- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29028 WP No. 25829 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 25829 OF 2022 (GM-KSR) BETWEEN: HASSAN ZILLA KURUBARA SANGH (R) RAVINDRA NAGARA HASSAN 573201 RERPESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SATHEESH K.S REG. UNDER KARNATAKA SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT 1960 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HARISH KUMAR M S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGLAURU-560 001 REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY STATE OF KARANTAKA NO.1 ALI ASKAR ROAD BENGALURU 560 001. 3. DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY HASSAN DISTRICT Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29028 WP No. 25829 of 2022 HASSAN-573201. 4. ENQUIRY OFFICER SALES OFFICER OFFICE OF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY HASSAN SUB-DIVISION HASSAN-573201. 5. K.B. KESHAVA MURTHY S/O BEERAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O KENKERE VILLAGE AND POST GANDSI HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK HASSAN-573119. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SRINIVAS KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4: SRI L S MANJUNATH., ADVOCATE FOR C/R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-R BEARING NO. CO100CSR2022 DATED 15.11.2022 IN SO FAR AS DIRECTING THE REGISTRAR TO HOLD AN ENQUIRY UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ALL 8 ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER SOCIETY AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R3 APPOINTING R4 TO HOLD ENQUIRY AGAINST THE PETITIONER SOCIETY VIDE ANNEXURE -S BEARING NO. UNIHA/ SANGA/ KU.SAM/ KOLAM- 25/ 2022- 23 DATED 28.11.2022 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29028 WP No. 25829 of 2022 ORAL ORDER The short question which arises in this petition is the manner, method and mode in which enquiry under Section 25 of the Karnataka Registration Act, 1960 (for short `Act') is sought to be initiated by the respondent No.3-Registrar in terms of communication/order dated 28.11.2022 by which respondent No.3 has purportedly proceeded to appoint enquiry officer pursuant to the order and the instruction issued by the respondent No.1-State and its concerned Minister. 2. Sri.Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner taking this Court through the records and also relying upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bangalore Grain Merchants Association Vs The District Registrar of Societies and anr reported in ILR 2001 KAR 766 submits the premise on which the enquiry sought to be commenced is one without authority of law. That though a complaint came to be filed by a non- member who is respondent No.5 herein and proceedings were initiated, communication at Annexure-R issued by the Undersecretary-3 of the Government of Karnataka/respondent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29028 WP No. 25829 of 2022 No.1 indicate that upon receipt of complaint against the petitioner-sangha, eight charges/allegations were made and on enquiry, report on these allegations/charges were called for by the State. Pursuant to which impugned order at Annexure-S came to be passed encapsulating eight allegations/charges which purported to have been made by respondent No.5. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner further drawing attention to this Court to unnumbered paragraph 2 of the impugned communication/order which specifically refers to the direction issued by the respondent-State and the concerned Minister submits that the impugned communication/order runs contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Bangalore Grain Merchants Association supra. He submits in the said Judgment though this Court has explained the meaning and purport of the expression "on its own motion", found in Section 25 of the Act, could be on the basis of information received from any source, the application of mind by the Registrar under Section 25 has to be explicit. In other words, the Registrar should apply his own mind, satisfy himself and then proceed. Only then it would amount to proceedings initiated suo motu. Otherwise, the second part of Section 25 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29028 WP No. 25829 of 2022 requires an application of majority of members of the governing body or not less than 1/3rd of the members of the Society for initiating enquiry. It is only under these two circumstances enquiry could be initiated and not at the instance of the Government or any higher officials. 4. He also relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Association of India(ALPAI) Vs Director General of Civil Aviation and others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 435. Referring to paragraph 26 of the said judgment learned Senior counsel submit if a statute requires action to be taken by a particular authority, it has to be by him and no other person even by a superior authority. 5. Thus, he submits in the instant case what appears to have taken place is initiation of proceedings at the instance of the Government and the concerned Minister which is not contemplated under Section 25 of the Act. Contending so seeks for allowing of the petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29028 WP No. 25829 of 2022 6. Learned AGA does not dispute the aforesaid position of law requiring initiation of proceedings either suo motu or on an application as required under Section 25 of the Act and that if it is suo motu, the contents of the order shall indicate application of mind by the Registrar. He submits given some time, necessary action in the matter would be taken strictly in accordance with Section 25 of the Act. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that liberty be reserved to take action in accordance with law. 8. Submission placed on record. 9. Heard and perused the records. 10. Section 25 of the Act 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. (2) The Registrar or the person authorised by him under sub- section (1) shall have the following powers, namely,— (a) he shall, at all reasonable times, have free access to the books, accounts, documents, securities, cash and other properties belonging to or in the custody of the society and may summon any person in possession or responsible for the custody of any such books, accounts, documents securities, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29028 WP No. 25829 of 2022 cash or other properties to produce the same at any place at the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof; (b) he may summon any person who, he has reason to believe, has knowledge of any of the affairs of the society to appear before him at any place at the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof and may examine such person on oath; (c) (i) he may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any rule or regulation prescribing the period of notice for a general meeting of the society, require the governing body of the society to call a general meeting at such time and place at the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof and to determine such matters as may be directed by him. If the governing body of the society refuses or fails to call a meeting, he shall have power to call it himself; (ii) any meeting called under sub-clause (i) shall have all the powers of a general meeting called under the rules or regulations of the society and its proceedings shall be regulated by such rules or regulations; (iii) when an enquiry is made under this section, the Registrar shall communicate the result of the enquiry to the society concerned." 11. Full bench of this Court in the case of Bangalore Grain Merchants Association supra at paragraph 9 has held as under: "9. Now, we come to the more crucial and controversial question i.e., what is the meaning and import of the expression ‘on his own motion’ and what is its interrelation to the immediately following clauses of the same sub-section. There could be, no doubt, that the expression ‘on his own motion’ is synonymous to suo-motu, which according to the dictionary means, “on one's own initiative”. ‘Own motion’ obviously implies application of mind and formation of one's own opinion. It does not matter how and from what source he gets information. But, it does not mean that the authority conferred with such power should eschew from consideration information or material furnished by external sources and should look to the information collected by his own self-effort. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29028 WP No. 25829 of 2022 The exercise of powers suo-motu or on one's own motion, cannot and ought not to be construed in a narrow sense and in a sense which defeats the salutary purpose of the provision. No fetters can be placed on the specified authority from the stand point of source material on which it should exercise the power. An authority exercising the suo-moto power is not debarred from obtaining informations and materials from various sources. The only requirement is that on the basis of such informations and materials gathered either on its own initiative or received from other sources, the concerned authority has to come to the conclusion, on an active application of mind whether to take up the enquiry or not. Undoubtedly, the decision must be his own. He cannot mechanically act at the behest of some other person or authority without independent application of mind to arrive at a conclusion on the need and expediency of holding an enquiry. It is not argued before us nor can it be disputed that the suo-motu exercise of power does not cease to be such merely because a member of the public or someone in the know of things brings relevant facts to the notice of the prescribed authority, in this case, the Registrar. The Registrar, on a consideration of such facts has to decide whether it is a fit case warranting initiation of enquiry in the over-all interests of the society. The decision must be his and the decision must of course be based on relevant factors, but there is no limitation as to the sources by which he should be prompted to action." 12. Clearly even if the proceedings under Section 25 of the Act has to be initiated suo motu, the Registrar concerned has to indicate in his order that he has applied his own mind and is satisfied with regard to substance of allegation made requiring/warranting enquiry under Section 25 of the Act. It cannot be borrowed application of mind as sought to be done in instant case. Unnumbered paragraph 2 of the impugned communication/order read as under: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29028 WP No. 25829 of 2022 "ಸಾರದ ಅ ೕನ ಾಯದ -3(ಪ), ಸಹಾರ ಇಾೆ, ೆಂಗಳರು ಉೇತ ಪತದ ಆಡ"#ಾ ಾ$ಯನು% &ೇ'ಸುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ +ಬಂಧಕರ ಪ-ಾ./ೆಯನು% ಮತು. ಸಂಘದ ಅಧ23ರು ಸಾರೆ4 ಸ5ರುವ ಅತ ಸಮ6ಾ78ಯನು% ಪ$ ೕಸಾ7ತು. ಸಂಘದ 9ರುದ: ಸೆ;ಾ<ರುವ 08 ಆ=ೋಪಗ"?ೆ ಸ3ಮ @ಾ ಾರAಂದ ಕ&ಾಟಕ ಸಂಘಗಳ &ೋಂದC ಾDE 1960 ರ ಕಲಂ 25 ರ 9GಾರHೆ ನIೆ5, ಸJಷL ವರAಯನು% ಸಸುವಂ#ೆ Mಾನ2 ಸNವರು ಸೂN5ರು#ಾ.=ೆ ಎಂಬುPಾ< Q"5 ನದ$ ಆ=ೋಪಗಳ ಕು$ತು ಕ&ಾಟಕ ಸಂಘಗಳ &ೋಂದC ಾಯ4 1950 ರ ಕಲಂ 25 ರ 9GಾರHೆ ನIೆ5, ಸJಷL ಅR@ಾಯPೊಂA?ೆ ಸಾರೆ4 ವರAಯನು% ಸಸುವಂ#ೆ ಸೂN5ರು#ಾ.=ೆ. ಈ T&ೆ%ೆಯ Uಾಸನ Vಾ ಕುರುಬರ ಸಂಘದ ನIೆAPೆ ಎನ%ಾದ ಅವ2ವUಾರ Uಾಗೂ ಹಣ ಮರುವXೕಗದ ಬ?ೆY ಗುರುQಸಾದ 08 ಆ=ೋಪಗಳ ಕು$ತು 9GಾರHೆ ನIೆ5 vÀ¦àvÀ¸ÀÜgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢, ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀAWÀUÀ¼À £ÉÆÃAzÀt PÁAiÉÄÝ 1960 gÀ PÀ®A 25gÀ «ZÁgÀuÉ £ÀqɸÀ®Ä F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉò¹zÉ". 13. Perusal of the contents of the aforesaid impugned communication indicate that the Registrar-respondent No.3 has proceeded to appoint enquiry officer in purported exercise of his power under Section 25 of the Act only upon the direction issued by the respondent No.1-State and the concerned Minister. Nothing on record to indicate that he having applied his mind independently as mandated under Section 25 of the Act. 14. Further as held by the Apex Court in the case of Joint Action Committee supra, a superior authority cannot dictate - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29028 WP No. 25829 of 2022 terms to the inferior authority to exercise the powers otherwise statutorily conferred on such inferior authority, which appears to be case at hand. Petitioner has made out ground for interference. Accordingly following: ORDER (i) Petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned communication/order dated 28.11.2022 at Annexure-S is quashed. (iii) Respondent Authorities are at liberty to initiate proceedings, if so advised strictly in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made and the settled position of law noted above. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 65