Point of Law : Pre-registration act could not have been made an offence and directed that petitioner/Association shall be treated as having been affiliated to the State Association and consequence on that basis shall follow which would be subject to the outcome of writ petition. [Para 10]

ORDER :

The 1st petitioner common in both the petitions viz., ‘Bengaluru Urban Zilla Amateur Kabaddi Association’ along with others (hereinafter referred as ‘the petitioner’) is before this Court calling in question order dated 23-08-2021 and the basis of the said order being the Inquiry Report dated 19-07-2021.

2. Heard Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners, Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri N.Dinesh Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts germane for consideration of the lis, are as follows:

The petitioner is a registered Association under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (‘the Act’ for short) represented by its President and Committee Members. The petitioner/Association claims to have an affiliation of 60 clubs and they are said to be members of the petitioner/Association. It is averred that there are about 24 Kabaddi Associations throughout the State and all these Kabaddi Associations are affiliated and are members of the Karnataka Rajya Amateur Kabaddi Association (Regd.) which is a State body. In terms of byelaws of the State Association, the term of the governing body is for a period of 4 years. The petitioner was registered on 28-02-2020. On 16-06-2020 another Association comes up which is respondent No.3 with the same name as that of the petitioner, with a twist. The petitioner is Bengaluru Urban Zilla Amateur Kabaddi Association which is registered on 28-02-2020 and the 3rd respondent is Bangalore Urban District Amateur Kabaddi Association which is registered on 16-06-2020. After coming into existence, the members of the 3rd respondent/Association registered a complaint against the petitioner/Association on 19.10.2020. The allegation against the petitioner/Association was that one Shanmugam who was the General Secretary had forged signatures of Y.M.Balaji Venkatesh and D.Suresh Gowda and had registered the Association then. Pursuant to the registration of the said complaint, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer holds an inquiry with regard to the allegations made against the petitioner/Association. The Inquiry Officer holds the allegations against the petitioner/Association to have been proved and based upon the said finding of the Inquiry Officer the District Registrar of Societies under the Act passes an order cancelling registration of the petitioner/Association for violation of Section 27(2) of the Act. It is this order and the report of the Inquiry Officer that are called in question in the first petition.

4. In the companion petition, the petitioner/Association and another challenge the list announced by respondent No.6/Administrator insofar as respondent No.3 who is shown at Sl.No.4 in the voters list and the name of the petitioner being kept in the additional ballot at Sl.No.25 for the conduct of elections. Therefore, the facts narrated hereinabove would become applicable to the companion petition as well, as the very registration of the Society goes to the root of the matter.

5. The learned senior counsel Sri Jayakumar S. Patil appearing for the petitioners would contend with vehemence that invocation of Section 27 of the Act itself is erroneous as there is no offence committed by the petitioner/Association after registration of the Association. Section 27 can be invoked only in the aftermath of registration of the Association and not earlier. He would also place reliance on Section 7 of the Act to contend that the 3rd respondent/Association could not have been registered at all. On the conduct of inquiry, he would submit that the proceedings are held in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice and in the hottest haste and the resultant order of the District Registrar based upon such an inquiry report is void ab initio. He would submit that the very registration of the 3rd respondent/Association should be quashed along wit