Point of Law : Unmistakable inference would be that petition would not be maintainable before this Court, as petitioners have to knock the doors of competent civil Court seeking to annul the elections. [Para 13]

ORDER :

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question order dated 08-07-2022 passed by the 2nd respondent/Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and District Registrar of Societies (‘the District Registrar’ for short) and have sought several directions by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus.

2. Heard Sri G.V.Chandrashekar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners; Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2; Sri Pawan Shyam, learned counsel for respondent No.3; Sri K.V. Dhananjay, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4; Sri Sudarshan Suresh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5; Sri Sushanth V.A., learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 9, 11 and 12 and Sri E.P. Raghavendra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.10.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the core facts required are as follows:

The 4th respondent is the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (‘Film Chamber’ for short). Elections to the said Film Chamber were to be conducted on 28-05-2022 for the tenure of 2022-23. The 1st petitioner was a contestant to the post of President in the Producers Sector and the 2nd petitioner was a contestant to the post of Treasurer and the 3rd petitioner was a contestant for the post of Secretary. The elections were held on 28-05-2022. The petitioners alleging that the conduct of election was illegal, improper and seeped in fraud on various grounds had registered a complaint before the 2nd respondent/District Registrar. The allegations, inter alia, included fraud played by the Returning Officer. This comes to be rejected by the 2nd respondent in terms of his order dated 8-07-2022 and rejection of the said complaint of the petitioners and consequent continuation of the newly elected committee drove the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. The petitioners have also sought at the hands of this Court by way of a writ in the nature mandamus to declare the elections held to be illegal and void with a consequent direction to conduct fresh elections to the Film Chamber.

4. This Court, having entertained the petition, at the outset, had passed an interim order that the Executive Committee constituted pursuant to the said elections shall not take major decisions involving finances or policies till the next date of hearing. The said interim order is in operation even as on date.

5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners would give up the prayers with regard to validity, veracity and conduct of elections and a direction that is sought for conduct of fresh elections. He would restrict his prayer to the order that was passed by the District Registrar declining to accept the complaint and initiate enquiry under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (‘the Act’ for short).

5.1. The learned counsel taking this Court to the averments made in the petition as also to the documents appended to the petition seeks to contend that the conduct of elections was completely contrary to law as there was non-display and disclosure of voters list as mandated in law on the notice board. Disclosure of voters list was not made to the candidates, rigging of election was in large scale, respondents 5, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 12 got elected with the support of certain persons whose identity cards have not been checked for them to be voters or otherwise, there was undue illegal influence of certain powerful political members who are named in the petition and so on and so forth. All these form part of a complaint before the District Registrar. The District Registrar ought to have taken note of the said complaint and ought to have conducted an inquiry declaring the elections to be null and void and ordered conduct of fresh elections. He would place reliance upon a judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in ADVOCATES’ ASSOCIATION, BANGALORE v. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES – (2006) 4 KLJ 526 to buttress his submiss