ORDER : 1. Mr. V.B. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. H.C. Kavita, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. V.R. Harish, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 13. Mr. N.G. Padke learned counsel for impleading applicant on I.A.2/18. 2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally. 3. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners inter alia seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to move a No Confidence motion amongst the elected representatives of respondent No.3 and to call upon the present office bearers in case No Confidence motion is unsuccessfully conducted and to induct the newly constituted members. 4. Facts leading to filing of this petition briefly stated are that on 14.03.1927, Karnataka Padmashali Sangha (hereinafter referred to as the Society for Short) was registered as a Society. It is the case of the petitioners that on 13.11.2016, the elections of the Society were held, in which petitioners were elected as members of the general body. The term of office bearers of the Society is three years. It is averred in the writ petition that on 30.03.2017, the Directors of the Society submitted a communication to the President regarding convening of general body meeting for consideration of No Confidence motion. Thereafter, on 09.01.2017, the Directors of the Society submitted a representation to the Deputy Registrar for convening the general body meeting for consideration of No Confidence motion. However, the Deputy Registrar has failed to exercise the statutory powers. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this court seeking the reliefs as stated supra. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under Section 25(2)(c)(i) of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, the Deputy Registrar has failed to exercise its statutory duty and therefore, the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to Deputy Registrar to convene the meeting of the general body to consider the No Confidence motion against the office bearers of the Society. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that neither in the byelaws of the Society nor under the Rules there is any provision for convening a meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that neither in the byelaws of the Society nor under the Rules there is any provision for convening a meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence. However, it is submitted that in case this Court directs, a meeting shall be held for consideration of motion of No Confidence. Learned counsel for private respondent submitted that in fact, the elections have been held on 16.11.2016, in which the petitioners have also been elected as members of the general body. However, the petitioners have lost the election of the members and office bearers of the managing committee. It is also submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to hold the elections as the tenure of the Society will expire on November, 2019. 6. At this stage, Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in fact, the grievance of the petitioners is that they are the duly elected office bearers of the Managing Committee and are not being allowed to assume the charge. The aforesaid fact can be established in a meeting of the general body of the Society. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Sri. H.K. Siddegowda And another VS. District Registrar and Registrar for District Societies, Mysore and Others’, 2006 (2) KCCR 1120 (DB.) 7. I have considered the submissions made on both the sides. The question whether or not the petitioners are duly elected members and office bearers of the Managing Committee or whether the private respondents are the duly elected members and office bearers of the Managing Committee cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition. Similarly, the question whether or not in the elections, which are allegedly held on 16.11.2016, the petitioners have lost the elections for the post of office bearers of the Managing Committee cannot be gone into in this writ petition. 8. Before proceeding further it is apposite to take note of Section 25(2)(c)(i) of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, which reads as under: “25. Enquiry by the Registrar, etc. 8. Before proceeding further it is apposite to take note of Section 25(2)(c)(i) of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, which reads as under: “25. Enquiry by the Registrar, etc. – (1) The Registrar may on his 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 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) xxxxxx (b) xxxxxx (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 the governing body of the society refuses or fails to call a meeting, he shall have power to all it himself.” Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that the Registrar or any person authorized by him shall have power to require the Society to call the general body meeting of the Society and in case, the Society fails to convene the general body meeting of the Society himself and to determine such matters as may be directed by him, then the aforesaid provision confers the power on the Registrar or any person authorized by him to convene the general body meeting of the Society and determine such matters as directed by him. Thus, the aforesaid provision undoubtedly confers a power on the Registrar or any person authorized by him to convene the meeting of general body of the Society to consider the motion of No Confidence. 9. Thus, the aforesaid provision undoubtedly confers a power on the Registrar or any person authorized by him to convene the meeting of general body of the Society to consider the motion of No Confidence. 9. In the fact situation of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction that the registrar or any person authorized by him shall required the society to convene the meeting of general body of the Society within three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today. Needless to state that in case the Society fails to convene the meeting, the Registrar or any person authorized by him shall convene the general body meeting of the Society and shall direct consideration of the issues with regard to motion of No Confidence. Let the exercise be carried out within a period of eight weeks from today.