The petitioners must establish their right and prove their identity in the petitioner-Society before seeking interference from the Registrar.

JUDGMENT

E.S. Indiresh, J. - In these petitions, petitioners have assailed the letter dated 31st May, 2021 and acceptance of fee at vide Annexure-H; and the letter dated 29th May, 2020 issued by the first respondent in Sl. No. DR/J/Aadilata/CR/2021-22 produced at Annexure-J.

2. It is the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 201151 of 2021 that, petitioner is a Society registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, in the year 1972 and thereafter, it was registered under the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. It is further stated that the petitioner-Society is having its own Memorandum of Association and byelaws for its administration. It is further stated in the writ petition that the earlier General Secretary of the petitioner-Society inducted his son-Babu Hilli as Joint Secretary, without there being any resolution and same is contrary to byelaws. It is further averred that the said Babu Hilli has filed report along with resolution dated 09th March, 2000 before the respondent-authorities. It is also stated that, in the meanwhile, certain enquiries have been conducted insofar as the administration of the petitioner-Society. Further, it is stated that one CM. Hugar, President of the Petitioner-Society and three Directors submitted their resignation to their respective posts and thereafter, they lodged complaint against the management and its functioning. It is also forthcoming from the writ petitions that, show cause notice has been issued to some of the members stating that no Membership fee is paid by such Members for last two years. The petitioner-Society has submitted Audit Report for the year 2020-21 and the list of Managing Committee as required under Section 13 of the Societies Registration Act, 1960 and after filing of the said renewal application, the petitioner-Society came to know that persons who have resigned from their respective posts earlier have colluded with each other to constitute new Society and are interfering with the affairs of the petitioner-Society and they have been arraigned as respondents in this writ petition. It is further stated that the second respondent-Society has issued meeting notice to the Members and have conducted Annual General Body Meeting on 22nd April, 2021 and without issuing notice to the petitioner-Society, the second respondent, prepared the list of Managing Committee and filed Audited report to the respondent-Authorities. The first respondent, without considering the rival claim of the petitioner-Society, accepted the renewal application from the Members of the second respondent-Society and being aggrieved by the same, petitioners have approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 201151 of 2021.

Insofar as Writ petition No. 201211 of 2021 is concerned, petitioners have challenged the order/letter dated 29th May, 2020 issued by the first respondent.

3. I have heard Sri G.G. Chagashetti, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Viranagouda Biradar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No. 1; and Sri Shivanand Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

4. Sri G.G. Chagashetty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No. 1 ought to have held an enquiry for taking action against the respondent No. 2, who are in no way concerned with the administration of the petitioner-Society. He further contended that first respondent ought to have refused the report submitted by the second respondent convening the Annual General Body Meeting. He also contended that the President of the second respondent-Society tendered resignation to the post and thereafter, he is interfering with the affairs of the petitioner-Society and without obtaining no-objection certificate from the Auditor, has submitted Audit report and same is contrary to law. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Harijana Girijana Mathu Arthika Hindulida Mani Niveshana Rahitara Sang HA, Bangalore v. State of Karanataka & Ors r