Point of law: 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

ORDER :

The petitioners claim to be Members of one Anjuman Urdu Education Teachers and Parents Association, Shahabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’, for short). Respondent No.2 is said to be the President of the Society and respondent No.3 is said to be the General Secretary of the Society. It is further stated that the society is registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. Aggrieved by the functioning of the society, the petitioners have made a request to respondent No.6 to take necessary action against the society. Respondent No.6 in that regard had issued an endorsement dated 27.11.2017 vide Annexure E to the writ petition wherein, it has been stated that the allegations in the notice are very vague and as the representation is not supported by 1/3rd of the Members of the Society, it cannot be acceded to. Aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition with the following prayers:-

a. “Quash endorsement dated 27.11.2017 vide Annexure -E with No.DRK/S2/NGO/2017-18/1992 and endorsement dated 22.05.2017 vide Annexure -K with No.xxxxxxÀA/201718/28 issued by the respondent No.6 respectively.

b. Issue of writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No.6 to appoint an administrator for running day affairs of the society and to hold fresh and fair elections of the society, after preparing list of members in fair and transparent manner.

c. To pass such other orders or issue such other writ as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the petitioners are not members of the Society and they have filed the instant writ petition only to harass respondent Nos.2 and 3 and further states that everything is perfect in respect of functioning of respondent Nos.2 and 3 -Society.

3. Learned AGA submits that as the request made by the petitioners is very vague and is not backed by adequate material and as it is not supported by 1/3rd of the total membership of the Society, the impugned endorsement has been issued by the respondent No.6 and no enquiry is made as against the Society.

4. Section 25 (1) of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 reads as under:-

“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.”

Thus, the Registrar has to necessarily hold an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of the registered Society, if the demand is made by not less than 1/3rd of the Members of the Society. In addition to it, the Registrar may on his own motion can hold an enquiry if he comes to know about the irregularities. In other words, even though the demand is not made by 1/3rd Members of the Society, if it comes to the knowledge of the Registrar about the irregularities in a Society, he is duty bound to conduct an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of the registered Society as contemplated under Section 25 (1) of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. However, knowledge has to be backed by prima facie material to show the irregularity and not a mere allegation by some of the Members or a stranger to the Society.

5. In the instant case, the contention of the petitioners is that they are the Members of the Society and there are lot of irregularities conducted by the said Society and the same requires to be enquired by respondent No.6.

6. Per contra, respondent Nos.2 and 3 contends that petitioners are not Members of the society and they are making wil