- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27736 WP No. 15345 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 15345 OF 2026 (GM-KSR) BETWEEN: 1. M V SAMPATH IYENGAR SON OF M VENKATACHALA IYENGAR, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS AT NO. 136/6, FIRST MAIN ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-560 020. 2. N. DINESH RAO, SON OF LATE K NARASAPPAYYA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS AT NO. 319/1, 4TH MAIN, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 080. 3. SANTHOSH S.P, SON OF P H SANAKYANAVAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, AT OLD NO. 12, NEW NO.2/196/99, RENUKA DEVI NILAYA, 7TH CROSS, SBM LAYOUT, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE 560 054. 4. KEDARNATH PATIL, SON OF B. L BASAVANGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, AT NO. 440, 9TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT, NEAR BDA COMPLEX, BANGALORE 560 043. Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27736 WP No. 15345 of 2026 5. L RAMESH, SON OF LAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, AT NO.21, 4TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003. 6. RAKESH KUMAR P S. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SON OF P H SANAKYANAVAR, AT NO.70, PUSHPAGIRI APARTMENT, GF-2, 4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, RMV II STAGE, DOLLARS COLONY, MLA LAYOUT, LOTTEGOLLAHALLI. BANGALORE-500 094. 7. MR. ASHOK B PATIL. AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, SON OF LATE B S PATIL, AT NO. 159, 2ND CROSS, CE LAYOUT. BOOPASANDRA, BANGALORE-560 094. 8. K N SHIVASHANKAR. SON OF LATE K V N RAO AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, AT 103/6, 11TH CROSS, GURUKRUPA, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE - 560 003 9. SMT. RASHMI BHUVANESH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WIFE OF SANTOSH S P, AT OLD NO. 12, NEW NO.2/196/99, RENUKA DEVI NILAYA, 7TH CROSS, SBM LAYOUT, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE - 560 054 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAYAPRAKASH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI NAYANKUMAR S., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27736 WP No. 15345 of 2026 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION, VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560 001. 2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE OF DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, 4TH ZONE, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO. 146, SAHAKARA SOUDHA, 3RD FLOOR, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 8TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003. 3. SADASHIVANAGAR CLUB, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NO.21. 15TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 080. 4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, SADASHIVANAGAR CLUB, NO.21, 15TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 080. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI BRIJESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTING R2 TO CONSIDER AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS ON PETITION NO.DRB- 4/ASOR/DOORU/21/2026-27 DATED 04/05/2026 FILED BY PETITIONERS, COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE K AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27736 WP No. 15345 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i) Issue a Writ, Direction or Order including Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to consider and pass appropriate orders on Petition No.DRB-4/ASOR/Dooru/21/2026-27 dated 04/05/2026 filed by petitioners, copy of which is produced as Annexure K, ii) A Writ of Certiorari quashing the Forensic Audit and Enquiry Report dated 20/04/2026 copy of which is produced as Annexure J, iii) a Writ of Certiorari quashing the suspension order bearing Nos. SNC/S-249/2026/092, SNC/D-049/2026/093, SNC/S- 307/2026/097, SNC/KSR031/2026/095, SNC/R-194/2026/096, SNC/R-SP 242/2026/094, SNC/A-SR034/2026/100, SNC/S-SR126/2026/101 and SNC/ RSD 110/2026/102 dated 24/04/2026 passed against Petitioners by Respondent Nos.3 and 4, copies of which are produced as Annexure H(1) to H(9) and iv) Grant such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that 2.1. Learned counsel submits that at the General Body Meeting held on 27.07.2025, several items of business were transacted in a manner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27736 WP No. 15345 of 2026 contrary to the Memorandum of Association, Rules, Bye-laws and established procedure governing the affairs of the Club. According to him, the proceedings conducted at the said meeting suffer from procedural irregularities which vitiate the decisions taken therein. 2.2. It is his specific contention that during the course of the said meeting, the then existing Committee members were compelled to vacate their positions and step down from the dais. Thereafter, certain other members were purportedly installed in their place and proceeded to participate in the conduct of the meeting. It is further submitted that the persons so inducted assumed control over the proceedings and caused various resolutions to be passed, including a resolution directing a detailed enquiry into the affairs and administration of the Club. 2.3. Learned counsel contends that such a course of action is wholly impermissible in law. According to him, the tenure of office bearers and Committee members can be brought to an end only in the manner contemplated under the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27736 WP No. 15345 of 2026 Rules and Bye-laws governing the Club. In the absence of a valid election, vote of no confidence, removal proceedings or any other procedure recognised under the governing framework of the Club, the existing Committee members could neither have been compelled to relinquish their positions nor could any new Committee members have been inducted in their place. The resolutions passed by such newly constituted body are therefore, according to him, without authority and liable to be ignored. 2.4. Learned counsel further submits that one of the resolutions purportedly passed at the said meeting was for undertaking a forensic audit and detailed scrutiny of the affairs of the Club. According to him, such a resolution is itself unsustainable inasmuch as an enquiry into the affairs of a registered society can be conducted only in the manner contemplated under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. Referring specifically to Section 25 of the Act, he submits that where an enquiry into the constitution, working or financial affairs of a society is contemplated, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27736 WP No. 15345 of 2026 the same must be undertaken only through the statutory mechanism prescribed therein and not through a body whose very constitution is under challenge. He therefore contends that the decision directing a forensic audit and enquiry into the affairs of the Club is wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory scheme governing registered societies. 2.5. On the aforesaid basis, learned counsel submits that the resolutions stated to have been passed in the meeting dated 27.07.2025, including those relating to the reconstitution of the Committee and the initiation of a forensic audit, are liable to be declared invalid and appropriate reliefs as sought for in the present petition are required to be granted. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 4. Insofar as the grievance relating to the complaint submitted by the petitioner at Annexure-K is concerned, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, submits that the said complaint has already been considered by respondent No.2 and an endorsement - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27736 WP No. 15345 of 2026 dated 14.05.2026 has been issued in that regard. In view of the said subsequent development, the relief sought for by the petitioner seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider the complaint no longer survives for consideration. Once the competent authority has considered the complaint and communicated its decision, this Court cannot issue a further mandamus directing consideration of the very same complaint. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the endorsement dated 14.05.2026, it is always open to the petitioner to challenge the same before the competent forum in accordance with law. 5. The principal grievance of the petitioner, however, relates to the proceedings allegedly conducted at the meeting held on 27.07.2025 and the resolutions stated to have been passed therein. The contention urged is that the existing Committee members were compelled to vacate their positions, that a new Committee was thereafter constituted without authority of law and that such newly constituted Committee proceeded to pass various resolutions, including a resolution directing a forensic audit into the affairs of respondent No.3-Club. According to the petitioner, the entire exercise is contrary to the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27736 WP No. 15345 of 2026 Memorandum of Association, Rules and Bye-laws governing respondent No.3 and is therefore liable to be interdicted by this Court. 6. This Court is unable to accede to the aforesaid contention in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At the outset, it is required to be noticed that respondent No.3 is a Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The rights asserted by the petitioner are rights claimed as a member of the Society. Equally, the powers exercised by the Committee, the General Body and other functionaries of the Society are powers traceable to the Memorandum of Association, Rules, Bye-laws and resolutions governing the affairs of the Society. Thus, the relationship between the petitioner, the members of the Society and respondent No.3 is essentially contractual and associational in character. 7. The dispute raised by the petitioner pertains to the internal administration and governance of the Society. The challenge is not directed against any statutory action taken by a public authority, nor is it the case of the petitioner that any statutory right - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27736 WP No. 15345 of 2026 vested in him has been infringed. What is sought to be questioned is the validity of decisions allegedly taken by the members of the Society in the course of its internal functioning. Such disputes ordinarily fall within the realm of private law and are governed by the contractual framework embodied in the Memorandum of Association and Bye-laws of the Society. 8. The contention that the existing Committee members were unlawfully compelled to step down and that a new Committee was illegally constituted cannot be adjudicated merely on the basis of the pleadings placed before this Court. The determination of such a contention would require an examination of the notice convening the meeting, the agenda circulated to the members, the attendance of the members, the proceedings conducted during the meeting, the resolutions passed, the voting pattern, if any, the authority under which the impugned actions were taken and the relevant provisions of the Rules and Bye-laws governing the Society. These are all matters requiring detailed factual examination. 9. The allegation that certain members were compelled to relinquish their positions is itself a disputed - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27736 WP No. 15345 of 2026 question of fact. Whether there was any coercion, whether the members voluntarily stepped down, whether the proceedings were conducted with the consent of the members present, whether the resolutions were validly proposed and seconded and whether the decisions taken at the meeting are binding on the Society are all matters which can only be determined upon appreciation of evidence. Such an exercise is clearly beyond the scope of summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 10. The challenge to the appointment or induction of a new Committee stands on the same footing. The validity of the constitution of the Committee would necessarily depend upon the provisions contained in the Memorandum of Association and Bye-laws, the powers of the General Body, the procedure prescribed for removal, replacement or election of office bearers and the factual circumstances in which the impugned action came to be taken. The determination of these issues would require interpretation of the governing documents of the Society and adjudication of disputed facts. Such questions are more appropriately considered by a Civil Court exercising ordinary civil jurisdiction. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27736 WP No. 15345 of 2026 11. Equally, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the newly constituted Committee could not have directed a forensic audit and that any enquiry into the affairs of the Society could only be undertaken under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 cannot be conclusively determined in the present proceedings. Whether the decision taken by the Committee amounts to a statutory enquiry within the meaning of Section 25 of the Act, whether it is merely an internal audit, investigative exercise or fact-finding mechanism authorised by the Bye-laws and whether the Committee possessed the requisite authority to take such a decision are all questions requiring examination of the nature and scope of the impugned resolution. Such an enquiry would again necessitate consideration of the governing documents of the Society and relevant factual materials. 12. Merely because the petitioner asserts that the impugned actions are contrary to the Bye-laws would not, by itself, justify invocation of writ jurisdiction. The breach of a Bye-law governing a private society does not automatically give rise to a public law cause of action. The Court exercising jurisdiction under - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27736 WP No. 15345 of 2026 Article 226 is concerned primarily with enforcement of public duties and protection of public law rights. Unless the action complained of has a demonstrable public law element or involves violation of a statutory obligation, disputes arising out of the internal affairs of a private association are ordinarily not amenable to writ jurisdiction. 13. It is also relevant to note that the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 does not provide a statutory mechanism enabling this Court to adjudicate every dispute arising between members of a society and its management in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Act primarily provides for registration and regulation of societies. Disputes relating to the validity of resolutions, election or removal of office bearers, internal governance, administration of the Society and compliance with the Bye-laws are matters which have traditionally been adjudicated before Civil Courts unless a specific statutory remedy is provided. 14. If this Court were to enter into the merits of the rival contentions, it would necessarily be required to undertake an elaborate factual enquiry, examine the validity of the proceedings conducted at the meeting, - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27736 WP No. 15345 of 2026 interpret the Bye-laws, assess the legality of the resolutions passed and adjudicate upon disputed questions concerning the conduct of various members of the Society. Such an exercise would effectively convert these writ proceedings into a civil trial, which is neither contemplated nor permissible in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 15. The availability of an efficacious alternative remedy is yet another factor which persuades this Court to decline interference. If the petitioner is of the opinion that the proceedings of the meeting dated 27.07.2025 are illegal, that the Committee has been unlawfully constituted, that the resolutions passed therein are void or that the decision directing a forensic audit is contrary to law, it is always open to the petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings before the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking declaratory, injunctive or such other reliefs as may be available in law. The Civil Court would be in a position to comprehensively adjudicate all disputed questions of fact and law after affording adequate opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. 16. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the disputes sought to be raised by the petitioner - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27736 WP No. 15345 of 2026 pertain to the internal management and governance of respondent No.3-Society and arise out of the contractual and associational relationship between the members and the Society. The same do not involve adjudication of any public law right warranting interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to examine the merits of the rival contentions. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedies as may be available in law before the competent Civil Court or any other competent forum and to challenge the proceedings of the meeting dated 27.07.2025, the constitution of the Committee and the resolutions passed therein, including the resolution relating to the forensic audit, the writ petition stands disposed of. 18. All contentions on facts and law are left open for consideration by the competent forum. Any observations made herein are only for the purpose of determining the maintainability of the present writ petition and shall not influence the adjudication of - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27736 WP No. 15345 of 2026 any proceedings that may be instituted by the parties. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71