N. Ramesh vs The National Education Society of Karnataka and The District Registrar

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court seeking that direction be issued to the respondent No. 2 to conduct an enquiry into the constitution, functioning and financial conditions of the respondent No. 1-National Education Society of Karnataka. Direction is also sought to the respondent No. 1 to form a committee and frame bye-laws in accordance with the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The petitioner further seeks that the Jurisdictional Registrar be directed to conduct fresh elections after the formation and approval of new bye-laws. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the respondent No. 1-Society was started by a group of humble and dedicated teachers in the year 1916 and was initially discharging its functions in that direction, the present set up in the said society has deviated from the said principles and the respondents without following the due procedure of law or adhering to the manner in which the members are to be enrolled is committing grave error. In that regard, the petitioner is stated to have made complaints to the respondent No. 2 to take appropriate action against the first respondent. Pursuant to such complaint, the respondent No. 2 had issued a communication dated 08.12.2010 to the respondent No. 1 and a copy of the same was marked to the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 in view of the same has thereafter directly corresponded with the petitioner through a detailed letter dated 10.01.2011 to which the petitioner has also replied subsequently raising certain issues. However, according to the petitioner, the dispute raised by him has not been resolved nor has he secured any satisfactory reply in that regard. The petitioner is therefore before this Court, since the second respondent has also not taken any action.

The respondent No. 1 has filed a detailed statement of objections denying the allegations made by the petitioner herein and is also seeking to assert that the affairs of the respondent No. 1-Society is being conducted in a lawful manner and the petitioner is the sole member who is raising these issues and no other person had any grievance with regard to the respondent No. 1-Society.

Though certain allegations have been made by the petitioner and respondent No. 1 has sought to controvert the same by filing the objection statement in the instant petition, I am of the opinion that the nature of the disputes which have been raised would not be adjudicated by this Court in the limited scope available to this Court in a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. The question however for consideration is as to whether the respondent No. 2 who is a statutory authority has discharged his functions as provided under the Act. To the said extent, as to whether the complaint made by the petitioner falls within the scope of Section 25 of the Act or otherwise are issues which also need not be gone into at this stage, since the respondent No. 2 would have, to look into the said aspects of the matter at the first instance.

Be that as it may, what is to be noticed is that based on the complaint made by the petitioner, a, communication dated 08.12.2010 (Annexure-G) was addressed by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 1. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 has not concluded the matter one way or the other, since the respondent No. 2 himself has directed the respondent No. 1 to issue appropriate clarifications to the petitioner. The said procedure adopted would not satisfy the requirement of the provisions of the Act. At best, the respondent No. 2 on securing the details from the respondent No. 1 could have thereafter arrived at his own conclusion as to whether the grievance put forth by the petitioner would satisfy the requirement of the Act and as to whether there is any obligation on the respondent No. 2 to proceed further in the matter. On such consideration, the same ought to have been intimated to the petitioner. Therefore, in the instant case, since the said procedure has not yet been followed, it is unnecessary to advert to all these aspects of the matter except to direct the respondent No. 2 to verify its records with regard to the proceedings if any held pursuant to the communication dated 08.12.2010 (Annexure-G) issued to the respondent No. 1. If no other proceedings have been conducted, the respondent No. 2 shall secure the justifications from the respondent No. 1 and thereafter apply his mind as to whether any further action is required or not. The result of such consideration made by the respondent No. 2 shall be intimated to the petitioner.

With the said direction to the respondent No. 2, the petition stands disposed of.