the present matter, there being no independent application of mind in accepting the report, I am of the considered opinion that the matter would have to be remitted to the Registrar for such application of mind and pass - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9358 WP No. 104203 of 2025 HC-KAR a reasoned order, whether he accepts or rejects the report submitted.

7.10. Though Shri S.B.Hebballi., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is also required to be heard at that stage. I am of the considered opinion that there is no such personal hearing, which is contemplated at this stage. The personal hearing, having been contemplated at the enquiry stage, has been made available to the petitioner. At the stage of the registrar considering the report and accepting or rejecting the report, there would be no requirement for a personal hearing to be conducted or made available to the society. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is partly allowed. ii) A certiorari is issued. The communication dated

16.05.2025 at Annexure-G is set-aside. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9358 WP No. 104203 of 2025 HC-KAR iii) The matter remitted respondent No.1/Registrar for fresh consideration in terms of the observation made hereinabove and necessary orders of the Registrar to be passed within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AM/- CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60