1. The 1st petitioner common in both the petitions viz., ‘Bengaluru Urban Zilla Amateur Kabaddi Association’ along with others (hereinafter referred as ‘the petitioner’) is before this Court calling in question order dated 23-08-2021 and the basis of the said order being the Inquiry Report dated 19-07-2021.

2. Heard Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners, Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri N.Dinesh Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts germane for consideration of the lis, are as follows:

The petitioner is a registered Association under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (‘the Act’ for short) represented by its President and Committee Members. The petitioner/Association claims to have an affiliation of 60 clubs and they are said to be members of the petitioner/Association. It is averred that there are about 24 Kabaddi Associations throughout the State and all these Kabaddi Associations are affiliated and are members of the Karnataka Rajya Amateur Kabaddi Association (Regd.) which is a State body. In terms of byelaws of the State Association, the term of the governing body is for a period of 4 years. The petitioner was registered on 28-02-2020. On 16-06-2020 another Association comes up which is respondent No.3 with the same name as that of the petitioner, with a twist. The petitioner is Bengaluru Urban Zilla Amateur Kabaddi Association which is registered on 28-02-2020 and the 3rd respondent is Bangalore Urban District Amateur Kabaddi Association which is registered on 16-06-2020. After coming into existence, the members of the 3rd respondent/Association registered a complaint against the petitioner/Association on 19.10.2020. The allegation against the petitioner/Association was that one Shanmugam who was the General Secretary had forged signatures of Y.M.Balaji Venkatesh and D.Suresh Gowda and had registered the Association then. Pursuant to the registration of the said complaint, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer holds an inquiry with regard to the allegations made against the petitioner/Association. The Inquiry Officer holds the allegations against the petitioner/Association to have been proved and based upon the said finding of the Inquiry Officer the District Registrar of Societies under the Act passes an order cancelling registration of the petitioner/Association for violation of Section 27(2) of the Act. It is this order and the report of the Inquiry Officer that are called in question in the first petition.

4. In the companion petition, the petitioner/Association and another challenge the list announced by respondent No.6/ Administrator insofar as respondent No.3 who is shown at Sl.No.4 in the voters list and the name of the petitioner being kept in the additional ballot at Sl.No.25 for the conduct of elections. Therefore, the facts narrated hereinabove would become applicable to the companion petition as well, as the very registration of the Society goes to the root of the matter.

5. The learned senior counsel Sri Jayakumar S. Patil appearing for the petitioners would contend with vehemence that invocation of Section 27 of the Act itself is erroneous as there is no offence committed by the petitioner/Association after registration of the Association. Section 27 can be invoked only in the aftermath of registration of the Association and not earlier. He would also place reliance on Section 7 of the Act to contend that the 3rd respondent/Association could not have been registered at all. On the conduct of inquiry, he would submit that the proceedings are held in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice and in the hottest haste and the resultant order of the District Registrar based upon such an inquiry report is void ab initio. He would submit that the very registration of the 3rd respondent/Association should be quashed along with the order of cancellation of registration of the petitioner/Association.

6. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader would seek to defend the action of the District Registrar and submits that every opportunity was given to the petitioner in the inquiry and the allegation against the petitioner was that the General Secretary Mr. Shanmugam of the petitioner/Association had forged the signatures of the members of the 3rd respondent Association and a criminal case is also registered against the General Secretary of the petitioner/Association alleging such forgery. Therefore, prima facie, it was found that the petitioner/ Association had committed acts which entailed cancellation of registration under Section 27 of the Act.

7. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Sri N. Dinesh Rao would contend that criminal proceedings are initiated against Sri Shanmugam, General Secretary of the petitioner/Association on the ground that he had forged the signatures of the members of the 3rd respondent/Association and the matter is pending investigation. The complaint is taken to its logical end by the District Registrar and no fault can be found with it. The Association was created by the petitioner on certain forged documents. He would submit that the petitions be dismissed.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.

9. The afore-narrated facts which lay on a narrow compass do not require reiteration. The factum of election and the genesis of the problem with regard to the election are all dealt with in Writ Petition No.18300 of 2021 which is tagged to these petitions. The issue in the case at hand is whether registration of the petitioner/Association could be cancelled and its name be kept as an additional name in the voters list on the basis of cancellation of registration and in spite of an interim order granted by this Court. The dates are not in dispute. It is on 28-02-2020 the petitioner/Association is registered. On 16-06-2020 the 3rd respondent/Association is registered. The name of the petitioner is ‘Bengaluru Urban Zilla Amateur Kabaddi Association ®’ and the name of the 3rd respondent/Association is ‘Bengaluru Urban District Amateur Kabaddi Association ®’. The difference between the two associations is the word “Zilla” and “District”. Both mean one and the same in Kannada and English versions. Except this change, there is no other change in the names of the Associations. The issue now is whether the 3rd respondent/ Association could have been registered at all. Section 7 of the Act reads as follows:

“7. Societies not to be registered with undesirable names. - No society shall be registered by a name which, in the opinion of the Registrar, is undesirable. A name which is identical with, or too nearly resembles, the name by which a society in existence has been previously registered, may be deemed to be undesirable by the Registrar under this section.”

(Emphasis supplied)

Section 7 mandates that Societies should not be registered with undesirable names. The mandate of the provision is that Society shall not be registered by name which in the opinion of the Registrar is undesirable for the reason that a name which is identical with or too nearly reassembles the name by which the Society first in existence has been previously registered would be deemed to be undesirable. If the names of the petitioner/ Association and the 3rd respondent/Association are juxtaposed and considered on the mandate of the statute, what would unmistakably emerge is, the names are identical, they are not too nearly resembling each other but they are the same except usage of version of the language in Kannada and English. Such a Society of the 3rd respondent could not have been registered by the District Registrar after registration of the petitioner/Association as the petitioner/Association is registered long before the registration of the 3rd respondent/Association. This is the genesis of the problem that is generated by the District Registrar.

10. It is also to be noticed that on the very day of registration of the 3rd respondent/Association, the Registrar of Societies passes an order that henceforth no new Association will be registered even before the ink on the registration of the 3rd respondent/Association could dry. The reason behind this direction that no new Society would be registered is ostensibly for the conduct of elections. Long after the aforesaid events, a complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner/Association which is before the conduct of elections. The said complaint was concerning alleged forgery by the General Secretary of the petitioner/Association while forming the Association or at the time of registration of the Association. Therefore, the allegations would fall within the realm of a pre- registration acts. The inquiry was conducted in terms of Section 25 of the Act and the Inquiry Officer holds the petitioner/Association guilty. The District Registrar cancelled the registration of the petitioner/Association invoking Section 27 of the Act. Therefore, it becomes germane to notice Section 27 of the Act. Section 27 deals with cancellation of registration and dissolution of certain societies and reads as follows:

“27. Cancellation of registration and dissolution of certain societies. - (1) If it appears to the Registrar that any society registered or deemed to be registered under this Act, is carrying on any unlawful activity or allows unlawful activity to be carried on within any premises under the control of the society, the Registrar may hold an enquiry or authorise any officer to hold an enquiry into the activities of such society and in respect of every such enquiry, the Registrar or the authorised officer shall have the same powers as are specified in sub-section (2) of section 25. The authorised officer shall, on completion of the enquiry, submit a report to the Registrar.

(2) If on an enquiry under sub-section (1), the Registrar is satisfied that any such society has been carrying on any unlawful activity or has allowed any unlawful activity to be carried on within any premises under the control of the society, he shall, after giving reasonable notice to the society to show cause why the registration of the society should not be cancelled and the society dissolved, and after considering the representations, if any, made on behalf of the society, by order cancel the registration of the society and direct dissolution of the society; and thereupon the assets of the society shall be distributed, and the liabilities discharged, in the same manner as if the society had been dissolved under section 22.

(3) An appeal shall lie to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal against any order passed by the Registrar under sub- section (2), within sixty days from the date of communication of the order, and the decision on such appeal shall be final.

Explanation. - For purposes of this section, an activity shall be deemed to be unlawful if such activity is an offence punishable under any provision of law for the time being in force.”

(Emphasis supplied)

Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 27 direct that any society carrying on any unlawful activity within its premises would become open for an inquiry and if the Registrar is satisfied that the Society has been carrying on any unlawful activity or has allowed any unlawful activity to be carried on would become open for cancellation of registration. Admittedly in the case at hand, the allegations are all of pre-registration stage. Section 27 nowhere mandates that a pre-registration act of registration of a Society could also become an offence. After the Inquiry Officer’s report and the order so passed, the petitioner/Association files this subject writ petition – W.P.No.17533 of 2021. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 27-10-2021 passed the following interim order:

“Issue emergent notice to respondent nos. 5 & 6; Learned AGA is requested to accept notice for respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 & 7.

The interim order as prayed for, is granted on the following grounds:

1) Despite vehement arguments from the side of Government and the contesting respondent, it is not shown that the pre-registration act fall within the framework of Section 27 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, as a ground for cancellation of registration of a society as rightly pointed out by learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Jayakumar S Patil; the text of Section 27 unmistakably indicates that the unlawful activities being committed or carried on by the Management of the Society post-registration alone can be the grounds for the cancellation of its registration; if the Legislature intended that the pre-registration acts also could constitute a ground for cancellation of registration, it would have indicated the same textually or by necessary implication; which it has not.

2) The registration of a Society is one thing and its cancellation is another; in the matter of registration, ordinarily, there is a larger amount of discretion availing to the authorities going by the text & context of Sections 7 & 8 of the Act; but, once registration of a Society takes place, deregistration or cancellation of cannot be done save by the authority of law and in a strict adherence thereto; this view finds support from the observations of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION Vs. THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES & OTHERS, in W.P.No.(C) 3260/2012, decided on 12.04.2012 para 18, which reads as under;

There is yet another aspect which needs to be considered. Once the Act provides a procedure for dissolution of the society registered under the Act, it is only that procedure which can be invoked, and no other procedure can be adopted. If a thing is prescribed to be done in a particular way, it can be done in only that way, and by no other way. (See Patna Improvement Trust V. Smt. Lakshmi Devi, 812 SCR [1963] Supp. and State of Bihar & Anr. V. J.A.C. Saldanha & Ors, (1980) 1 SCC 554). Therefore, the ROS cannot invent other methods or reasons to suspend or dissolve a society registered under the Act.

3) The vehement contention of the respondents that Sub-Section (3) of Section 27 provides an appellate remedy against cancellation of registration and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained, is bit difficult to countenance; the doctrine of alternate remedy is an invention of the Writ Courts only and that cannot be invoked as a mantra in every case as a Thumb Rule to defeat the legitimate claim of an aggrieved citizen; there is a lot of force in the contention of Mr. Patil that where a Writ of Certiorari is sought for on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the doctrine of alternate remedy ordinarily cannot be invoked to non-suit the Petitioner; even otherwise, the petitioners have made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief, since denial cannot be compensated in terms of money, the elections being visible at the horizon.

Ordered accordingly.

It is made clear that first Petitioner- Association shall be treated as having affiliated to the State Association and the consequences on that basis shall follow, subject to outcome of the writ petition.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The order clearly holds albeit, prima facie, that a pre-registration act could not have been made an offence and directed that the petitioner/Association shall be treated as having been affiliated to the State Association and the consequence on that basis shall follow which would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. This Court fully concurs with the reasons rendered by the co-ordinate Bench while granting interim order. After the interim order, the Administrator who was in place of the State Unit does not include the name of the petitioner/Association in the list of voters, but includes the name of the 3rd respondent/Association at Sl.No.4. This is called in question in Writ Petition No.22023 of 2021. This Court on 3-12-2021 passed the following order:

“Learned HCGP is requested to accept notice for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Issue Emergent Notice to other respondents.

The elections as scheduled shall go on; however, election result shall not be announced without the leave of this court; further, the ballot paper of the 3rd respondent Amateur Kabbadi Association shown at Sl.No.4 in the voters list at Annexure-Q shall be kept in a sealed cover.”

This Court directed that election as scheduled would go on and the result of the election shall not be announced without the leave of the Court and the ballot paper of the 3rd respondent/Association shall be kept in a sealed cover. Later on 7-12-2021 the list is drawn by the Administrator. At Sl.No.4 is the 3rd respondent/Association and at Sl.No.25 is the petitioner/ Association terming it to be additional ballot and in terms of the interim order in Writ Petition No.17533 of 2021. In the aforesaid manner the elections had gone on and the result of the election is yet to be announced.

11. In the light of the preceding analysis, what would unmistakably emerge is that registration of the 3rd respondent/ Association runs foul of the mandate of Section 7 of the Act, as both the Associations are not too nearly similar but are virtually same. Once a Society is registered with a particular name, registration of a second Society with the same name is impermissible. Section 27 of the Act makes acts to be unlawful activity only after the registration of the Society. The Legislature in its wisdom has not made pre-registration acts an offence. Therefore, the very complaint registered, inquiry held and the order of cancellation of registration of the petitioner/Association would all thus be rendered illegal and unsustainable. The manner of conduct of inquiry need not be gone into, as the very complaint registered and the order passed would run foul of Section 27 of the Act. Whether the inquiry has been conducted in consonance with the principles of natural justice or otherwise need not be gone into. In the result what would unmistakably emerge is the illegality of registration of the 3rd respondent/Association and illegal order passed cancelling registration of the petitioner/Association.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

O R D E R

(i) Writ Petitions are allowed.

(ii) Impugned order dated 23-08-2021 passed by the 2nd respondent stands quashed. The registration of the 3rd respondent/Association is declared illegal and accordingly quashed.

(iii) It is declared that the petitioner/Association is deemed to have been affiliated and the votes cast by the petitioner/Association are valid and the votes cast by the 3rd respondent/ Association, placed in the sealed cover, are invalid.

(iv) The result of the elections, in accordance with the directions, shall be declared by the competent authority within a period of one week from today and further actions shall be regulated in accordance with law.

Consequently, I.A.No.1/2022 filed in W.P.No.22023/2021 stands disposed.