K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J.

( 1 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the constitution, the petitioners have challenged the order No. SOR 1749/57-58 dated 5-12-1977 (Exh.-C) of the Registrar of Societies in Karnataka, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Registrar ).

( 2 ) A society called 'the Manila Seva samaja, Davangere' (hereinafter referred to as 'the society') registered and functioning under the provisions of the Karnataka societies Registration Act of 1960 (Kar act No. 17 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is the 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner claims to be its elected president for the relevant period,

( 3 ) ON 5-12-1977 respondents 2 to 5, who are members of the society, presented an application before the Registrar purporting to be under S. 25 of the Act, alleging various irregularities in its functioning and requesting him to order an enquiry into its affairs. On the said application itself the Registrar made an order as hereunder:"i/p-PRESENTED by the counsel along with the three petitioners. It appears these petitioners had also complained earlier for whose petitions I had called for earlier. Please issue an order appointing H. Q. A. to the District chitradurga as E. O. under S. 25 of the s. R. Act and to report within one month on the allegations made. Sd/ 5-12-1977"in pursuance of the above order, an order bearing No. SOR 1749/57-51 dated 5-12-1977 (Exh.-C) has been issued by the registrar, undsr sub-sec (1) of S. 25 of the act to hold an enquiry into the affairs of the society by respondent No. 2. On 10-3- 1978 this Court while issuing rule nisi, has stayed the operation of the said order with the result, respondent No. 2 has not held an enquiry into the affairs of the society.

( 4 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 have entered appearance through Sri Annadanaya Puranik, learned I Additional Government Advocate and have produced the records.

( 5 ) RESPONDENTS 3 to 5, have 1 filed a joint return supporting the action of respondent no. 1. They have alleged that on 19-9-1977, ten members of the Executive committee of the societv, that being the majority of its governing body had approached the Registrar to order an enquiry under S. 25 (1) of the Act and the impugned order is referable to that application and is, therefore sustainable.

( 6 ) SRI K. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order made by the Registrar on the application made by respondents 3 to 5 on 5-12-1977 was impermissible and illegal, Elaborating his contention, Sri Subba Rao, maintained that an enquiry under S. 25 (1) of the Act can be ordered by the Registrar suo motu or on an application made by the majority of the members of the governing body or by not less than 1/3 of the members of the society and cannot be made at the instance of only a few members of a society.

( 7 ) IN the papers produced before Court, the application stated to have been filed by the ten members of the Executive Commitee on 19-5-1977 is not available. But, there is an application presented by ten persons on 29- 9-1977, who claim to be the majority members of the governing body of the society. On that application, the Registrar does not appear to have taken any action at all. The order made by the Registrar is on the application made to him by respondents 3 to 5 on 5-12-1977 and is not referable to any other application, report or any other information available with him. Secondly, the Registrar has not even examined the application made by the ten members and has not satisfied himself whether they constituted the majority of the governing body of the society.

( 8 ) SUB-SEC (1) of S. 25 of the Act that is material for deciding the controversy reads thus:"the Registrar may on his own motion and shall on the application of the majority of the members of the governing body or of no 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document