- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2855 WP No. 38775 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 38775 OF 2025 (GM-KSR) BETWEEN: SRI TESHEE VENKATESH AGED 58 YEARS SON OF LATE RAMAIAH RESIDING AT NO.677, 11TH MAIN ROAD. AUROBINDO MARG, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 011 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVKEK SUBBA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G R MOHAN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES NO.01, ALI ASKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE OF DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES ZONE-4 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2855 WP No. 38775 of 2025 SAHAKARA SOUDHA, 3RD FLOOR 8TH CROSS MALLESWARAM BENGALURU-560 003 3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OFFICE OF DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES ZONE-4 SAHAKARA SOUDHA, 3RD FLOOR 8TH CROSS MALLESWARAM BENGALURU-560 003 4. THE.KARNATAKA FILM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE NO.28, 1ST MAIN, CRESCENT ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 BY ITS HONORARY SECRETARY SRI. D. K. RAMAKRISHNA 5. MR SURESH BAFNA, RETURNING OFFICER FOR THE ELECTION OF 4TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY, HAVING OFFICE NOW AT KARNATAKA FILM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE NO.28, 1ST MAIN, CRESCENT ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1; SMT. SHWETHA SHANMUKHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R4; V/O. DATED 05.01.2026 NOTICE TO R5 IS D/W) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2855 WP No. 38775 of 2025 DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 TO CONSIDER HIS REQUEST SPECIFICALLY MADE TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12-12-2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-M SINCE THE APPOINTMENT 5TH RESPONDENT AS RETURNING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 08-12-2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-K IS ILLEGAL PRIOR TO THE EMERGENT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 10-12-2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-L. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a member of the fourth respondent [the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce], is aggrieved by the decision to suspend his membership pending an inquiry, and he has filed his representation against such decision as per Annexure - J. The petitioner has made an elaborate reference to the scheduled elections to the fourth respondent's Governing Council, but the primary question for consideration for this Court in the present petition is: whether this Court must issue directions as is now sought or relegate the petitioner to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2855 WP No. 38775 of 2025 invoke the jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. This Court, on the previous occasion [on 19.01.2026], has heard Mr. Vivek Subba Reddy, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner with he stating that the decision to keep the petitioner under suspension pending inquiry is because of certain complaints lodged by the petitioner alleging financial irregularities and that he was very loud in one of the meetings conducted on-line, and that the petitioner is willing, as stated in Annexure - J, to submit an unconditional apology and also withdraw all allegations. 3. In the light of this submission, Mr. Tejesh, a learned counsel, who appeared for the fourth respondent was called upon to secure instructions on whether the fourth respondent would consider accepting the petitioner's apology because the petitioner is categorical that he does not wish to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2855 WP No. 38775 of 2025 precipitate the complaint and he regrets the turn of events based on his complaint. 4. Ms. Shwetha Shanmukhappa, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, places on record certain documents, and when queried specifically, he submits that the fourth respondent will be constrained in accepting any apology because a Returning Officer is appointed and the decision to accept the apology can only be taken by the Governing Council constituted after the elections. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is uncharitable in making certain allegations of financial misappropriation asserting that he has voice clips to establish the same, but he has not produced those voice clips despite multiple opportunities and that the petitioner, after the previous hearing has circulated messages predicting orders of this Court in these proceedings. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2855 WP No. 38775 of 2025 5. The petitioner's grievance with the decision to keep him under suspension will have to be adjudicated if not in the present proceedings definitely in the alternative proceedings that he would be entitled in law to initiate. Further, the petitioner is specific in his stand that he regrets the complaints made, that he is willing to tender an unconditional apology to all the concerned in the present proceedings and that there would be no occasion for repeated allegations of the kind now stated. This stand does not justify continuation of the precipitation 6. This Court is of the view that the discretion must be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to intervene quashing the decision to keep the petitioner under suspension but holding the petitioner to the undertaking that he will not repeat making unsubstantiated allegations against any and observing that if there is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2855 WP No. 38775 of 2025 any reason, the concerned shall act strictly in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB