( 1 ) THE petitioners who are the President and the Secretary respectively of an Institution called Mysore Riyasat Hindi Prachar Samithi (hereinafter called the Samithi) have filed this petition under Art 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order bearing No. RD 12 EST 77 dated 17-8-1977 (Ext-E) of the Government of Karnataka (the first respondent herein) taking over the administration of the Samithi and appointing an Administrator to look after its affairs for six months from the date of its order. That period is being extended from time to time under the proviso to Clause (c) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 27a of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (the Act ). the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order, or direction quashing the impugned order. The Samithi is a Society registered under the Act with its Head Office at Bangalore. The object in the formation of the Samithi is to spread the knowledge of Hindi in the. State of karnataka and starting and running of educational institutions. With that end in view annually it holds examinations and confers degrees and diplomas on the successful candidates. It receives aid both from the Central an the State Governments. To manage its day to-day affairs the samithi has an executive committee. The Samithi owns both moveable and immoveal properties. Any person who has attained his 18th year or above and who subscribes to the objects of the Samithi could be admitted by the executive committee as a member of the General Body provided he pays donations and subscriptions as prescribed. The General Body has certain powers and functions including the pqwer to lay down the general policy of the Samithi from time to time and electing its President. The control and management of the moveable and, immoveable properties of the Samithii vests in a Board of Trustees called Nidhi Palak Mandal. The General Secretary of the executive committee is the Convener of this Mandal. The executive committee itself is a, Body elect for a period of three yea'rs ordinarily by the General Body and its con" stitution is as laid down in para-11 (a) of the Constitution of the Samithi (Ext. The General Secretary of the executive committee is the Convener of this Mandal. The executive committee itself is a, Body elect for a period of three yea'rs ordinarily by the General Body and its con" stitution is as laid down in para-11 (a) of the Constitution of the Samithi (Ext. A ).-The executive committee is quite a powerful Body and it is its duty to carry on the, work of the Samithi, to prepare the annual report, to audit statements together with accounts and present it to the General Body for consideration and adoption; to control, direct and supervise, different act- vitirs of the Samithi; and to confer degrees or diplomas on candidates successful at the examinations held by the Samithi. ( 2 ) THE main ground of attack against the impugned ~rder is, that the same has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice. ( 3 ) MAMLY two reasons have been assigned for taking over the management of the affairs of the Samithi. In the preamble to the order it is, staged that the Samithi has not maintained proper accounts re; its financial dealings and that it had contravened S. 10 of the Act in, giving effect to the amended bye-laws without the necessary sanction of the Registrar of the Cooperative societies (Registrar ). The order appointing the Administrator was preceded by an enquiry conducted by an Enquiry Officer appointed for the purpose by the Registrar under S. 25 of the Act. The Government Order is based on this enquiry report. ( 4 ) WHILE elaborating his submissions that the impugned order had been made in violation, of the principles of natural justice, the Counsel for the petitioners submitted that his clients had not been supplied with a copy of the report of the; Enquiry Officer in spite of several requests to the concerned authorities to 'supply one. He argued that if a copy of the report had been made available to his clients, they would have, known the reasons advanced by the Enquiry Officer in support of his conclusion that the Samithi should be taken over by Adminstrator. It is his case that if his clients has known the findings of the Enquiry Officer, they would, have been in a postion to lepresent to the Government their point of view in the matter. It is his case that if his clients has known the findings of the Enquiry Officer, they would, have been in a postion to lepresent to the Government their point of view in the matter. His further contention was that the Government, before passing the final order acting on the report of the Enquiry Officer, should haye heard his clients after making them available a copy of the enquiry report. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, the Government Pleader submitted that the office bearers cf the Samithi including the petitioners had been notified about the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer; they had participated in the enquiry; they were fully aware of the charges levelled against them, and matters over which the enquiry was directed; that the enquiry had been conducted in accordance with the rules framed for this purpose under the Act; and that, in the circumstances, neither the petitioners nor any othert connected with the affairs of the Samithi were entitled to a further hearing by the government prior to the passing of the impugned order. He also denied the allegation that the order in question was an arbitrary one or that it was in violation of the principles: of natural justice. ( 6 ) BEFOREI examining these rival contentions let us see the provisions urder which the impugned, order has been made. S. 27a of the Act which enabled the Government to appoint an Administrator, prior toi its amendment by Karnataka Act No. 7 of 1978, reads as follows:"27a-Appointment of Administrator- Notwithstanding anything in this Act,- (1) (a) where any society on account of the pendency of litigation or otherwise has not held or is unable to hold the annual general meeting; or (b) where the terms of office of the members of the governing body of a society has expired and a new governing body has not for any reason been constituted; or (c) where on a report made by the Registrar or otherwise, on enquiry, the State Government considers it necessary in public interest so to do, the State Government may, by order published in the official gazette, appoint an Adminisrator for such society for such perior not exceeding six months, as may be specified in the order, to manage the affars of the society. Provided that for reasons to be recorded in writing, the State Go vernment may, by like order, extend the said period by any further periods not exceeding six months at a time, so however subject to the provisions of clause (5), the aggregate period should not extend beyond two years; (2) the expenditure incurred by the State Government towards the salary and allowances of the Administrator shall be paid to the state Government from out of the funds of the society; (3) on the appointment of the Administrator under clause (1) and during tne period of such appointment the goive,ining body of the society shall cease to exercise any powers and perfoim and discharge any functions or duties confeired or imposed on it by this Act, or its memorandum of association or the rules and regulation or any other law and subject to any directions which the State Government, may irom lime to time issue, all such functions or duties shall be performed or dischcrged by the Administrator, (4) the Administrator shall, before the expiry of the period of his appointment take necessary action to convene the general body meeting of the society and hold elections for the constitution of the governing body; (5) it the Administrator is not, for reasons beyond his control, able to convene the general body meeting or inspite of such meeting being convened, the general body fails to elect the governing body, the administrator shall forthwith send a report to the State Government, who may pass such orders as are considered necessary, either extending the period of appointment of the Administrator for a further period or if satisfied that public interest so requires for the dissolution of the society, (6) where an urder of dissolution is passed under clause (5) the assets of the society shall vest in and the liabilities shall devolve on the State Government " ( 7 ) ACT No, 7 of 1978 added sub-sec. (5a) to S. 27a enabling the State government to appoint an Advisory Council to advise and assist the Administrator, and therefore, is not of much relevance for our purpose. It is under Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of S. 27a the State Government have acted in the instant case. ( 8 ) THE Registrar caused an enquiry to be made into the, affairs of this samithi under S. 25 of the Act. That section reads as follows:"25. It is under Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of S. 27a the State Government have acted in the instant case. ( 8 ) THE Registrar caused an enquiry to be made into the, affairs of this samithi under S. 25 of the Act. That section reads as follows:"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- sec. (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 tor the custody ot any sucn books, accounts, documents, securities, 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 head quarters of the society or any branch thareof 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 governing body of -the society refuses or fails to to call a meeting he shall have powetr to call it himself; (ii) any meeting called under 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. " ( 9 ) THE Karnataka Societies Registration Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called the Rules) came to be amended in 1975 by adding a new rule-Rule 8, providing certain guidelines in the matter of holding such enquiries. The said rule reads as follows:"8. Enquiry by the Registrar;- (1) Where the Registrar proposes to hold an enquiry under Section 25, either on lug own motion or on an application, ne or the person authorised by him under the said section to hold an enquiry shall issue notice to the society concerned in this behaif. (2) The said, notice shall specify a date on which, place in which and thei time at which, as also the matters in respect of which the enquiry will be held. The notice shall also call upon the spciety to furnish explanation in respect of matters referred to therein before the date specified in the notice, (3) The society shall furnish its explanation to the Registrar or the authorised person before such date. (4) On the date fixed for enquiry, or on such other date or dates to which the enquiry might be adjourned, the Registrar or the authorised person shall give the society a oral hearing. He may also examine such persons as may be considered necessary. He may receive any relevant document. If the society fails to furnish its explanation as required under sub-rule (3) or to attend the enquiry on the da,te fixed or the adjourned date, the Registrar or the authorised person may proceed with the enquiry ex-par tie. (5) On the completion of the enquiry, the Registrar 01 the authorised person shall record hia findings and communicate the same to the society concerned. (5) On the completion of the enquiry, the Registrar 01 the authorised person shall record hia findings and communicate the same to the society concerned. " ( 10 ) IN the instant case, it appears one Sri N. Vishwamithra, a lite Member and a former Secretary of this Sarmithi had complained before the Registrar and other authorities about certain irregularities including financial in the affairs of the Samithi Therefore, the Registrar thought that an enquiry was called for. Exercising his powers under S. 25 of the Act he appointed one Mr. C. V. Krishnamurthy Naidu, Headquarters Assistant to the District registrar, Bangalore, as Enquiry Officer. Sri Nandu held an enquiry as provided in sub section (2) of S 23 read with Rule 8 of the Rules. He issued notices to the President, Secretary, and other office bearers of the Samithi making them available copies of the complaint of Sri Vishwamithra referred to above, and. asking them to have their say in the matter. In answer to these notices one Sri A. V. Srnivasa Murthy, Organising Secretary of the Samithi appeared, before the enquiry Officer. Subsequently, the second petitioner, the then General Secretary of the Samithi appeared and participated in the enquiry. His deposition was recorded. The; Enquiry officer had also heard mr. Vishwamithra. For purposes of this enquiry, the Enquiry Officer formulated certain points based on the irregularities highlighted in the complaint. In th course of the enquiry he is said to have found some irregularities, both on the administration and financial sides. In his report submitted to the Registrar he suggested that the Registrar may consider the question of making further probings into the accounts of the Samithi for the period between 1-1-1967 to 31-12-1975, and also suggested that the question of appointing an Administrator" under S. 27a of the Act merits consideration. ( 11 ) AFTER receiving the report and examining it, the Registrar, agreeing with the said report, forwaided the same to the State Government (first respondent herein) recommending the appointment of an Administrator under S. 27a of the Act, After considering the report of the Registrar and the report of the Enquiry Officer the first respondent has passed the impugned order (Ext.-E ). That order reads as follows: proceedings of the Government of Karnataka sub: Allegations rf irregularities in the Mysore Riyasat Hindi prachar Samithi, Jayanagar, Bangalorer Taking over the Administration. That order reads as follows: proceedings of the Government of Karnataka sub: Allegations rf irregularities in the Mysore Riyasat Hindi prachar Samithi, Jayanagar, Bangalorer Taking over the Administration. Read letter No. BAR/1-1552/76-77 dated 22. 7. 77 from the Registrar of societies in Karnataka, Bangalore. Preamble: The Registrar of Societies hag reported that one Sri. N. Vishwamithra, Life Member and former Secretary of the said Samithi has alleged that the present Secretary has held the General Body Meeting and has constituted an Executive Committee for 3 period of three years which is not in accordance with Bye-laws of the Samithi, as the amended bye-laws have not been approved by the Registrar and, the administration is totally bad and corruptive in all respects. Further he has also filed a suit in the court of the I Munsiff III Additional Court against the Samithi the Registrar has appointed the Head-quarters Assistant to the district Registrar, Bangalore, as Enquiry Officer under Section 25 of the societies Registration Act 1960 to hold an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial conditions of the Samithi with a direction to confine his enquiry into the allegations not covered by the proceedings of the Civil Court. The Enquiry Officer is of the opinion that the accounts of the the Samithi have not been maintained properly and a probe into the accounts for the years from 1-1-1967 to 31-12-1975 is necessary. He has suggested for the appointment of an Administrator under S. 27a of the karnataka Societies Registration Act to put the Samithi on the proper track. It has been pointed out in the Enquiry Report that'the accounts of the Samithi have not been maintained properly and the Samithi has received grants, from the Central Government. Besides the Samithi has contravened S. 10 of Use Act in giving effect to the amended bye-laws without the necessary sanction of the Registrar. The Registrar is of the opinion that the continuance of the present office bearers of the, Samithi is not in the interest of the Samithi and therefore recommends the appointment of an Administrator under S. 27a of K. S. R. Act, 1960 to the above Samithi to manage the affairs respectively. "order NO. RD. 12 EST 77 Dated Bangalore ,17th August 1977. "order NO. RD. 12 EST 77 Dated Bangalore ,17th August 1977. Government of Karnataka have carefully considered the records and agrees with the conclusions and recommendations of the Registrar, that it is necessary in the public interest to appoint an Administrator to manage the affairs of the Samithi. Accqrdingly in exercise of the powers conferred under S. 27a of the KSR Act 1960 (Karnataka Act No. 17 of 1960) the Government of karnataka hereby appoint Sri S. D. Nayak, Special Deputy Commissioner, urban Land Tax, Bangalore, as Administrator for the Mysore riyasath Hindi Prachar Samithi, Jayanagar, Bangalore, with immediate effect for a period of six months to manage the affairs of the said samithi. By Order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka, sd. N. V. Doraiswami. Under Secretory to Government, Revenue Department. . . . . . . ( 12 ) THAT principles of natural justice apply to administrative orders or proceedings is no longer in dispute. The Government Order appointing an administrator, though temporarily, did involve civil consequences, and therefore, it was required to have been passed consistently with the principles of natural justice. As observed by the Supreme Court in a recent decision menaka Gandhi v. Union of India (MR 1978 SC. 597.):"natural justice is a great humanising principle intended to invest law with fairness and to secure justice, and over the years it has grown into a widely pervasive rule affecting large areas of administrative action. The inquiry must, always be:, does fairness in action demand that an opportunity to be htard should be given to the person affected? the law must now be taken to be well settled that even in an administrative proceeding, which involves civil consequences, the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable. " (Headnote B ). ( 13 ) AS is well known the broad principles of natural justice involve: (i) a fair hearing or an effective opportunity to the party, who is likely to be affected, of meeting the allegations against him- (ii) that the authority making judicial and quasi-judicial decisions should be able to act with impartial objectivety and without any bias; and (iii) that the ultimate decision of the authority must be based on materials placed before, it and not on extraneous matters or at the inspiration or guidance of an outside authority. ( 14 ) THOUGH in the instant case, it has been obliquely hinted in the petition that the impugned ordei sufters from the vice of arbitrariness, what was pressed was that the petitioners did not have a fair opportunity to re present their points of view before the authority concerned (Government) prior to the passing of the impugned order. ( 15 ) THE petitioners cannot complain that the enquiry conducted by the enquiry Officer was in violation of the, principles of natural justice. They had notice of the enquiry and participated in the same. ( 16 ) WHAT is further required to be examined is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that they should have been supplied with a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer so that they would have known the allegations they had to meet and would have -represented io, the Government well in time their points of view. Normally in cases like this where the parties concerned had an opportunity of participating in the enquiry conducted by an Enquiry Officer and the Government considering the report of the Enquiry Officer takes an ultimate decision, the parties cannot complain, that because a second opportunity of being heard had not been provided to them by the Government before it acted on that report, that principles of natural justice had been violated. Also, not in all cases can the parties, as a matter of right, urge that they should have been supplied with a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer. In this connection we may note the observations of the Supreme Court in kesava Mills Co. , Ltd. , v. Union of India ( AIR 1973 SC. 389 ). In that case the management of a Cotton Textile Mill was taken over by the Government of India in exercise of its powers under the provisions of Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and the gujarat State Textile Corporation Ltd. , had been appointed as the authorised controller of the Company for a period of five yearsi. The Government of India's action was challenged, and one of the complaints was that the office bearers of the company, the administration of which had been taken over by the Government, did not have a fair hearing at the lands of the Government of India. The Government of India's action was challenged, and one of the complaints was that the office bearers of the company, the administration of which had been taken over by the Government, did not have a fair hearing at the lands of the Government of India. We may incidentally note that before passing that order, the Government of India, following the procedure laid down under that Act, had got a, Committee appointed for investigating into the affairs of this Mill (Company) and had taken the decision in the light of the recommendations of that Committee. The Management of the Mills had been given ample opportunity to put forward their case before the Investigation committee. Still it was urged on behalf of the Management of the Mills that they should hax'e been furnished with the report of the, Committee and should have had further opportunity, before the Government of india took that decision, to have their say in the matter. In the light of the facts of that case the Supreme Court was of the view that ro, prejudice had been cauocd to the Management of the Mills by not supplying them with a copy of the report of the Investigating Committee or by not giving a further opportunity to heve their say in the matter with the Government of India. In that connection at para-21 the Court has observed as follows:"in our opinion it is not possible to lay down any general principle on the question as to whether the report of an Investigating Body or of an Inspector appointed by an administrative puthority should be made available to the persons concerned in any given case before the authority takes a decision upon that report. The answer to this question also must always depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. It i's not at all unlikely that there may be certain casts where unless the report is given the party concerned cannot make any effective representation about the action that Government takes 01 proposes to take on the basis of that report. Whether the report should be furnished or not must therefore depend in every individual case on the merits of that case. We have no doubt that in the instant case non-disclosure of the report of the Investigating Committee has not caused arty prejudice whatsoever to the appellants. Whether the report should be furnished or not must therefore depend in every individual case on the merits of that case. We have no doubt that in the instant case non-disclosure of the report of the Investigating Committee has not caused arty prejudice whatsoever to the appellants. " ( 17 ) ALSO in this connection the following observations of this Court in david S. vs. State of Karnataka ( (1979) 1 Kar. L. J. 1.) may be noted: "while Government agrees with the report of the enquiry officeregarding the age of the Govt. servant, the principles of natural justice would not go so far as to require the ultimate authority to give to the official a second opportunity of being heard before accepting such report. " ( 18 ) BUT the facts of the instant case are somewhat different. Though it is true that the office bearers of the Samithi had an opportunity of participating in the enquiry, they were entitled to, in law, for a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer. Under S. 25 (2) (c) (in) "when an enquiry is made under this section, the Registrar shall communicate the result of the enquiry to the society concerned. " Again, as provided by Rule 8 (5) of the Rules, "on the completion of the enquiry, the Registrar or the authorised perspn shall record his findings and communicate the same to the society concerned. " ( 19 ) THE main grievance of the petitioners is, that in spite of their request they were not supplied with a copy of the enquiry report. I have gone through the counter filed on behalf of the respondents. The petitioners' allegation that they were not supplied with a copy of the report, though has been vaguely denied in para-5 of the statement of objections! of the respondents, it is nowhere specifically stated therein that the Samithi had been supplied with a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer as required by the provisions of the Act and the Rules referred to above. In the circumstances, i am of the view that the authorities concerned did not make available a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner's. This was in clear violation of S. 25 (2) (c) (iii) of the Act and Rule 8 (5) of the Rules. In the circumstances, i am of the view that the authorities concerned did not make available a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner's. This was in clear violation of S. 25 (2) (c) (iii) of the Act and Rule 8 (5) of the Rules. ( 20 ) IT has to be seen, therefore, whether the impugned order is unsustainable in view of this violation of the procedural requirement of the statutory provisions referred to above. In this context it is necessary to examine whether the provisions-S. 25 (2) (c) (iii) of the Act and Rule 8 (5) of the rules - are mandatory or merely directory. In this connection the following observations of the'learned Author S. A. de Smith in judicial Review of administrative Action (iii) Edi-at page 122 may be noted. "the law relating to the effect of failure to comply with procedural requirements resembles an inextricable tangle of loose ends. Although it would be futile to attempt to unravel or cut all the knots it is possible to state the main principles of interpretation that the courts have followed and to illustrate their application in a few settings when Parliament prescribes the manner or form in which a duty is to be performed or power exercised, it seldom lays down what wil be the legal consequences of failure to observe its prescriptions. The court must therefore formulate thein own criteria for determining whether the procedural rules are to be regarded as mandatory, in which case disobedience will lender void or voidable what has been done, or as directory, in which case disobedience will be treated as an irregularity not affecting the validity of what has been done (though in some cases it has been said that there must be "substantial compliance" with the Statutory provisions if the deviation is to be excused as a mere irregularity ). Judges have often stressed the impractibility of specifying exact rules for the assignment of a procedural provision to the appropriate category. The whole scope and purpose of the enactment must be considered, and one must assess 'the importance of the provision that has been disregarded, and the relation of that provision to the general object intended to be secured by the Act' Furthermore, much may depend upon the particular circumstances of the case in hand. The whole scope and purpose of the enactment must be considered, and one must assess 'the importance of the provision that has been disregarded, and the relation of that provision to the general object intended to be secured by the Act' Furthermore, much may depend upon the particular circumstances of the case in hand. Although 'nullification is the natural and usual consequence of disobedience' breach of procedural or formal rules is likely to be treated as a mere irregularity if the departure from the terms of the Act is of a trivial nature, or if no substantial prejudice has been suffered by those for whose benefit the requirements were introduced, or if serious public inconvenience, would be caused by holding them to be mandatory, or if the court is for any reason disinclined to interfere with the act or decision that is impugned. "s. 27a of the Act, which was incorporated in the Act by Act No. 26 of 1965 confers extraordinary powers on the State Government. It enables the state Government to remove the executive or governing bodies of Societies registered under the Act and appoint administrators, though for a temporary period. The Registrar is conferred with powers to probe into the affairs of the societies and to make a report to the Government. When the Government removes a Managing Committee and appoints an Administrator it purports to have done so in public interest. Consequences of such action particularly on the Managing Committee or office bearers of such a Society are for reaching. Some times it may even entail actions in Courts of law- both civil and criminal - against them. Therefore, the law has provided the the Society concerned should be, communicated with the result of the enquiry. This is evidently with the intention to provide the office bearers of the society with a further opportunity of making representations either wit' the Registrar or the Government, as the case may be, on the advene remarks, if any, found in the report before they proceed to take further action against the Society. Therefore, the aforesaid provisions are not merely directory, and they are, in my opinion, mandatory ( 21 ) IN ajantha Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes ( AIR 1976 SC. 437 .), the supreme Court had to examine as to whether S. 127 (1) of the Income Tax act, 1961, was directory or mandatory? Therefore, the aforesaid provisions are not merely directory, and they are, in my opinion, mandatory ( 21 ) IN ajantha Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes ( AIR 1976 SC. 437 .), the supreme Court had to examine as to whether S. 127 (1) of the Income Tax act, 1961, was directory or mandatory? Under that provision the Commissioner of Income Tax is required to record his reasons before ordering transfer of a case from one Income Tax Officer to another. In the order, the validity of which was questioned before their Lordships, reasons that had weighed with the Commissioner to transfer that proceeding had not been recorded. In paras 10 and 11 of the judgment the Supreme Court has observed as follows"the reason for recording of reasons in the order and making these reasons known to the assessee is to enable an opportunity to the assessee to approach the High Court under its writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution or even this Court under Art. 126 of the Constitution in an appropriate case for challenging the order, inter alia, either on the ground that it is mala fide or arbitrary or that it is based on irrelevant and extraneous considerations. Whether such a writ or special leave application ultimately fails is not relevant for a decision of the question. We are clearly of opinion that the requirement of lecording reasons under Sec. 127 (1) is a mandatory direction under the law and non-communication thereof is not saved by snowing that the reasons exist in the file although not communicated to the assessee. " ( 22 ) ALSO, in this connection the following observations of the Supreme court in State of Mysore v. V. K. Kangan ( AIR 1975 SC. 2190 .) at paras 10 and 11 may be noted:"in determining the question whether a provision is mandatory or directory, one must look into the subject-matter and consider the importance of the provision disregarded and the relation of that provision to the general object intended to be secured. No doubt, all laws are mandatory in the sense they impose the duty to obey on those who come within its, purview. No doubt, all laws are mandatory in the sense they impose the duty to obey on those who come within its, purview. But it docs not follow that every departure from it shall taint the proceedings with a fatal blemish The determination of the question whethei a provision is mandatory or directory, would, in the ultimate analysis, depend upon the intent of the law maker. And that has to be gathered not only from the phraseology of the provision but also by considering its nature, its design, and the consequences which would follow from construing it in one way or the other. We see no reason why the rule shquld receive a permissible interpretation instead of a peremptory construction. As we said, the rule was enacted for the purpose of enabling the Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition collector) to have all the lelevant materials before him for coming to a conclusion to be incorporated in the report to be sent to the Government in order to enable the Government to make the proper decision. In Lon- appan vs. Sub-Collector of Palghat AIR 1959 Ker. 343 the Kerala, High court took the view that the, requirement of the rule regarding the giving of notice to the department concerned was mandatory. The view of the Madras High Court in K. V. Krishna Iyer v. The Slate of Madras (1967) (2) Mad. L. J. . 422 is also much of the same. We think that the High Court was right in its conclusion that the requirement of the rule was mandatory. We quash the proceedings of the Collector (Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2nd appellant) under section 5-A (2) as also the decision of the Government on the basis of the report of the Collector under the sub-section. The result is that the notification under Section 6 has to be quashed and we do so. But we see no reason to quash the notification under Section 4. " ( 23 ) RULE 8 (5) of the Rules enjoins on the Registrar CM the authorised person (the Enquiry Officer) to communicate the findings of the Enquiry officer to the Society concerned. This can be done by supplying a copy of the enquiry report. S. 25 (2) (c) (iii) of the Act says that the Registrar should communicate the result of the Enquiry to the Society concerned. This can be done by supplying a copy of the enquiry report. S. 25 (2) (c) (iii) of the Act says that the Registrar should communicate the result of the Enquiry to the Society concerned. "the result of the enquiry" means not merely the findings of the Enquiry officer but also the further action taken by the Registrar on the result of that enquiry. This mean- if the Registrar takes a decision on the basis oi that enquiry report to inform the Government to take further action, the registrar Is bound to communicate that fact also to the Society. The intention underlying the incorporation of these provisions is to provide the society concerned with an opportunity to have its say in the matter before the Registrar, and, if they were to so choose, also before the Government, the ultimate authority that takes a final decision in the matter. Before the final decision was taken by the Government appointing the Administrator these mandatory provisions ought to have been complied with. The non- complrance of this requirement of law has substantially prejudiced the case of the petitioners. Therefore, in my opinion, the impugned order, Ex-E, deserves to be quashed. ( 24 ) HENCE, the petition is allowed, the rule issued is made absolute, and the impugned order of the Government (Exhibit-E) is hereby quashed. Consequently, the report of the Registrar, based on which the impugned order had been made, is also quashed. It is open to the Registrar to make a fresh report to the Government, but he can do so only after he communicates the result of the enquiry to, the petitioners. This means, not merely he should send a copy of the report of the Enquiry officer but a copy of his report based on that, if he decides to make one, to the Government. If the registrar makes any such report, it is open to the Government to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. Parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .