Karnataka High Court
Vidyagiri House Building Co-Operative ... vs The Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 12 November, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45772
WP No. 14468 of 2020
C/W WP No. 10995 of 2020
WP No. 14467 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 14468 OF 2020 (CS-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 10995 OF 2020 (CS-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 14467 OF 2020 (CS-RES)
IN WP No. 14468/2020
BETWEEN:
VIDYAGIRI HOUSE BUILDING CO OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LIMITED
NO. 291, G-005, GIRI BLOCK,
VIDYAGIRI RESIDENCY,
4TH MAIN ROAD, 7TH A CROSS,
VIDYAGIRI LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI 1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU 560072,
REP BY ITS CEO
SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR S.H.
Digitally signed
by SHWETHA ...PETITIONER
RAGHAVENDRA (BY SRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL SR. ADVOCATE FOR
Location: HIGH SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH .,ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
THE REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
IN KARNATAKA
NO. 1, ALIASKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU 560052
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK., AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45772
WP No. 14468 of 2020
C/W WP No. 10995 of 2020
WP No. 14467 of 2020
APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER/DIRECTION QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER / DIRECTION DATED 28.02.2020 BEARING NO.
HSG-3/70/HHS/2019-2020 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN
KARNATAKA AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 10995/2020
BETWEEN:
VIDYAGIRI HOUSE BUILDING CO OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LIMITED
NO. 291, G-005, GIRI BLOCK,
VIDYAGIRI RESIDENCY,
4TH MAIN ROAD, 7TH A CROSS,
VIDYAGIRI LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI 1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU 560072,
REP BY ITS CEO
SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR S.H.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH .,ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
IN KARNATAKA
NO. 1, ALIASKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU 560052
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK., AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER/DIRECTION
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER / DIRECTION DATED
27.02.2020 BEARING NO. HSG-3/70/HHS/2019-2020 AT
ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:45772
WP No. 14468 of 2020
C/W WP No. 10995 of 2020
WP No. 14467 of 2020
IN WP NO. 14467/2020
BETWEEN:
VIDYAGIRI HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LIMITED
NO.291 G-005, GIRI BLOCK,
VIDYAGIRI RESIDENCY, 4TH MAIN ROAD
7TH A CROSS, VIDYAGIRI LAYOUT
NAGARABHAVI 1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 072
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE
PRAVEEN KUMAR S H
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH .,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
IN KARNATAKA,
NO.1 ALIASKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(LEGAL CELL) OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR
OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA
NO. ALIASKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
3. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
1ST ZONE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
MALLESHWARAM, SAHAKARI BHAVANA
BENGALURU - 560 003.
4. SALE OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIEITES
4TH ZONE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
MALLESHWARAM, SAHAKARI BHAVAN
BENGALURU - 560 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK., AGA)
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:45772
WP No. 14468 of 2020
C/W WP No. 10995 of 2020
WP No. 14467 of 2020
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN
APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER/DIRECTION QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER / DIRECTION DATED 19.02.2020 BEARING
NO. HSG-3/70/HHS/2019-2020 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN
KARNATAKA AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners in W.P.No.14468/2020 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue an appropriate writ or order/direction
quashing the impugned order/direction dated
29.02.2020 bearing No.HSG/3/70/HHS/2019-20 at
Annexure-A passed by the Respondent Registrar of
Co-operative Societies in Karnataka and
b. Hold that the impugned order/direction dated
28.02.2020 bearing No.HSG-3/70/HHS/2019-20 at
Annexure-A passed by the Respondent Registrar of
Co-operative Societies in Karnataka is not valid
order/direction; and
c. Grant any other relief/s as deemed fit by this
Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the
case including awarding of the cost in the interest
of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner IN W.P.No.10995/2020 is before this Court
seeking for the following reliefs:
NC: 2024:KHC:45772
a. Issue an appropriate writ or order/direction
quashing the impugned order/direction dated
27.02.2020 bearing No.HSG/3/70/HHS/2019-20 at
Annexure-A passed by the Respondent Registrar of
Co-operative Societies in Karnataka and
b. Hold that the impugned order/direction dated
28.02.2020 bearing No.HSG-3/70/HHS/2019-20 at
Annexure-A passed by the Respondent Registrar of
Co-operative Societies in Karnataka is not valid
order/direction; and
c. Grant any other relief/s as deemed fit by this
Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the
case including awarding of the cost in the interest
of justice and equity.
3. The petitioners in W.P.No.14467/2020 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue an appropriate writ or order/direction
quashing the impugned order/direction dated
19.02.2020 bearing No.HSG/3/70/HHS/2019-20 at
Annexure-A passed by the Respondent Registrar of
Co-operative Societies in Karnataka and
b. Issue an appropriate writ or order quashing the
impugned receipts/endorsements dated
19.02.2020 & 20.02.2020 at Annexure-B & B1,
issued by the respondents 2 to 4; and
c. Hold that the impugned order/direction dated
19.02.2020 bearing No.HSG-3/70/HHS/2019-20
(Receipts/Endorsement) at Annexure-A, B, B1
passed by the Respondents Nos 2 to 4 are not valid
order/direction, receipts/endorsement; and
d. Direct the Respondents No. 2 to 4 to return the
books maintained by the petitioner society more
fully described in the Para No.12 of the petition.
e. Grant any other relief/s as deemed fit by this
Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the
NC: 2024:KHC:45772
case including awarding of the cost in the interest
of justice and equity.
4. The petitioner in each of the above matters is the
same, who is stated to be carry on the business of
House Building Co-operative Society for the benefit
of the members of the Society. The grievance of the
petitioner is that without any enquiry or proceedings
being pending against the petitioner, there are
interlocutory orders which have been passed by the
respondents which have been challenged in the
above petitions as under
4.1. in W.P. No.14468/20020 the Bank accounts
have been temporarily frozen;
4.2. In W.P. No.10995/2020 the petitioner has been
restrained from registering any of the sites
formed by the petitioner Society; and
4.3. In W.P. No.14467/2020, the books of accounts
of the petitioner have been seized.
NC: 2024:KHC:45772
5. The submission of Sri.M.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior
counsel is that, the powers to pass any interlocutory
orders in the nature of the above could be only in
terms of Subsection (3) of Section 71 where the
Registrar has been conferred with such powers. For
the exercise of such powers, proceedings under
Sections 69 and 70 are required to be pending. In
the present case, no such proceedings are pending,
and none of the interlocutory orders passed against
the petitioner could have been passed.
6. In this regard he relies on the decision of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Bharath Electronics Employees Co-operative
House Building Society Ltd., vs. State of
Karnataka and another1, more particularly, Paras
12, 13 and 14 and thereof, which are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
12. This Court has perused the aforementioned notification.
The notification is passed in exercise of the powers conferred
under Sub Section 5 of Section 2A of the Act of 1959. As can be
NC: 2024:KHC:45772
seen from Sl.No.VI-A of the said notification, the Joint Registrar
of the Co-operative Societies, Bengaluru region is conferred
with the jurisdiction to exercise the powers under certain
provisions of the Act of 1959. From the said notification, it is
apparent that the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Bengaluru is conferred jurisdiction to exercise the power under
Section 70 and 71 and some other provisions of the Act of
1959.
13. Under Section 71 though there is power to pass appropriate
interim order, said power can be initiated only if a proceeding
is initiated. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the
complainant Annadurai has initiated action under Section 71 of
the Act of 1959 alleging irregularities and illegalities on the part
of the petitioner-Society and the matter is pending
adjudication. However, the impugned Orders are not passed in
the proceeding initiated under the Act. The notification referred
to in the impugned orders does not confer any jurisdiction to
the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to pass the
restrained orders under Section 71 without there being a
proceeding under Section 71 of the Act.
14. Though the learned Government Advocate appearing for
the respondents would contend that Section 2A of the Act of
1959 confers the power on the Registrar of the Co-operative
Societies to pass the orders at Annexures A and H, it is to be
noticed that the power under Section 2A can be exercised in
respect of a matter relating to accounts of the Co- operative
Societies by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies for the
State. The impugned orders passed by the Joint Registrar of
Co-operative Societies, as such the contention that the orders
are saved under Section 2A of the Act of 1959 cannot be
accepted. In the present case on hand, there is no dispute with
regard to the accounts of the Society.
7. The submission of Sri.Yogesh D.Naik, learned AGA is
that even if there are no proceedings which are
pending under Section 69 and 70, by exercise of
powers under Section 2-A of the Co-operative
NC: 2024:KHC:45772
Societies Act, by exercising powers of
superintendence, necessary orders could be passed.
8. In this case, Registrar having come across several
violations was of the considered opinion that the
Bank Accounts are to be frozen. On a complaint
being received, a Committee was constituted and on
their recommendation the aforesaid orders have
been passed and these orders have been passed to
protect the interest of the Society and its members
and as such, he submits that in terms of Section 2A
of Co-operative Societies Act, such powers of
superintendence are available for exercise. In this
regard, he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Khargram Panchayat
Samiti v. State of West Bengal2, more particularly
para 4 and 5 thereof, which are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
4. In our judgment, the view taken by the High Court that
although the Panchayat Samiti was vested with the power to
grant a licence for the holding of a hat or fair under Section 117
2 1987(3) SCC 83
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45772
of the Act, yet it had no consequential or incidental power to
specify a day for holding of such hat or fair, is manifestly
erroneous and cannot be supported. It failed to appreciate that
under the Act the power of general administration of the local
area vests in the Panchayat Samiti only to grant a licence to
hold a hat or fair under Section 117 of the Act, but such power
of general administration necessarily carries with it the power
to supervise, control and manage such hat or fair within its
territorial jurisdiction. The conferment of the power to grant a
licence for the holding of a hat or fair under Section 117 of the
Act includes the power to make incidental or consequential
orders for specification of a day on which such hat or fair shall
be held. The decision of the High Court runs counter to the well
accepted principles. It overlooks that the statutory bodies like
the Panchayat Samiti enjoy a wide "incidental power" i.e. they
may do everything which is 'calculated to facilitate, or is
conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their
functions' and the doctrine of ultra vires is not to be applied
narrowly. It is well accepted that the conferral of statutory
powers on these local authorities must be construed as
impliedly authorising everything which could fairly and
reasonably be regarded as incidental or consequential to the
power itself. See : De Smith's Judicial Review of Administrative
Action, 4th Edn., p. 95, HWR Wade's Administrative Law, 5th
Edn., p. 217, Craies on Statute Law, 6th Edn., p. 276,
Attorney-General v. Great Eastern Railway [LR (1880) 5 AC
473] , Baroness Wenlock v. River Dee Co. [LR (1885) 10 AC
354] De Smith in his celebrated work Judicial Review of
Administrative Action, 4th Edn. at p. 95 puts the law tersely in
these words:
"The House of Lords has laid down the principle that whatever
may fairly be regarded as incidental to, or consequent upon,
those things which the legislature has authorised, ought not
(unless expressely prohibited) to be held, by judicial
construction, to be ultra vires."
This principle was enunciated by Lord Selborne in Attorney-
General v. Great Eastern Railway [LR (1880) 5 AC 473] in these
words:
"The doctrine of ultra vires ought to be reasonably, and not
unreasonably, understood and applied and whatever may be
fairly regarded as incidental to, or consequential upon, those
things which the legislature has authorised ought not (unless
expressly prohibited) to be held, by judicial construction, to be
ultra vires."
These words have been quoted by Professor Wade in this
monumental work Administrative Law, 5th Edn. at p. 217 and
also by Craies on Statute Law, 6th Edn. at p. 276. Craies also
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45772
refers to the observations of Lord Watson in Baroness Wenlock
v. River Dee Co. [LR (1885) 10 AC 354] to the effect:
"Whenever a corporation is created by Act of Parliament, with
reference to the purposes of the Act, and solely with a view to
carrying these purposes into execution, I am of opinion not
only that the objects which the corporation may legitimately
pursue must be ascertained from the Act itself, but that the
powers which the corporation may lawfully use in furtherance of
these objects must either be expressly conferred or derived by
reasonable implication from its provisions."
5. This Court in V.T. Khanzode v. Reserve Bank of India
[(1982) 2 SCC 7 : 1982 SCC (L & S) 147] has followed the
dictum of Lord Selborne in Great Eastern Railway case [LR
(1880) 5 AC 473] and reaffirmed the principle that the doctrine
of ultra vires in relation to the powers of a statutory corporation
have to be understood reasonably, and so understood,
whatever may fairly be regarded as incidental to, or
consequential upon, those things which the legislature has
authorised ought not (unless expressly prohibited) to be held
by judicial construction, to be ultra vires. It had earlier been
laid down by a Constitution Bench in the case of State of U.P. v.
Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi [(1978) 2 SCC 102 : 1978 SCC (L & S)
147] that a power to do a thing necessarily carries with it the
power to regulate the manner in which the thing may be done.
The High Court failed to appreciate that the power to grant a
licence for the holding of a hat or fair under Section 117 of the
Act necessarily carries with it the power to specify a day on
which such hat or fair shall be held. Such power to specify a
day must be held to be a power incidental to or consequential
upon the principal power of issuing a licence under Section 117
of the Act for holding of a hat or fair. The Rules or the absence
of it do not detract from the substantive power conferred by a
statute. The essence and content of the power of a Panchayat
Samiti under Section 117 of the Act is issuance of a licence for
the holding of a hat or fair and not mere maintenance of
sanitation, health and hygiene as held by the High Court.
9. Heard Sri.M.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior counsel for
Smt.Neeraja Karanth, learned counsel for the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45772
petitioner and Sri.Yogesh D.Naik, learned AGA for the
respondents. Perused papers.
10. On the basis of the submissions made by both the
counsel, the points that would arise for consideration
are:
1) Could the Registrar of the Co-operative
Societies or any of his delegates pass an
interlocutory order attaching the
properties, freezing the Bank Account,
injuncting the Society from selling the
property, or the like without any pending
proceeding against the Co-operative
Society?
2) Whether the power of superintendence
under Section 2-A of the Co-operative
Societies Act could be exercised to pass
any interlocutory orders as aforesaid?
3) Could the power to pass interlocutory
orders as aforesaid be said to be incidental
or consequential to the powers exercised
by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies?
4) What Order?
11. I answer the above points as under
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45772
12. ANSWER TO POINT NO.1: Could the Registrar of
the Co-operative Societies or any of his
delegates pass an interlocutory order attaching
the properties, freezing the Bank Account,
injuncting the Society from selling the property,
or the like without any pending proceeding
against the Co-operative Society?
12.1. The Scheme of the Act, as can be seen,
contemplates an enquiry by the Registrar under
Section 64, which enquiry could be conducted
by the Registrar on his own motion or a
complaint received. The enquiry being carried
out by himself or by a person authorized by him
or on a complaint filed.
12.2. In terms of Section 65, the Registrar may on
his own motion, on application of creditor or co-
operative Society inspect or direct any person
to inspect books of accounts of the co-operative
Society.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45772
12.3. In terms of Section 65A report of inspection is
to be made available, so also is Section 65B
relating to report to be submitted.
12.4. Section 66 empowers any officer for the
purpose of conducting audit, under Section 63
enquiry, under Section 64 for inspection,
Section 65 empowers inspection of books,
Section 66 empowers to seize books and
property, Section 67 provides that if the
inspection is made on the basis of application
made by the Creditor, the creditor shall bear
the cost of enquiry and or if multiples
applications are filed, the cost may be
apportioned unless the Society is held to be
liable to pay the cost.
12.5. Section 68 provides for the Registrar to make
such orders directing the Society to pass such
rectification as may be required and certain
other aspects.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45772
12.6. Section 69 provides for a situation where
surcharge proceedings has been initiated by the
Registrar against the Society.
12.7. Section 70 relates to a dispute raised against
the Society before the Registrar which are
referred by the Registrar.
12.8. Section 71 provides for the manner of disposal
of the disputes and Subsection (3) of Section
71 provides for the Registrar to exercise powers
to pass such interlocutory orders as he deems
necessary in the interest of Society.
12.9. The submission of Sri.M.R.Rajagopal, learned
Senior counsel is that unless proceedings under
Section 69 or a dispute under Section 70 is
pending, the powers under Section 71, more
cannot be exercised.
12.10. Taking into consideration the above provisions,
I am of the considered opinion that apart from
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45772
proceedings under Section 69 and 70 being
pending even once the audit commences under
Section 63 and thereafter when an enquiry
under Section 64 is proceeding and so on and
so forth, the proceedings being pending, the
concerned officer would have the powers to
pass such interlocutory orders as may be
necessary to protect and preserve the monies
and or the properties of the Society and it is for
that reason that under Section 66 there is
specific reference made for seizure of books
and property.
12.11. Seizure of property would include bank
accounts, and immovable property by way
freezing the bank account or injuncting any
transfer of such property by the Society. Thus,
seizure of books and property would not only
be restricted to books of accounts, but also to
all the properties of the Society being both,
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45772
movable and immovable and as such, under
Section 66, there is a power vested with the
concerned officer to pass such orders as may
be required under the circumstances.
12.12. Subsection (3) of Section 70 deals with the
proceedings which are pending either under
Section 69 or Section 70. Needless to say,
subsection (3) provides the power to the
Registrar or any other person to whom the
dispute is referred to pass such interlocutory
orders as may be deemed necessary.
12.13. Thus, in my considered opinion the Scheme of
the Act provides for proceedings prior to
proceedings being initiated and post the
proceedings being initiated. Section 63 to 68
dealing with situations prior to the proceedings
and Section 69 to 70 deals with post the
proceedings being initiated.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45772
12.14. The above is also supported by the decision of
the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated
12.01.2024 in W.P.No.18593/2022 relied upon
by the learned Senior Counsel. However, in that
case, the Court was only concerned with the
proceedings initiated under Section 29 (C) of
the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959
and the interim prohibitory order passed
therein at the stage of show cause notice
without there being an enquiry in progress or a
dispute being pending under Section 69 or
Section 70 and thus, the Coordinate Bench had
restricted itself to that aspect relating to no
dispute being pending for exercise of power
under subsection (3) of Section 71.
12.15. Thus, I answer Point No.1 by holding that the
Registrar of the Co-operative Societies or any
of his delegates can pass an interlocutory order
attaching the properties, freezing the Bank
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45772
Account, injuncting the Society from selling the
property, so long as an enquiry is in progress or
there being any pending proceeding against the
Co-operative Society.
13. Answer to Point No.2: Whether the power of
superintendence under Section 2-A of the Co-
operative Societies Act could be exercised to
pass any interlocutory orders as aforesaid?
13.1. Sri.Yogesh Naik, learned AGA by relying on
Section 2A of the Act submitted that the powers
of superintendence which are envisaged under
Section 2A could always be exercised by the
concerned officers. This aspect has also been
dealt with by the Coordinate Bench of this Court
in the judgment dated 12.01.2024 in
W.P.No.18593/2022 and this Court has come to
a categorical conclusion in Para 12 as under:-
12. This Court has perused the aforementioned
notification. The notification is passed in exercise of
the powers conferred under Sub Section 5 of Section
2A of the Act of 1959. As can be seen from Sl.No.VI-A
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45772
of the said notification, the Joint Registrar of the Co-
operative Societies, Bengaluru region is conferred
with the jurisdiction to exercise the powers under
certain provisions of the Act of 1959. From the said
notification, it is apparent that the Joint Registrar of
Co-operative Societies, Bengaluru is conferred
jurisdiction to exercise the power under Section 70
and 71 and some other provisions of the Act of 1959.
13.2. Thus, the power of superintendence under
Section 2A has been held to apply only to those
situations which can be exercised only if a
proceeding or dispute is pending under Section
69 or 70.
14. Answer to Point No.3: Could the power to pass
interlocutory orders as aforesaid be said to be
incidental or consequential to the powers
exercised by the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies?
14.1. The submission of Sri.Yogesh Naik, learned AGA
is that the superintendence power is incidental
or consequential to the powers vested with the
Registrars. There cannot be any dispute in
relation thereto. However, for the powers to be
exercised, there must be some proceedings
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45772
which are pending for the exercise of powers to
be said to be incidental or consequential, i.e., if
there are proceedings under Section 69 or 70
pending any exercise of powers provided
thereunder could be said to be incidental and
consequential. Similarly, if audit or enquiry or
the like under Section 63 to 68 are pending,
any orders passed of interlocutory nature could
be said to be incidental or consequential.
However, if no audit or enquiry is pending as
contemplated under Section 63 to 68 or no
proceedings pending under Section 70 and 71,
the Registrar or any officer cannot exercise any
power to pass interlocutory order since there is
no proceeding or enquiry pending for such
power to be said to be incidental or
consequential.
14.2. The requirement to pass such incidental and
consequential interim orders being to protect
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45772
the properties of the Society during such
enquiry or proceedings, there being no enquiry
or proceedings being pending no interlocutory
orders are required to be passed.
14.3. Insofar as W.P.No.14467/2020 is concerned
where the books of accounts have been seized,
on enquiry, Sri.Yogesh Naik, learned AGA
submits that enquiry is completed and on
enquiry whether the said books could be
returned back to the petitioners, he fairly
submits that after making copies, the books
could be returned back and on instructions, he
submits that many of the books have already
been returned back.
15. Answer to Point No.4: What order:
15.1. In view of the above, I pass the following:
ORDER
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45772
i) W.P.No.14468/2020 is allowed. The impugned
order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the
respondent at Annexure-A is quashed.
ii) W.P.No.10995/2020 is allowed. The impugned
order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the
respondent at Annexure-A is quashed.
iii) W.P.No.14467/2020 is allowed. The impugned
order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the
respondent No.1 at Annexure-A is quashed.
Impugned receipts/endorsements dated
19.02.2020 and 20.02.2020 at Annexures-B
and B1 issued by respondents No.2 to 4 are
quashed.
iv) Respondents are directed to return whatever
books are retained by them within a period of
three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
this order.
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45772
v) The above order has been passed taking into
consideration that no enquiry or proceedings
which are pending. However, if any enquiry or
proceedings are initiated, the authorities would
necessarily have the powers to pass such
interlocutory orders as may be required.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
LN/PRS
