ORDER : 1. The petitioner – Mr. Shivakumar Swamy Kurki and 15 other members claiming to be the Life Members of the Respondent-Karnataka Sahithya Parishat, Bangalore, have filed these writ petitions in this Court on 12.03.2018 challenging the Notice Annexure-A dated ‘Nil’, convening the meeting of the members of the Respondent-Parishat on 15.03.2018 at 11 AM i.e., today for considering the proposed amendment to the Rules and Bye-laws of Advisory committee and Executive Committee, along with the Draft of proposal to Bye-laws amendment. 2. On an urgent mentioning by the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Revanna Bellary, the matter was taken up put of turn today as the first case. The learned counsel submitted that the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, (for short ‘the Act’) governs the said Parishat and he submitted that the Meeting for amendment of Bye-laws and Memorandum governing the Respondent-Parishat, which is created for the welfare of the Literary persons and to develop the Literary activities of the said Respondent-Parishat and which is about 100 years old, cannot be amended without serving the mandatory Notice of 21 days on all the Members of the Parishat, who are said to be 3.50 lakhs in number. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is mandatory for the Respondent-Parishat to serve a written or printed notice on every member of the Parishat of at least 21 clear days notice for such Special General Body Meeting and the Resolution proposing the amendment has to be passed by three times of the votes cast against the said Resolution as per Section 10(1) of the Act. Once such Resolution is passed, the said amendment has to be submitted with the Registrar of Societies as per Section 10(2) of the Act and if the Registrar is satisfied that the amendment made under sub-section (1) is in accordance with the provisions and rules made there under, he shall register the same and such amendment shall have effect from the date of Resolution under sub-section (1). 4. Section 10 of the Act is quoted below for ready reference : “10. 4. Section 10 of the Act is quoted below for ready reference : “10. Change of name, rules and regulations.-(1) The name and the rules and regulations of a society my be amended by a resolution passed at a special general meeting convened for the purpose of which written or printed notice shall have been delivered or sent by the post to every member of the society twenty-one days previous to the date of the special general meeting and the resolution proposing the amendment is passed by the votes cast in favor of the resolution by members who being entitles so to do, vote in person or where proxies are allowed, by proxy, and such votes are not less than three times the number of the votes, if any, cast against the resolution by members so entitled and voting. (2) Every amendment made under sub-section (1) shall, within thirty days be filed with the Registrar. If the Registrar is satisfied that the amendment made under sub-section (1) is in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under, he shall register it. Such amendment shall have effect from the date of resolution passed under sub-section (1) : Provided that the Registrar if satisfied that there are sufficient cause for not filing the resolution within the said period, he may condone the delay in writing for a period not exceeding one year.) (3) If the Registrar refuses to register the amendment under sub-section (2) an appeal shall lie to the (Karnataka Appellate Tribunal) within sixty days from the date of communication of his refusal to register the amendment. (xxxx.) 5. In para 11 of the writ petition, the petitioners have stated before the Court that the Special General Body Meeting notice have not been served on all the members and life members and other committee members in person, as required under Section 10 of the Act. 6. The allegation against the present President and Directors of the Respondent-Parishat as made in para 12 of the writ petitions are that they are trying to get the approval of the proposed amendment to the Bye-laws in the said Meeting, which is being convened incurring a huge expenditure of Rs.19 lakhs for the said Special General Meeting. 7. 6. The allegation against the present President and Directors of the Respondent-Parishat as made in para 12 of the writ petitions are that they are trying to get the approval of the proposed amendment to the Bye-laws in the said Meeting, which is being convened incurring a huge expenditure of Rs.19 lakhs for the said Special General Meeting. 7. In para 9 of the writ petitions, the petitioners have stated that the President and Director of the Respondent-Parishat got published the Special General Body Meeting Notice in ‘Kannada Nudi’, tri-monthly magazine between November 2017 to January, 2018 arbitrarily and illegally. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted before the Court that there are about 3.50 lakhs members of the Respondent-Parishat and unless the written or printed notice is served upon all the members, no such meeting can be convened by the Respondent-Parishat and since it is being so convened in violation of Section 10 of the Act, the present writ petitions have been filed seeking interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Dhirendra Kumar & Anr. Vs. Registrar of Societies & Ors. decided on 28.11.1978 since reported in 1979 ILR Karnataka Series Page 1445 to support his contention that the giving of 21 days notice to the members is a mandatory requirement. 9. Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, deals with the powers of the Registrar of Societies under the said Act. The said provisions are also quoted below for ready reference :- “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 government body or of not less than one-third of the members o the society hold an enquiry or direct some person authorized 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 authorized by him under sub-section (1) shall have the following powers, namely :- (a) he shall, at all reasonable times, have free access to the book 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 for the custody of any such 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 or any branch thereof 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 any branch thereof and to determine such matters as may be directed by him. If the governing body of the society refused or fail to call a meeting, he shall have power to call it himself; (ii) any meeting called under sub-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. 10. Apparently, the Registrar of Societies is therefore the authority to regulate the working and administration of all the Societies registered under the provisions of the said Act, 1960. He can inter-alia also look into the affairs of the Respondent-Society regarding the convening of meetings etc., including the Special General Body Meeting as provided u/S.25(2)(c) of the Act. The powers conferred upon the Registrar of the Societies u/S.25 of the Act are wide and plenary in nature and therefore, the grievance raised in the present writ petition before this Court could very well have been raised by the petitioners before the concerned Registrar of Societies in terms of Section 25 of the Act. 11. The powers conferred upon the Registrar of the Societies u/S.25 of the Act are wide and plenary in nature and therefore, the grievance raised in the present writ petition before this Court could very well have been raised by the petitioners before the concerned Registrar of Societies in terms of Section 25 of the Act. 11. From the facts narrated in the writ petitions and the documents placed on record, it does not appear that the petitioners have approached the Registrar of Societies at all in this matter before laying challenge to the convening of the said meeting before this Court straightaway. The averments made in the writ petition are vague and bald. 12. The 16 petitioners approaching this Court by way of present writ petitions cannot swear Affidavit on behalf of all the members as stated in para 11 of the writ petitions that all the members and life members of the Respondent-Parishat have not been served. No such knowledge of service of notice on 3.5 lakhs of members of the Respondent-Parishat can be claimed by the 16 petitioners approaching this Court and therefore, the very basis of approaching this Court about the meeting being held illegally without serving the notice on all the members of the Parishat or not, which is undoubtedly a question of facts, such vague averments cannot be relied upon by this Court. 13. Moreover, whether the service of such notice on the individual members of the Respondent-Parishat, particularly when they are in such large numbers and whether such a requirement can be held to be mandatory or not, is also a question to be considered by the concerned authority in the first instance. The very fact that the petitioners placed on record, a copy of that printed notice as Annexure-A without bearing any specific date published in ‘Kannada Nudi’, a quarterly Journal published by the Respondent-Parishat at least indicates that the petitioners are aware of such meeting to be held on 15.03.2018. Nothing prevented the petitioners from participating in the said meeting and having their say in the said meeting itself. 14. Nothing prevented the petitioners from participating in the said meeting and having their say in the said meeting itself. 14. Be that as it may, this Court cannot hold a fishing enquiry in such matters and without establishing the facts as stated in the writ petitions, which necessarily have the negative stipulations, with the relevant evidence that no such notice has been served on all the members, this Court cannot proceed to declare such meeting illegal at the instance of few of the members of the Respondent-Parishat. 15. In any case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners had adequate and efficacious alternative remedy in the matter by approaching the concerned Registrar of Societies for raising their grievance, as has been raised by them before this Court. 16. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present writ petitions. The same are accordingly disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to approach the Registrar of Societies. No costs.