ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer:

(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the impugned order passed by the Respondent No.1 dated 26.10.2018 bearing No.NIL produced at Annexure-'Q' by allowing the writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity.

(b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the impugned report dated 26.10.2018 passed by the Respondent No.3 produced at Annexure-'P' by allowing the writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity.

(c) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the impugned notice issued by Respondent No.2 dated 27.10.2018 produced at Annexure-'S' by allowing the writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity.

(d) Issue such other writ or orders or direction that may deemed proper and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case, be issued in the interest of justice.

2. Petitioner No.1 is claiming to be the President of respondent No.3 – Society, communicates list of office bearers of the petitioners, which is said to have been approved by respondent No.2. Respondents Nos.4 to 12 are alleged to have created certain documents without notice to the petitioners and other members. Respondent No.2 – the District Registrar of Co- operative Societies is said to have initiated proceedings under Section 25 and delegates, the conduct of the enquiry, to an enquiry officer appointed. The enquiry officer appointed submits his report. On the report, the District Registrar is said to have communicated to the Society to hold elections in terms of the report of the enquiry officer. It is at that stage the petitioners are before this Court eight years ago and further proceedings have remained stayed.

3. Learned counsel Shri Shivaraj Mudhol appearing for the petitioners submits that the role of the District Registrar on the enquiry report is only like a postman that he would only communicate the report of the enquiry officer to the Society for further action.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would however refute the submission in contending that the District Register is required to verify the veracity of the findings in the enquiry officer's report and then communicate whether elections have to be held or otherwise.

5. Therefore, the issue now lies whether the District Register on the report of the enquiry officer appointed by him, is merely a postman to communicate it to the Society or has to consider the findings and then communicate after knowing the veracity of the allegations.

6. The issue lies in a narrow compass. Rule 8 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Rules, 1961, reads as follows.

“8. Enquiry by the Registrar.- (1) Where the Registrar proposed to hold an enquiry under Section 25, either on his own motion or on an application, he or the person authorised by him under the said section to hold an enquiry shall issue notice to the society concerned in this behalf.

(2) The said notice shall specify a date on which, place in which and the time at which, as also the matters in respect of which the enquiry will be held. The notice shall also call upon the society to furnish its explanation in respect of matters referred to therein before the elate specified in the notice.

(3) The society shall furnish its explanation to the Registrar or the authorised person before such date.

(4) On the date fixed for the enquiry, or on such other date or dates to which the enquiry might be adjourned, the Registrar or the authorised person shall give the society a oral hearing. He may also examine such persons as may be considered necessary. He may receive any relevant document. If the society fails to furnish its explanation as required under sub-rule (3) or to attend the enquiry on the date fixed or the adjourned date, the Registrar or the authorised person may proceed with the enquiry e