Sri V. Ananda vs The President/Secretary Domlur Club and Others

H.G. Ramesh, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 31.8.2009 (Annexure-A) passed by the Registrar of Societies, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore (''the Registrar'' for short) holding that no action is warranted under Sections 28(c) and 29 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (''the Act'' for short) against the President and Secretary of Domlur Club, Bangalore.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the Registrar and perused the impugned order at Annexure-A.

The case of the petitioner is that the President and General Secretary of respondent No. 1 - Domlur Club have disobeyed the order dated 17.10.2008 passed by the Registrar staying the election of managing committee of the Club scheduled on 19.10.2008. It is stated that the election was held on 19.10.2008. Hence, the petitioner filed an application dated 17.12.2008 before the Registrar to initiate appropriate legal proceedings before the Jurisdictional Magistrate of the First Class to try the offence alleged u/s 28 of the Act The said application has been rejected by the order at Annexure-A which is impugned in this writ petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed in exercise of the power u/s 25 of the Act. He further submits that on the facts of the case, the Registrar ought to have referred the matter to the Jurisdictional Magistrate of the First Class to try the offence alleged u/s 28 of the Act.

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Registrar submits that Section 25 of the Act does not contemplate holding of any enquiry relating to the offences created u/s 28 of the Act He further submits that the appropriate course for the petitioner is to approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate of the First Class as provided u/s 29 of the Act

In my opinion, the Act does not confer any power on the Registrar to hold a ny enquiry relating to the offences created u/s 28 of the Act though it is open to him or the concerned statutory authority to prima facie examine as to whether the material on record warrants launching of prosecution before the Court referred to in Section 29 of the Act Therefore, the impugned order at Annexure-A is unsustainable in law and is accordingly quashed. I may add that there is no prohibition under the Act for any aggrieved person to directly move the Court referred to in Section 29 of the Act. Hence, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate of the First Class in accordance with law relating to the offence alleged.

Petition disposed of.