Judgment 1. The petitioner Nos.2 to 10 claim to be the office bearers of society called Dattaprasad Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') which according to them has the nomenclature 'Tenant Co-partnership Society' which is registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and has been carrying on business in accordance with its byelaws and the provisions of the Act. 2. The petitioners are questioning the validity of the show cause notice issued by the first respondent on 29.2.2012 on the ground that the said notice could not have been issued, inasmuch as the charges levelled against the petitioners have been resolved in a proceedings initiated under Sections 64 and 68 of the Act. The said notice is issued under Section 30(1) of the Act proposing to supersede the present Committee of the first petitioner- Society and to appoint an Administrator. 3. The factual background of the proceedings can be summarised as follows: 4. The first petitioner-Society is the absolute owner and in lawful possession of 9 multi tenement buildings consisting of totally 66 residential flats equaling to the members of the Society. The second respondent is one such member of the first petitioner-Society. Suffice to note that Section 64 proceedings have been initiated as against the members of the society. The grievances of the petitioners then was that they were not permitted to engage the services of a counsel and the Enquiry Officer was biased, etc. The petitioners were before this Court in W.P.No.11963/2007 and W.P.No.7286/2007 with a request to direct the first respondent therein to permit the members of the Society to engage an advocate in the enquiry initiated under Section 64 of the Act and also contended that the Enquiry Officer was biased. This Court disposed of the said writ petitions with the certain directions. 5. It is not in dispute that enquiry under Section 64 of the Act is concluded and certain charges levelled against the office bearers of the Society are proved. Consequenlty, proceedings were initiated under Section 68 of the Act which culminated in Annexure-E, directing the Society to comply with the directions issued in the report under Section 64 and also to rectify the defects. 6. Consequenlty, proceedings were initiated under Section 68 of the Act which culminated in Annexure-E, directing the Society to comply with the directions issued in the report under Section 64 and also to rectify the defects. 6. It is no doubt true that a contention is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the compliance report has already been filed. Incidentally, it is also to be noticed that the Society appears to be perpetually facing an enquiry under Section 64 of the Act and so also under Section 68 of the Act. Nevertheless, in the present enquiry, we are concerned with Annexure-E dated 20.11.2010. According to the petitioners, since the compliance report having been already filed, the question of issuing another notice under Section 30(1) of the Act so as to appoint an Administrator does not arise. 7. The notice of this proceedings was issued to all concerned and the State has filed statement of objections inter-alia contending that at every stage, the Society is stalling the proceedings initiated either under Section 64 of the Act or under Section 68 of the Act. Another contention raised by the State is that what has been issued is only a show cause notice and the petitioners are required to answer the said show cause notice and the charges levelled against them. The statement of objections would further disclose the degree of mendacity with which the petitioners are pursuing this proceedings. 8. Insofar as respondent No.2 is concerned, according to him, he is not at all a necessary party, inasmuch as no relief is sought as against him. 9. I have heard Mr. Chaitanya Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in support of the writ petition, as well as Mr. Ariga, learned Addl. Government Advocate, in support of the statement of objections and Mr. Prashanth Chandra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 10. Mr. Chaitanya Hegde learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently submits that notwithstanding the fact that it is a show cause notice, the said show cause notice is issued after a pre-meditation inasmuch as the same allegations or the same charges, which were levelled against the petitioners in the earlier proceedings under Section 64 of the Act have been reiterated. In the circumstances, the writ petition is maintainable questioning the issuance of a show cause notice. In the circumstances, the writ petition is maintainable questioning the issuance of a show cause notice. He was at great pains to persuade this Court to hold that the entire initiation of proceedings under Section 30(1) of the Act is accentuated by malafides. 11. Mr. K.A. Ariga, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 submits that at every point of time, the petitioners are the stumbling block for initiation of proceedings. He submits that this Court permitted the petitioners to participate in the proceedings under Section 64 of the Act. Notwithstanding several adjournments being granted and giving opportunities and notices being issued the petitioners did not choose to participate in the proceedings. Hence, enquiry report is filed under Section 64 of the Act. Thereafter, Section 68 proceedings were initiated and that also has not attained finality. He further submits that the very petitioner -Society itself was subject matter of another enquiry under Section 64 of the Act in the year 2000. Hence, he submits that unless it is pointed out by the petitioners that the show cause notice is one without jurisdiction or nonest at the inception, the question of quashing the show cause notice does not arise. 12. Mr. Prashanth Chandra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the petition should be dismissed as against him with exemplary cost because he has been made a party unnecessarily in the proceedings. 13. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 14. Apparently, it is not in dispute that the petitioner-Society was before this Court on an earlier occasion when proceedings were initiated under Section 64 of the Act. This Court had an occasion to deal with the contention urged by the petitioners with respect to the bias alleged against the enquiry officer as well as denying an opportunity to the petitioners to engage a Counsel. Indeed one of the request was granted and the petitioners were permitted to engage the services of the counsel. 15. Insofar as the bias alleged as against the Enquiry Officer is concerned, the enquiry officer was required to adjudicate the issue without being influenced by the allegations made or charges levelled against the petitioners. Indeed one of the request was granted and the petitioners were permitted to engage the services of the counsel. 15. Insofar as the bias alleged as against the Enquiry Officer is concerned, the enquiry officer was required to adjudicate the issue without being influenced by the allegations made or charges levelled against the petitioners. It is to be noticed that the said proceedings under Section 64 as well as Section 68 clearly discloses that the petitioners were required to rectify the defects which were pointed out in the enquiry report. It is no doubt true a contention is raised before me by filing a rejoinder to the statement of objections that the defects have been rectified as directed in the Order under Section 68 of the Act. I am of the view that, that is a matter, which can be dealt at a later point of time by the Competent Authority when the petitioners show cause to the notice. 16. Indeed one contention of Mr. Chaitanya Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the allegations which are levelled as against the petitioner - Society at Annexure `A' have already been complied and have been answered in the enquiry report. He submits that the charges at Charge 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have all been dealt in the earlier enquiry under Section 64 of the Act. Indeed he is right in saying so. But however, in respect of the other charges leveled against the petitioner i.e., charges No.1, 9, 10 and 11 are required to be answered by the petitioners. 17. It may prima facie indicate that some of the charges, which are levelled against the petitioners have been dealt earlier in an enquiry under Section 64 of the Act but nevertheless, whether there is a proper compliance or not as directed under Section 68 of the Act is a matter, which is required to be considered by the competent authority. This Court sitting under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be a fact finding authority. 18. Mr. Chaitanya Hegde, learned counsel, no doubt is right in submitting that if the show cause notice issued is one without jurisdiction and is nonest, certainly, this Court can step in under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and set-aside the show cause notice but however, that is not the case here. 18. Mr. Chaitanya Hegde, learned counsel, no doubt is right in submitting that if the show cause notice issued is one without jurisdiction and is nonest, certainly, this Court can step in under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and set-aside the show cause notice but however, that is not the case here. A show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the Administrator should not be appointed. Indeed Section 30(1) of the Act clearly indicates that whenever a Committee is sought to be superceded with respect to defaulters as mentioned therein, the Registrar is required to give an opportunity to the Committee to state in its objections, which would necessarily mean that it is required to be done after affording an opportunity to the petitioners, less there should be a violation of Principles of Natural Justice. In the case on hand, I am view that the question of treating the show cause notice at Annexure `A' as one without jurisdiction certainly does not arise. No provision is brought to my notice to substantiate the fact that the show-cause notice warrants interference on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 19. It also cannot be said that the notices issued is with pre-meditation as observed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Siemens Ltd. V/s. State of Maharashtra & others reported in 2006 AIR SCW 6380. I am of the view that the question of pre-meditation in the circumstances certainly does not arise having regard to the track record of the petitioner. It is not as if everything is fine with the Society inasmuch as the first of the enquiry under Section 64 of the Act, as records discloses is in the year 2000. The second enquiry under Section 64 of the Act was in the year 2008. Now the proceedings under Section 30(1) of the Act for appointing an Administrator. 20. The fact that the petitioners were before this Court umpteen number of times questioning the various orders and not being successful, I am of the view that petitioners cannot be heard to say that the show cause notice is issued after a premeditation. Now the proceedings under Section 30(1) of the Act for appointing an Administrator. 20. The fact that the petitioners were before this Court umpteen number of times questioning the various orders and not being successful, I am of the view that petitioners cannot be heard to say that the show cause notice is issued after a premeditation. Once it is held that the 1st respondent has power and jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice as contemplated under Section 30(1) of the Act, the question of interfering with the said show cause notice, in the circumstances does not arise. If any decision is required, one can refer to the Division Bench ruling of this Court in case of Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation Limited, Bangalore V/s. Y.N. Krishna Murthy reported in 2006(2) Kar.L.J. 143 . 21. Indeed the Division Bench, referring to a ruling of the Apex Court has observed thus: "The practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties is deprecated. Unless, the High Court is satisfied that the show-cause notice was totally non est in the eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show-cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show- cause notice was founded on any legal premises is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the Court. 22. Insofar as the decisions, which are pressed into service by Mr. Hegde are concerned, the decision in the case of A. Muniswamy Gowda & others V/s. Deputy Registrar of Co-op Societies, Bangalore Rural District & Others reported in 1987(3) Kar. L.J. 449 would essentially deal with violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and the legal malafides. 22. Insofar as the decisions, which are pressed into service by Mr. Hegde are concerned, the decision in the case of A. Muniswamy Gowda & others V/s. Deputy Registrar of Co-op Societies, Bangalore Rural District & Others reported in 1987(3) Kar. L.J. 449 would essentially deal with violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and the legal malafides. I am of the view that the said decision does not advance the case of the petitioner inasmuch as what fell for consideration was no doubt the show cause notice but however, during the pendency of the writ petition, the administrator was appointed and he took charge. In these circumstances, this Court was of the view that the order appointing an Administrator is in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. Hence, set-aside the order. But however, permitted the petitioner to file representation/show-cause notice. Insofar as the decision reported in case of M. Srinivasa Reddy and others V/s. Registrar of Co-operative Societies for Karnataka and others reported in ILR 2000 KAR 2841 is concerned, nowhere does the decision rule that a show cause notice can be interfered. 23. Having said so, I am of the view that the question of interfering with the said show cause notice does not arise. Whatever contentions which are sought to be raised or urged before me, are left to be urged before the Competent Authority, who certainly shall bestow his attention having regard to the serious antecedents of the parties to the lis. Petition stands rejected. 24. Mr. Ariga, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.