- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8660 WP No. 103926 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 103926 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI RAJARAM PATIL S/O. BHARMA PATIL, PRESIDENT, SWAMI VIVEKANANDA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY, ASHTE, AT ASHTE VILLAGE, TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590016. 2. SMT. SARASWAMI RAJARAM PATIL, W/O. RAJARAM PATIL SECRETARY, SWAMI VIVEKANANDA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY, ASHTE AT ASHTE VILLAGE, TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590016. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SURAJ S. MUTNAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BELAGAVI, SAHAKARA ADALITHA BHAVANA, NEAR RAILWAY OVER BRIDGE, JAKKERI HONDA, BELAGAVI-590001. 3. SHRI B.R. SINGAI (DRCS-RETIRED) ENQUIRY OFFICER (DRCS) BELAGAVI, RESIDING AT KANCHVEER NAGAR, MUTAGA, BELAGAVI-591124. VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8660 WP No. 103926 of 2025 4. SHRI BHARAMA G. PATIL S/O. GOUDU PATIL, AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: EX-SERVICEMEN, RESIDING AT 4TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016. 5. SHRI DIWAKAR G. SUTAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, RESIDING AT POST: AHSTE, BELAGAVI-590016. 6. SHRI SURESH B. KITTUR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, RESIDING AT POST ASHTE, BELAGAVI-590016. 7. SMT. VANDANA J. BELGUNDKAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, RESIDING AT SHIVAJI GALLI, KANABARGI, BELAGAVI-590015. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5 & R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT PETITION AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO A. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 7 BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 12.05.2025, CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A, B. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER TO HOLD ENQUIRY PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 AS AGAINST PETITIONERS HEREIN DATED 17.05.2025, CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B, IN BEARING. NO. DRL/SOR/VICHARANE/01/2025-26. C. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 10.06.2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3, CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D2 IN THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8660 WP No. 103926 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) Petitioners are before this Court aggrieved by the complaint lodged by respondents No.4 to 7 before the 2nd respondent/DRCS, who passed an order directing initiation of enquiry under Section 25 Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Act’), appointing respondent No.3 as the Enquiry Officer. Subsequently, a notice was issued for the enquiry and enquiry report came to be submitted. 2. Petitioner No.1 claims to be the President and petitioner No.2 is the Secretary of the Swami Vivekananda Education and Welfare Society, Ashte situated at Gokak Road, Taluka and District Belagavi. There are some differences between the petitioners and respondents No.4 to 7 with regard to membership and renewal of membership in the society and Board of directorship in the society. A complaint came to be lodged by the 4th respondent and respondent No.2 appointed the 3rd - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8660 WP No. 103926 of 2025 respondent as Enquiry Officer. On the basis of the said complaint, an enquiry being constituted, respondent No.3 issued intimation directing petitioner No.1 to appear for enquiry on 22.11.2024. Subsequent to the intimation of respondent No.3/Enquiry Officer, the 1st petitioner and other office bearers appeared before him to put forth their case. Respondent No.4 appeared and withdrawn his complaint, thereafter subsequently another complaint came to be registered by respondents No.4 to 7 against the petitioners for certain illegal acts committed and an enquiry was again conducted. The notice was issued and same served on the petitioners and a reply was sent to the complainant stating complaint would not survive for consideration as initially a similar complaint was lodged on the basis of same allegations and upon the enquiry being conducted and adjudicated, and the proceedings were dropped considering all the relevant document, so therefore sought for dropping of the enquiry which was initiated subsequently by respondents No. 4 to 7. On the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8660 WP No. 103926 of 2025 second enquiry being conducted by respondent No.3, a reply again was given on 31.05.2025. However, the Enquiry Officer without considering the contentions of the petitioners and reply submitted, proceeded to issue notice once again on 31.05.2025 directing the petitioners to appear before him on 07.06.2025. The petitioners had duly appeared before the respondent No.3/Enquiry Officer and sought for time to produce all further required documents and put forth their statements as the notice was served on them one day prior to the date of enquiry. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that despite petitioners requesting for grant of time to put forth their submissions and produce relevant documents to satisfy the Enquiry Officer, it was not headed, accepted or received and the time was not granted by the Enquiry Officer/respondent No.3 and arbitrarily closed the enquiry holding that the petitioners have not produced any documents as sought for by the Enquiry Officer and also - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8660 WP No. 103926 of 2025 did not show any interest to produce the documents as sought for by the Enquiry Officer. 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that the Enquiry Officer/respondent No.3 in haste conducted the enquiry proceedings and hurriedly closed the enquiry and filed the report dated 10.06.2025 holding that the petitioners failed to place materials and demonstrate their case as to which respondent No.5 has been terminated and new members were added. Under the circumstances, petitioners are aggrieved by the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, which they claims to be an erroneous report without providing any opportunity to them and accepting their documents, concluding the case and submitting the report. There are several other allegations made by the petitioners which have not been considered in the report. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash the complaint, order to the hold enquiry and to be quashed enquiry report submitted by the respondent No.3/ Enquiry Officer. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8660 WP No. 103926 of 2025 4. Per Contra, the learned HCGP representing respondent/State contends that petition itself is not maintainable as the Society is not made a party. Secondly, he contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the 3rd respondent as sufficient opportunity was given by issuing notice, which was served on the petitioners to produce relevant documents to substantiate their case, which has not been done by the petitioners in a time bound manner as contemplated in the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules and so also the time period prescribed and provided by the respondent No.3. It is contended that despite sufficient time being provided, the petitioners have not participated neither produced any materials to substantiate their case, thereby left with no other alternative and having granted sufficient time, the 3rd respondent proceeded further to submit the report. Hence the same cannot be held to be invalid or not having providing opportunity or not having followed the principles of natural justice. The said submission is also - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8660 WP No. 103926 of 2025 certified and subscribed to buy the learned HCGP appearing for the State. 5. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent/State. 6. Apparently, there are some disputes between petitioners and respondents No.4 to 7 with regard to membership and the Board of Directorship. The Enquiry Officer has issued notice which is admittedly served to the petitioners, when such enquiries conducted and a notice is served, it is duty of the petitioners to appear before the Enquiry officer and place all such materials to substantiate their case. The Enquiry Officer shall receive documents, if any, filed by the parties concerned and appreciate the same and after giving sufficient opportunity, pass suitable orders in accordance with law. 7. Rule 8 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Rules, 1961 (for short, ‘the Rules’) contemplates the enquiry by the Registrar, which reads as under : - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8660 WP No. 103926 of 2025 “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 date 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 exparte. (5) On the completion of the enquiry, the Registrar or the authorised person shall record his findings and communicate the same to the society concerned.” 8. Sub-clause (4) of the Rule 8 of the Rules stipulates the date fixed for the enquiry and manner in which the enquiry is to be conducted and to proceed further in conducting the enquiry in Sub-clause (5) of the Rule 8 of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8660 WP No. 103926 of 2025 Rules. Therefore, there is a clear procedure laid down in the Rules as to how the enquiry has to be conducted by granting time and to file the report. 9. In the present case, when the petitioners have been served with the notice, they had appeared before the Enquiry Officer. They had sought for time to present certain statements and produce certain documents. Despite the time being granted, the petitioners had not appeared, and respondent No.3/Enquiry Officer proceeded further to give a report. As there are rival claims between petitioners and respondents No.4 to 7, it is necessary for the Enquiry Officer to decide the matter after the documents are placed by the petitioners and the contesting parties except the statements, if any in accordance with law. No doubt, time was given, when the petitioners had appeared when they have sought for further time, the same ought to have been given by respondent No.3 and proceed further, rather than passing an order hurriedly against the petitioners. Under the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8660 WP No. 103926 of 2025 circumstances, this petition requires to be disposed of to the limited extent of providing an opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their contentions and statements and produce necessary documents so also to the respondents, if any, and the Enquiry Officer/respondent No.3 shall proceed further to pass orders after providing opportunity and hearing petitioners as well as the other parties. Only to that extent, this Court is not inclined to pass any orders on the Annexures-A and B with regards to quashing of the complaint and Enquiry Report submitted by the respondent No.3/Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, I pass the following : ORDER (i) Petition is disposed of. (ii) The Enquiry Report dated 10.06.2025 submitted by the 3rd respondent at Annexure- D2 is hereby quashed. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8660 WP No. 103926 of 2025 (iii) The 3rd respondent is hereby directed to provided an opportunity to the petitioners to submit their statements and produce the relevant documents so also together respondents No.4 to 7, if any and hear the parties and pass orders in accordance with law following the procedure contemplated under Rule 8 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Rules, 1961. (iv) The Enquiry Officer shall complete the enquiry and submit a report within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (v) In view of disposal of the main petition, pending applications would not survive for consideration. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CKK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25