ORDER
N. Kumar, J.
1. Petitioner 1 is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The petitioners 2 to 26 are the members of first petitioner-Society. They are all the employees of the first petitioner-Society.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the affairs of the institute are being mismanaged and that the students and staff have been subjected to great injustice and that after 22 years of service, the staff have been driven to streets on account of whimsical attitude of the management, particularly by its present manager. There are complaints particularly of misappropriation of funds of the institution by the present manager. Therefore, they gave a representation to the Registrars of Co-operative Societies as per Annexure-D calling upon the him to initiate proceedings against the 7th respondent. However, their request has remained unanswered and therefore, they are constrained to file this writ petition seeking writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 6 to initiate action against the 7th respondent in accordance with law and direct them to take over the administration of the institution by appointing an Administrator.
3. The said request of the petitioners is opposed by the respondents.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contend that under Section 25 of the Act, duty is cast upon the Registrar to hold enquiry into the affairs of the Society when serious allegation of maladministration, misappropriation of funds, etc., are made. In the instant case, though the petitioners have made a representation bringing to his notice the misuse of funds, maladministration of Society by the office-bearers, he has not initiated any proceedings under Section 25 and therefore he is required to perform the legal obligation cast under the statute. Therefore, they are praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel him to perform the said legal obligation.
5. In support of his contention, he relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of District Muslim Welfare and Education Society, Hukkeri, Belgaum District v. District Registrar of Societies, Belgaum and Ors. : AIR1997Kant383 , dealing with the validity of the enquiry initiated on the basis of the complaint of employees of Society, this Court observed as under:
'7. Drawing an analogy from what has been declared by the Supreme Court as a proposition of law with regard to exercise of suo motu powers by statutory authorities, in the contest of Section 25 as well, it can be authoritatively held that any person having dependable knowledge of the working affairs of a registered Society can bring to the notice of the Registrar the fact of the infirmities caused in the constitution, working and financial condition of such a Society. Thereafter, if the Registrar on examining the nature of the allegations and dependability of the information so furnished and/or relying on other materials having in his possession can initiate an enquiry on his own motion. It has to be further held that such initiation of an enquiry cannot be held to be without jurisdiction only because it has been founded it on certain informations furnished by the persons, who have otherwise not been given a right to file an application before the Registrar for holding such an enquiry'.
In the case of Sri Nethaji Educational Society, Malur and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. : ILR1996KAR3058 , dealing with the Registrar's power to suo motu enquiry, this Court held as under:
'6. A bare reading of the above provision shows that the Registrar is competent to order an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a registered Society on his own motion. This power, is discretionary for the Registrar may or may not institute such an enquiry depending upon his perception about the health of the Society and the efficiency of its working and financial affairs. The Registrar, however, is bound to institute such an enquiry in case an application is filed before him demanding the same by a majority of the members of the governing body or not less than one-third of the members of the Society. In any such case the Registrar has no discretion and the conduct of an enquiry becomes imperative. The question however is as to when can the Registrar be said to have directed a suo motu enquiry into the affairs of the Society. In particular, the question is whether the Registrar can exercise the suo motu powers of instituting an enquiry on receipt of information or material that may be written or oral or both. According to Sri V. Lakshminarayana once an application is filed therefore the Registrar, his authority to direct a suo motu enquiry into the affairs of the Society would vanish, for according to him the Registrar would be justified in instituting any such enquiry on an application only in case the same has been signed by the requisite number of members as prescribed in Section 25. I however find no reason to subject the suo motu powers of the Registrar under Section 25 to any such limitation. The provisions of Section 25 do not in my opinion disable the Registrar from exercising the suo motu powers of directing an enquiry only because he has been approached by some only of the members of the Society or the governing body. Suo motu powers, can be exercised by the authority vested with such powers not only on its motion, but also on receipt of information or relevant material warranting exercise of such powers from any source. Such powers may be exercised on the basis of oral information available to the authority as also on the basis of any written material or representation made in that behalf.
6. What can be gathered from the aforesaid judgments of this Court is that under Section 25 of the Act, the Registrar may initiate enquiry in two circumstances. Firstly, on his own motion, in other words, suo motu enquiry; secondly, on the application of the majority of the members of the governing body or of not less than 1/3rd of the members of the Society. Once, an application is made by the majority of the members of the governing body or not less than 1/3rd of the members of the Society, the Registrar has no discretion except to initiate an enquiry contemplated under Section 25. Once that legal requirement is complied with, no discretion is left to the Registrar. It would be his duty. If he fails to initiate such an enquiry, it would be a case of infraction of legal obligation statutorily imposed on the Registrar and to compel him to perform the statutory duty, this Court can issue a writ of mandamus.
7. If that legal requirement is not complied with, the Registrar has been empowered to initiate suo motu enquiry. The said suo motu enquiry may emanate on the basis of any complaint lodged before him by any person who is interested in the Society. Even without any such complaint, the Registrar is empowered to initiate suo motu enquiry if he has the information, which is sufficient to initiate an enquiry. Merely because, he takes note of the complaint by a person interested in Society which does not satisfy the legal requirement of the majority of the member of the governing body or of not less than 1/3rd of the members of the Society to initiate the enquiry as if it is a suo motu enquiry, such initiation of the enquiry cannot be found fault with. Once, the Registrar initiates suo motu enquiry either on the basis of the independent information he has gathered or on the basis of the complaint received by him, the proceedings is a suo motu enquiry initiated by the Registrar which he is empowered to do under Section 25 of the Act. This is what has been laid down in the aforesaid two judgments referred to supra.
8. The aforesaid judgments do not cover the case where the complaint lodged before the Registrar by the employees of the Society complaining of maladministration and misappropriation of funds. The said complaint does not satisfy the requirement of the obligation of the majority of the members of the governing body or of not less than 1/3rd of the members of the Society. Therefore, the Registrar has no obligation to take note of that complaint and initiate proceedings. Even though on the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint, the Registrar is empowered to initiate suo motu proceedings, if he fails to initiate suo motu proceedings, the question is whether a writ of mandamus can be issued by this Court to compel him to initiate suo motu proceedings.
9. Suo motu proceedings means, a proceedings initiated by the Registrar on his own. He must be satisfied as to the existence of a sufficient ground for initiating such proceedings. That satisfaction should be of that of the Registrar. Neither this Court nor anybody can substitute that satisfaction. In other words, he cannot be compelled to adopt a particular reasoning which he is not inclined to adopt. No person can be said to have a legal right to compel a authority to initiate suo motu proceedings. When once a person has no legal right to compel the Registrar to initiate suo motu proceedings, he cannot agitate that non-existing right, such right being a condition precedent to compel this Court to issue a writ of mandamus. Though, if such suo motu proceedings are initiated by the authorities, this Court would not be inclined to interfere with the same and this Court cannot by a writ of mandamus compel an authority to initiate suo motu enquiry.
10. In the instant case, the petitioners are employees of the Society. They have no legal right under Section 25 of the Act to compel the Registrar to initiate any enquiry against the Society. If they have no legal right in law to compel the Registrar to initiate enquiry under Section 25, in the absence of such right, the question of this Court by a writ of mandamus compelling the Registrar to initiate enquiry would not arise. Consequently, they cannot maintain a writ of mandamus to compel the Registrar to initiate suo motu proceedings. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, it is rejected.