Karnataka HC Quashes Tadavalaga Society Inquiry Report, Orders Different Officer To Examine Each Allegation Afresh

A dispute arose between factions of the registered Sangha concerning its governing body and alleged irregularities in its functioning and records.

Following earlier proceedings, the Division Bench had clarified that an enquiry into disputes concerning a society’s constitution, working and financial condition could be conducted under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960.

An Enquiry Officer submitted a report, which the petitioner in W.P. No. 200307 of 2025 challenged on the ground that it did not address the individual allegations or the supporting material.

The petitioner in the connected petition challenged subsequent orders appointing another Enquiry Officer.

Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 empowers the Registrar to enquire into disputes concerning a society’s constitution, working and financial condition, as clarified by the Division Bench in earlier proceedings.

An enquiry under that provision must address the allegations raised and record findings on them after giving the affected parties an opportunity to respond.

The Court found that the Enquiry Officer had referred to events but ultimately reported that the complainant and the Society had failed to produce documents, without recording findings on each allegation set out in the petitioner’s written submissions.

The report therefore did not adequately examine the alleged malfunctioning of the Society.

The Court held that a detailed enquiry, with an opportunity for both sides to respond and findings on each allegation, was required; consequently, a different officer had to conduct the enquiry afresh.

The connected appointment orders could not stand consistently with that direction.

It quashed the Enquiry Report dated 15 December 2023 and the consequential orders dated 15 October 2024 and 6 November 2024.

It directed the District Registrar and Registrar of Societies, Vijayapura, to appoint an Enquiry Officer other than the officer whose report had been challenged, and to have that officer conduct the enquiry afresh in accordance with law, after providing the parties an opportunity to respond.

No order was made as to costs.