SHRI. MUDDEGOWDARA VEERABHADRAPPA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were initially before this Court assailing the intimation letter dated 24.08.2015 at Annexure-A. In view of the stand taken by the respondents with reference to the other orders and the subsequent order passed, the petitioners have also assailed the orders dated 31.10.2015, 30.12.2014, 02.12.2015 and the notice dated 06.10.2015 which are impugned at Annexures-AH, AL, AN and AK respectively.

(2.) The respondents No.3 and 4 are the erstwhile President and Secretary of respondent No.5-society. Due to certain internal differences they were removed from that position and the petitioners herein had taken over as the Managing Committee of the respondent No.5. The petitioners were thus at the helm of affairs when the intimation letter dated 24.08.2015 was issued seeking compliance. This Court while directing notice had stayed the same through the order dated 16.10.2015. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent No.1 has relied on the earlier order dated 30.12.2014 and passed the order dated 02.12.2015 invoking the power under Section 27-A of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 ('KSR Act' for short) and appointed an Administrator to manage the affairs of respondent No.5-society. The petitioners contending that the entire action is not only mala fide, but also without opportunity to the petitioners are before this Court assailing the action.

(3.) The respondents No.1 and 2 seeks to sustain the action through the objection statement. The gist of the objection is that a communication was received from the respondent No.1-Government about the misappropriation in the affairs of the respondent No.5 society. Hence a notice dated 09.09.2014 was issued, an Auditor was appointed on 16.10.2014 to audit the books of the society. Since the report submitted indicated that a sum of Rs.2,61,00,000/- was misappropriated, action was initiated under Section 25 of the KSR Act. However, since the Committee of Management themselves came to an arrangement to re-deposit the amount and requested not to send the report to the Government, no steps were taken but despite such undertaking, the amount was not deposited. The respondent No.4 once again made a complaint to the Government and as such the further action through the intimation letter dated 24.08.2015 was initiated, which was followed by the action to appoint the Administrator. It is therefore contended that the action taken is in accordance with law.