V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-Society represented by one Sri Raghavendra Naik claiming to be its Secretary has filed this Writ Petition seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notification no. SAMKANE 63 MOSO 97 Bangalore Dted 16. 1. 1998 vide annexure-K issued by the first responded and further sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere with the administration of the petitioner Association without due process of law by urging various facts and legal grounds. ( 2 ) THE necessary brief facts of this case to consider the case of the parties are as stated hereunder: the petitioner-Society is a Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Ad, 1960 read with the karnataka Societies Registration Rules, 1961. It has been running different educational institutions at differed places of Chitradurga district and Davangere District. Some of the educational institutions are aided and some educational institutions are unaided. However, all the educational institutions which are being run by the petitioner association are recognised by the Karnataka State Government. In addition to the educational institutions, it is also running a SC/st hostel at Honnur, Davangere Taluk and District. It is stated that eversince it came into existence from 1981, it has been functioning effectively and properly to achieve the objects, for which it has been established solely with a view to impart education to the students belonging to the rural area. ( 3 ) IT is contended that the executive Committee of the Society was elected on 14. 8. 1997 and the said committee submitted returns to the District Registrar of the Societies the second respondnet herein along with the audited accounts with prescribed fee as required under the rules. The acknowledgement tor having submitted such returns is produced at Annexure-A The list of executive committee members who were elected on 14. 3. 1997 is produced at annexure-B. ( 4 ) IT is alleged that the Ex-President i. e the 5th respondent herein started to interfere with the petitioner- association day to day affairs. Hence, the petitioner-association has filed Original Suit No. 344/1997 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Chitradurga for grant of permanent injunction restraining him from interfering with the association functioning. Hence, the petitioner-association has filed Original Suit No. 344/1997 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Chitradurga for grant of permanent injunction restraining him from interfering with the association functioning. Despite temporary injunction order granted against the fifth respondent, which is operating against him, the first respondent has called for report from the second respondent and he submitted the interim report. It is further alleged that the copy of the report was not given to the petitioner Association. But it is stated that the same was addressed to the Ex-President who was not the president of the Association at that relevant period, as he was not elected as the President of the Association. The petitioner submitted representation to the first respondent and the Minister for Revenue department and the second respondent requesting them not to take action on the sard interim report as no enquiry was conducted by affording opportunity to it by giving notice. It is the further grievance of the petitioner Association that despite submitting number of representation on 7. 12. 1997, 9. 12. 1997, 8. 1. 1998 and 10. 1. 1998, the first respondent has issued a notification dated 16. 1. 1998 appointing the 4th respondent as its Administrator to the association vide annexure-K, which is impugned in this Writ Petition. ( 5 ) THE ground of attack of the impugned order is that the first respondent has passed the order on the basis of the interim report submitted by the second respondent, a copy of which was not furnished to the petitioner - Association and the same was not proceeded with an enquiry as required under Section 25 of the Act referred to above. Therefore, the order passed by the first respondent is a nullity in the eye of law. Therefore, the order passed by the first respondent is a nullity in the eye of law. Further it is urged that the report of the second respondent on the basis of the complaint submitted by the 5th respondent that the first respondent should not have accepted for the reason that the report sought for by the respondent from the second respondent is based on the invalid complaint submitted by the fifth respondent and further the second respondent can submit his report after conducting an enquiry as contemplated under Section 25 of the Act on a valid complaint required to be submitted under the above said provision or initiating the proceedings by him suo-moto, admittedly, the proceedings, were not initiated by the second respondent suo-moto, but at the instance of the fifth respondent on his complaint. Therefore, the second respondent should not have submitted his report as the mandatory requirement under Section 25 of the Act has not been complied with. The report submitted by the second respondent is not in conformity w'th Section 25. Therefore, the first respondent should not have accepted the said report and passed the order at Annexure-K in exorcise of its power under section 27-A of the Act. ( 6 ) THE further ground of attack of the impugned order is that the second respondent at the time of submitting his report, has failed to take into consideration of the newly elected committee as per the rules and the Bye-laws of the Association on 14. 8. 1997 and required audit report along with list of executive Committee members was submitted to the second respondent which was acknowledged by him and accepted by him. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the report submitted by him to the second respondent is erroneous in law and further the findings recorded in the interim report submitted by the second respondent is not based on the material evidence placed either by the 5th respondent or by the executive Committee members or by the members of the Association as contemplated under Section 25 of the Act therefore the report should not have been accepted by the first respondent, and passed the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from error in law, which is liable to be quashed. ( 7 ) IN the impleading application filed by the 5th respondent I. A. No. 1. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from error in law, which is liable to be quashed. ( 7 ) IN the impleading application filed by the 5th respondent I. A. No. 1. , this respondent has denied various petition averments and produced number of documents in support of this case and also in support of the impugned order passed by the first respondent. In the said application it is stated that Mr, Raghavendra Naik, the secretary of the Association has misused several lakhs of rupees and he has registered the property of the Association in his personal name and converted the Association into his own property and he has been harassing the staff members of the Association by exploiting them, from making unlawful gains for himself. Therefore, this respondent came to know about the illegal activities of the Secretary, to check his illegal actions, he called for audited accounts. It is further stated that there was no notice of general body meeting alleged to have been convened and meeting was held on August, 1997. As no notice was served upon the members of the association including this respondent and further stated that there was no governing council or executive committee meeting resolving to convene the general body on 14. 8. 1997 and conduct election to the governing Council members. The Secretary M. Raghavendra Naik came to know that he would be prosecuted for his alleged criminal acts referred to above and to get rid of the fifth respondent, he has fabricated certain documents in collusion with the second respondent who was in the office, and got the endorsement to the documents to show that the new governing council was got elected on 14. 8. 1997 Therefore, he had approached the second respondent and conducted an enquiry after affording opportunity to the Secretary and he has submitted a report to the Government with a recommendation to appoint an administrator to the Association. It is further stated that Mr. Raghavendra Naik was aware of the proceedings Before the second respondent. The show cause notice vide Annexure-H was accepted by him. After the impugned order Annexure-K was passed, appointing the fourth respondent as the Administrator and assuming charge vide Annexure R-13a, the present petition is filed. Therefore, the petition has become infructuous and not maintainable in law. The same is liable to be rejected. The show cause notice vide Annexure-H was accepted by him. After the impugned order Annexure-K was passed, appointing the fourth respondent as the Administrator and assuming charge vide Annexure R-13a, the present petition is filed. Therefore, the petition has become infructuous and not maintainable in law. The same is liable to be rejected. In support of the justification of the order of paragraph 11 of the application, this respondent has further contended that number of affidavits of the member. " and the executive committee members of the association are produced to show that there was no general body meeting and the election was held on 14. 8. 1997 vide R1 to R12 and further he has contended that the executive Committee members who are elected in the year 1994 have been continuing in the office even today. The list of members is given at Annexure-R13 to R23, This respondent was the President of the said association from the day it was established till the impugned order is passed. Therefore, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent Sri V. Narayana Swamy submits that the order is perfectly legal and valid and it need not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinaty discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 8 ) THIS Court on 22. 1. 1998 while issuing notices ordered to the respondents directing them to file objections within two weeks. Further directed to list the matter on 9. 2. 1998, for consideration of the interim prayer. On 9. 2. 1998, the application filed by the fifth respondent to bring the impleading applicant on record as respondent was allowed. This Court while passing the order on I. A. No. 1 has observed that no reason to intervene with the petition at this stage and not granted the stay order staying the opeeratin of the impugned order. In the opinion of this Court, the basic Course available to the government was to appoint the administrator Therefore, the interim prayer of staying the impugned order was rejected again on' 27. 3. 1998 and further this Court stayed the operation of Annexure- m till the end of March, 1999 vide its order dated 8. 3. 1999 which came to be extended till the end of May 1999. On 11. 5. 3. 1998 and further this Court stayed the operation of Annexure- m till the end of March, 1999 vide its order dated 8. 3. 1999 which came to be extended till the end of May 1999. On 11. 5. 1999 this court has passed an order stating that she election to the Association if any pursuant to Annexure-P is subject to the result of this petition. This Court again on 27. 5. 1999 passeo order on the memo filed by the learned Counsel for fifth respondent seeking for dismissal of the Writ Petition on the ground it has become infructuous that the memo would be considered at the time on hearing the main petition. The main petition was heard at length. This Court, vide its order dated 16. 6. 1999 directed the Government Pleader to secure the records from the first and second respondents. The records are made available before this Court at the time of nearing. 8. The learned Additional Government Advocate Sri S. N. Aswathanarayan sought to justify the order passed by the first respondent contending that the first respondent submitted the report on the basis of the complaint received from the 5th respondent. Sufficient opportunity was given to the Secretary of the association, but the association has not availed the an e on the basis of the report. Having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case upon which the findings have been recorded try the second respondent, wherein he has recommended for super the committee of the petitioner-association and to appoint an administrator to administer and manage the affairs of the petitioner Society, in the larger interest of the students who are studying in the ,various institutions which are being run by it. Therefore, the learned Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 submits that the order need not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. ( 9 ) HAVING heard the learned Counse lenght on behalf of the parties, the following points that would for consideration of this court: points 1) Whether the complaint dated 14. 11. ( 9 ) HAVING heard the learned Counse lenght on behalf of the parties, the following points that would for consideration of this court: points 1) Whether the complaint dated 14. 11. 1997 submitted by the fifth respondent along with him five members claiming to be the Executive Committee members to the petitioner's association is valid one as required under Section 25 of the act for the purpose of conducting an enquiry by the second respondent District Registrar of Societies with regard to the constitution, working and financial condition of the society to enable him to submit a report to the first respondent to exercise its power under Section 27a (1) Clause (C) of the kamataka Societies Registration Act, 1960? 2) Whether the report submitted to the first respondent by the second respondent in pursuant to the directions given by the first and third respondent was preceeded by an enquiry as contemplated under Section 25 of me Act and in compliance of principles of natural justice, 3) Whether the impugned order passed by the first respondent ,is in conformity with Section 27a (1) Clause (C) of the Act and in compliance with the principles of natural justice? ( 10 ) AFTER hearing the rival contentions of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and to answer the points formulated by this Court for its "consideration. I have perused the petition averments, documents in support of the case and the application filed by the fifth respondent for impleadment and the impugned order at Annexure-K and the records produced by the first and 2nd Respondents, I answer the points 1 and 2 against the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 by giving the following reasons. The First Respondent after receipt of the complaint from the fifth respondent and other five persons claiming to be the Executive committee members of the petitioner's Association. The third respondent has called for report from the 2nd Respondent vide letter dated 17. 11. 1997 with regard to the affairs of the petitioner association and the allegations made therein against the raghavendra Nayak and others. Copy of the latter was also addressed to the President of the Association calling upon him to state his case with reference to the complaint referred to above to find out whether the first Respondent can exercise its power under section 27a (1) (C) of the Act which reads thus:". . Copy of the latter was also addressed to the President of the Association calling upon him to state his case with reference to the complaint referred to above to find out whether the first Respondent can exercise its power under section 27a (1) (C) of the Act which reads thus:". . . . 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 Administrator for such society for such period not exceeding six months, as may be specified in the order, to manage the affairs of the society; provided that for the reasons to be recorded in writing, the State government 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 shall not extend beyond (four years);"by reading the above said provision of the Act, it makes it very clear that the first Respondent can exercise its power on a report made by the Registrar of Societies or otherwise on enquiry, the State government considers fit as necessary in the public interest and may appoint the Administrator to the Society to look after the affairs and management of the same not withstanding anything contained in the Act. By writing the said letter to the 2nd Respondent by the 3rd Respondent calling upon him to submit report on the complaint of the 5th Respondent referred to above, in pursuant to the said letter referred to above to submit report by the 2nd Respondent, he was required to conduct an enquiry by following the procedure as contemplated under Section 25 of the Act read with Rule 8 of the rules and thereafter the first Respondent could have exercised its power under Section 27a (1) and (c) of the Act to pass an order of superceding the Executive Committee of the Association and appointing the 4th Respondent as its Administrator to look after the management and the affairs of the Society. The power under Section 27a (1) and (c) of the Act can be exercised either by calling for the report from the 2nd Respondent or the phrase used "otherwise" in the Clause (C) of the above said section referable to conduct an enquiry by the first Respondent itself on the complaint received by it against the Society registered under the provisions of the Act. In the instant case, on the basis of the complaint submitted by the 5th respondent the report was called for from the 2nd Respondent is evident from the records produced by the respondents. In the background of the facts stated above, this Court has to examine as to whether the report could have been submitted the by the second respondent as directed by the 3rd respondent without following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act and Rules in compliance with the principles of natural justice. This aspect of the case has been considered by this Court with reference to Rule 8 of the Rules which provides for holding of an enquiry by the registrar when he proposes to hold an enquiry under Section 25 of the Act, either by suo-moto or on receipt of the complaint that would be submitted either by the required number of members of the governing council or the members of the Society. On receipt of such complaint he shall issue a notice to the society and its members in that regard to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegation made against them with regard to the management, administration of the society. In this case, it is an undisputed fact that no notice was issued to the petitioner Association and its Executive Committee members and no enquiry was conducted by the second respondent on the complaint of the 5th Respondent referred to above. In the instant case, the report was not submitted by the 2nd Respondent on initiating suo-moto proceedings by him against the petitioner association and the Executive Committee. But he had submitted his report to the first Respondent on the complaint of the 5th respondent as directed by the 3rd Respondent. The report of the registrar is as referred to under Section 27a (1) (c) of the Act, could be submitted after conducting the enquiry as contemplated under section 25 of the Act and the Rule referred to above. The report of the registrar is as referred to under Section 27a (1) (c) of the Act, could be submitted after conducting the enquiry as contemplated under section 25 of the Act and the Rule referred to above. This conclusion has to be arrived at by this Court having regard to the nature of power conferred upon the first Respondent under Section 27a (1) (c) of the Act as it entails serious civil consequences upon the association Executive Committee members in superceding the committee of the Society and appointing an Administrator in its place for its Administration and management. The phrase otherwise after the word report occurred under the Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 27a of the Act shall be referrable to the procedure required to be followed by the first Respondent on the complaint that would be received by it and satisfied itself with regard to allegation made against the Executive Committee members of the Society. After affording opportunity to all the concerned including the committee members of the Society. Therefore by interpreting the said clause, phrase referred to the report from the Registrar means to state that he has to submit report after following the procedure contemplated under Section 25 of the Act. In the instant case, the question of considering the phrase "otherwise" occurred under clause (c) of the aforesaid section need not be referred to and consider in this case as the third Respondent has directed the 2nd Respondent to submit his report. Since the 3rd Respondent directed the 2nd Respondent to submit a report on the complaint referred to above, he has to submit his report only after following the procedure as required under section 25 of the Act. In this regard, this Court has to examine as to whether the 2nd respondent has examined the complaint in conforrgity with the provisions of the said section that is to state whether the required number of governing council members or members of the petitioner's Association have signed the complaint. As he has not initiated the proceedings suo-moto, in view of the undisputed facts referred to in this order, the complaint submitted by the 5th Respondent is not in conformity with the mandatory provisions of Section 25. Therefore, this Court has to record a finding that the complaint submitted by the 5th Respondent is not a valid complaint. As he has not initiated the proceedings suo-moto, in view of the undisputed facts referred to in this order, the complaint submitted by the 5th Respondent is not in conformity with the mandatory provisions of Section 25. Therefore, this Court has to record a finding that the complaint submitted by the 5th Respondent is not a valid complaint. In this view of the matter, the first point has to be answered against the contesting respondents referred to above. ( 11 ) THE second point is also answered against the contesting respondent for the following reasons: the 2nd Respondent has got a statutory duty before submitting his report as directed by the 3rd Respondent as the report that was submitted by him to the first respondent had entailed serious civil consequences upon the society and the statutory rights of its executive committee members. In this background this Court has examined the legal contentions of the petitioner society to find out as to whether the second respondent has followed the procedure as required in law referred to above before he had submitted the report to the first respondent. The second respondent, without examining the legality and validity of the complaint submitted his report to the first Respondent on the complaint submitted by the 5th respondent and without further giving an opportunity to the association and its Executive Committee members to state their case with reference to the allegations made in the complaint. Undisputedly, the enquiry as contemplated under Section 25 read with Rule 8 of the Rules is not conducted is established from the records produced by the 2nd Respondent. Therefore, the second point must be answered against the contesting respondents and in favour of the petitioner Association, as its contention is that the 2nd Respondent has not followed the mandatory procedure provided under the provisions of the Act and the Rules and in compliance with the principles of natural justice is well founded and the same should be accepted by this Court for the reason that the contentions urged by the petitioner are considered with reference to the records produced by the 2nd Respondent wherein there is nothing on record to show that he has submitted his report after affording opportunity to the petitioner and its Executive Committee members. Therefore, the submission made on behalf of the contesting respondents 1 to 3, and 5 is devoid of merit and the same cannot be accepted. Hence, the submission in that regard is rejected and the said point is answered against them. ( 12 ) IN view of the findings recorded by this Court on the points 1 and 2 against the contesting respondents and in favour of the association, this Court has to record a finding whether the impugned order passed by the first Respondent is in conformity with Section 27a (1) (c) of the Act. As already stated supra, the report submitted by the 2nd Respondent on the complaint of the 5th Respondent is not legal and valid as he has not followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act. The first Respondent before exercise of his power under Section 27a (1) (c) independently, he has not applied his mind, but he had simply accepted the report of the 2nd respondent, without examining as to whether the said report was submitted by the 2nd Respondent after following the mandatory procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act and the Rules referred to above. Undisputedly, from the records produced by the respondents 1 and 2, it is noticed that no notices were issued to the petitioner Association and Executive Committee members and he has submitted the report against them without giving an opportunity to them are not only violation of the provisions of the act and Rules and principles of natural justice thereby the report submitted by the 2nd Respondent behind the back of the Association and its Executive Committee members entail serious civil consequences, as the statutory rights of the Executive Committee members to continue them in office and exercise their powers without following the procedure in law. Therefore, this Court has to answer the said point in favour of the petitioner Association against the first respondent holding that exercise of power under Section 27a (1) (c) is bad in taw suffers from legal malafide as it has accepted the report of the 2nd Respondent, which was not proceeded by an enquiry. Therefore, the exercise of power by the first Respondent without discharging its statutory duty, as the said action entails serious civil consequences upon the rights of the petitioner's Association and Executive Committee members. Therefore, the exercise of power by the first Respondent without discharging its statutory duty, as the said action entails serious civil consequences upon the rights of the petitioner's Association and Executive Committee members. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the first Respondent at Annexure-K is not legal and valid as the same suffers from serious error in law. ( 13 ) THEREFORE, the impugned order at Annexure-K is not legal and valid and in pursuant to the said order without superceding the executive Committee of the Association the first respondent appointed the 4th Respondent as an Administrator to the petitioner association is also not legal and valid and the subsequent orders passed by the first Respondent extending the period of appointment of the 4th Respondent Administrator to manage, and to look after the affairs of the society is also bad in law, hence the same is also liable to be quashed. ( 14 ) FURTHER, the subsequent events which have taken place inpursuant to the impugned order at Annexure-K, L and M and conduct of the elections to the executive committee members of the petitioner society in pursuant to the calendar of events at Annexure-N is subject to. the interim order of this Court dated 11. 5. 1999 is also not legal and valid since the petitioner Association has to succeed in this writ Petition. For the reasons stated supra and the election which was conducted by the 4th Respondent to the Executive Committee members is also liable to be quashed. ( 15 ) FURTHER, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties that though the election was conducted by the 4th Respondent to elect the Executive committee members of the Association results were declared and elected members have not taken charge of the office of the association and the 4th Respondent has been continued as an administrator. In this view of the matter, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and the election conducted in pursuant to the impugned order at Annexure-N is also liable to be quashed and this Court while granting the interim order dated 11. 5. In this view of the matter, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and the election conducted in pursuant to the impugned order at Annexure-N is also liable to be quashed and this Court while granting the interim order dated 11. 5. 1999 stated that election which was held by the 4th Respondent pursuant to the impugned notification at Anneuxre-N is subject to the result of this petition and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed for the reasons stated supra. The appropriate directions are issued to the petitioner-Association and to the 2nd Respondent in the operative portion of the order. ( 16 ) THE submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties with reference to various case laws cited by them have not been referred to in this order for the reason that this court has passed this order on the basis of the facts and the records of the respondent 1 and 2. In this view of the matter, reliance placed on the authorities by the learned Counsel have no relevance to the facts of this case. Hence, the same are not referred to in this order. ( 17 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of this case instead of making the parties to further litigate the matter it would be proper and appropriate for this Court to direct the existing committee members of the Association who were managing and administering and Managing the affairs of the Association prior to 14. 8. 1997, shall continue in office and further the said committee is directed to maintain that the position as was prevailing prior to 14. 8. 1997 and the said committee is further directed to conduct elections to the Executive Committee membership of the Association, after intimating the same to the 2nd Respondent Registrar and obtain necessary instructions in that regard in accordance with law. On submitting the petition by the Executive Committee of the petitioner's to the 2nd Respondent informing him to conduct election to the executive Committee, the same shall be considered and appropriate instructions may be given by him in that regard. This is only to ensure the committee to conduct free and fair election to elect the Executive committee members of the Association. This is only to ensure the committee to conduct free and fair election to elect the Executive committee members of the Association. For the reasons stated supra, i pass the following Order: the Writ Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. The impugned orders at Annexure-K, L and M are hereby quashed. It is further made it very clear that the appointment of the 4th Respondent is held to be bad in law and further he has directed to handover charge to the Existing Committee which was in office prior to 14. 8. 1997 and further the petitioner's Association committee is directed to conduct elections as observed in this case by issuing a calendar of events after intimating the same to the 2nd Respondent Registrar in accordance with law, bye-laws and Rules to elect new Executive committee members as expediously as possible and to manage the affairs of the society and it is also further directed the petitioner's association shall conduct the affairs of the Society strictly in accordance with law, bye-laws by maintaining necessary accounts and safeguarding the properties of the Association. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, no costs are awarded. --- *** --- .