The exercise of suo motu powers by the District Registrar must be justified by public interest, not personal disputes, particularly when appointing an Administrator under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. POONACHA, J.

1. The present appeal is filed impugning an order dated 25.09.2024 (impugned order). Vide the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the subject writ petition (being WP No.20332/2018) along with a batch of other connected writ petitions.

2. The subject writ petition was filed by respondent No.5 - society (the writ petitioner), wherein the appellant (Mrs Anitha Prasad) was arrayed as respondent No.4. The subject writ petition was filed impugning an order dated 04.05.2018 passed by respondent No.1-State appointing an Administrator to writ petitioner-society; enquiry report dated 08.01.2018. The writ petition was subsequently amended to also include the orders dated 07.12.2018 and 22.04.2019 extending the appointment of the Administrator.

3. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner - society was registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (Act for the purpose of providing education and training programme to the eligible students in the fields of Arts, Commerce, Engineering, Law, Pharmacy, etc. The present dispute is with respect of the affairs of one Gowtham College of Pharmacy, which is one of the institutions run by the writ petitioner - society. It appears that there are various disputes between the members and the managing committee of the society, wherein the appellant had lodged various complaints with the District Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Taking note of the allegations made in the complaint, the District Registrar of Cooperative Societies initiated proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Act invoking his suo motu powers and appointed an enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry. Accordingly, an enquiry report dated 08.01.2018 was submitted. The District Registrar by communication dated 08.01.2018 addressed to respondent No.1 - State recommended for appointment of an Administrator in terms of Section 27A of the Act. Accordingly, the State Government vide order dated 04.05.2018 appointed an Administrator for a period of six months. The subject writ petition was filed and the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 10.05.2018 stayed the order dated 04.05.2018 appointing an Administrator.

4. It is pertinent to note that Section 27A of the Act stipulates an Administrator to be appointed for a period of six months, which could be extendable for a maximum period of four years.

5. Having regard to the nature of disputes between the parties, various other writ petitions were filed, which were clubbed together and decided vide the impugned order dated 25.09.2024. The writ petitioner had assailed the initiation of the enquiry on the ground that invocation of suo motu powers under Section 25(1) of the Act was improper. It is relevant to notice Section 25(1) of the Act of 1960, which 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.

6. The learned Single Judge noticed that the appellant, who was also an office bearer of the managing committee holding the post of Treasurer, had made the complaints, on the basis of which, the District Register exercised suo motu powers to initiate an enquiry which could n