B. MURALIDHARA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Devi Prasad Shetty, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is heard on the grant of ad interim order. The petitioners' grievance is with the report filed under Sec. 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, and insofar as the request for interim order, the petitioners seek stay of Annexures - G and G1 dtd. 23/12/2025, which are notices issued calling upon the petitioners to pay the different amounts as mentioned in the report.

(2.) Mr. Devi Prasad Shetty arguing in support of the petitioners' request for interim orders submits that [a] the petitioners cannot dispute that the General Body authorise expenditure of a certain amount, but the Committee has decided to meet the exigencies more than what is authorised, [b] this decision is not just because of the petitioners who were then the President and Secretary of the Society but a collective decision subject to further approvals to meet the contingencies, and [c] the report is filed holding the petitioners responsible for the additional expenditure only because they are signatories to the Cheque. The question presented for consideration is: whether the petitioners must be denied the opportunity to participate in the elections based on the findings if indeed the aspect of a collective decision is not considered.

(3.) This Court is of the definite view that at this stage, preventing the petitioners from participating in the election unless they remit the amount would be a denial of opportunity when the merits of the report's finding have to be examined with due opportunity. Therefore, interim order is granted staying the operation of both Annexures - G and G1 dtd. 23/12/2025 and observing that the petitioners' participation in the elections would be subject to further orders of this Court. The complainant, at whose instance the inquiry is commenced, is reserved with liberty to file an application for impleadment, as the learned counsel on his behalf submits that caveat is entered but not put up. This observation is without prejudice to the petitioners to contend that such application cannot be entertained.