1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 18.04.2019 passed by the Registrar (Institutions), Jaipur (respondent No.3) for holding enquiry under Section 23(1) of the Rajasthan Sports (Registration,
Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Act, 2005 (hereinafter shall be referred to as “the Rajasthan Sports Actâ€) and the notice dated 23.04.2019 issued by the Enquiry Officer and Inspector, Cooperative Department, Jaipur
(respondent No.4), issued in furtherance of the order dated 18.04.2019.
2. The petitioner No.1 has claimed himself to be the elected Secretary of the Jaipur District Cricket Association and the petitioner No.2 i.e. Jaipur District Cricket Association is a registered District Level Sports Association.
3. The brief facts, pleaded in the writ petition, are that elections to the Executive Committee of the Jaipur District Cricket Association were conducted on 18.03.2018 by an ad-hoc committee formed by the Registrar (Institutions) and the
petitioner No.1 was elected as the Secretary and one Mahesh Joshi was elected as the President and Sameer Sharma was elected as the Treasurer.
4. The petitioners have pleaded that on 24.04.2019, they received a letter/notice dated 23.04.2019, by post, from the respondent No.4 â€" Enquiry Officer and Inspector, Cooperative Department, Jaipur stating therein that the respondent No.3
â€" Registrar (Institutions), Jaipur had appointed him as the Enquiry Officer vide order dated 18.04.2019 exercising powers under Section 23(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Sports Act, 2005. The said letter had required the petitioners to appear before
the Enquiry Officer and put their defence to a complaint made by the Jaipur Sports Cricket Club (respondent No.5). The petitioners were asked to appear on 25.04.2019, failing which the proceedings of enquiry were to be concluded. The
petitioners have alleged that neither the allegation made in the complaint, was reproduced in the notice nor copy of the complaint was annexed to the said notice.
5. The petitioners have pleaded that on 25.04.2019, they submitted a representation/letter to the respondent No.4 to supply copy of the alleged complaint, filed by the respondent No.5, as also the order dated 18.04.2019 passed by the
respondent No.3 by which he had directed initiation of enquiry and appointed the respondent No.4, as the Enquiry Officer.
6. The petitioners have pleaded that after much persuasion and insistence, copy of the complaint filed by the respondent No.5, was supplied to them, however, the order dated 18.04.2019 for initiating enquiry was not supplied by the Enquiry
Officer. The petitioners have alleged that copy of the complaint, supplied by the respondent No.4 and given by the respondent No.5, was undated and the said complaint showed Inward Number as 211 dated 16.04.2019. The petitioners have
alleged that the complaint was received in the office of the respondent No.3 on 16.04.2019, however, it was carrying a handwritten endorsement dated 15.04.2019, made by the respondent No.3 i.e. even before the complaint was officially
received by the office of the respondent No.3, asking the respondent No.4 to undertake an enquiry and report back to him. The petitioners have pleaded that they again requested on 26.04.2019 for supplying copy of the order dated 18.04.2019,
whereby enquiry was ordered and ultimately, on 29.04.2019 the copy of the order dated 18.04.2019 was supplied to them. The petitioners have alleged that a perusal of the order dated 18.04.2019 revealed that it had been passed in violation of
the provisions of the Rajasthan Sports Act, 2005 and Rules, 2004. The petitioners have alleged that the specific points of enquiry were not formulated and no copy of order was sent to the affiliating Association and the order dated 18.04.2019
was only a cover-up to formalize the earlier handwritten endorsement/order dated 15.04.2019, made by the respondent No.3.
7. The petitioners have pleaded that as per the Rajasthan Sports Act, 2005 and Rules, 2004, even the order initiating enquiry is an empty formality, as specific points are required to be formulated by the Registrar with due application of mind
and copy should be given to the affiliating Association, as per Rule 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rajasthan Sports Rules, 2004.
8. The petitioners have pleaded that order dated 18.04.2019 is non-est in the eye of law as the same was not passed in conformity with the provisions of the Rajasthan Sports Act, 2005 and Rules, 2004. The petitioners have pleaded that every
action of the State Instrumentality, has to be in compliance with the principles of natural justice and fair play and the entire exercise and action of the respondents, showed arbitrariness in the decision making process. The petitioners have
pleaded that the respondents have initiated proceedings with a pre-determined mind to disrupt the Executive Committee of the petitioner No.2- Association to perform its functions and to complete its full term.
9. The petitioners have raised grievance that order initiating enquiry was wholly vague and without any particulars or basis and the same is in violation of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Rajasthan Tennis
Association Vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies reported in 2008 (2) WLC (Raj.) 27.
10. The petitioners have further pleaded that specific points of enquiry were required to be formulated after due application of mind, before initiation of enquiry and as such the enquiry order as well as the enquiry notice are contrary to the law.
11. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 have filed joint reply. The respondents have pleaded that the Jaipur Sports Cricket Club had submitted a complaint dated 15.04.2019 with joint signatures of its members against the activities being undertaken by
the executive body of the Jaipur District Cricket Association (petitioner No.2) and they had requested for taking action against the Association under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sports Act, 2005 and dissolve the executive body of the said
Association. It is averred that after perusal of the complaint, a decision was taken and as such the notice dated 23.04.2019 under Section 23(1)(c) of the Act, 2005 was issued to the petitioner No.1 Dr.B.R.Soni, Secretary; Mr.Mahesh Joshi,
President; and Mr.Sameer Sharma, Treasurer, requiring them to appear before the Enquiry Officer for their oral and written defence. The respondents have submitted that the notice dated 23.04.2019 was duly received by the petitioners and
others on 24.04.2019 and pursuant to the notice dated 23.04.2019, their counsel had appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 25.04.2019 and on their demand, certified copy of the complaint along with the documents, were given to them free of
cost.
12. The respondents have denied that there was any bias or unnatural haste in initiating complaint dated 15.04.2019. The respondents have further denied that there has been no violation of principles of natural justice and the complaint was
submitted to the Registrar, Institutions, Jaipur on 15.04.2019 and on receipt of the complaint, the same was immediately marked for submitting the report and thereafter it was entered in the receipt/register at No.211 on 16.04.2019 and the
same did not amount to any malice or personal bias. The respondents have submitted that the petitioners were to be given proper and reasonable opportunity to submit their defence in the enquiry and as such, challenge to the notice issued
under Section 23(1)(c) of the Act of 2005, is wholly misconceived and unsustainable in law.
13. The respondents have submitted that since the complaint submitted by the complainant contained the points of enquiry, in terms of Section 23(1)(c) of the Act of 2005, there was no requirement of framing specific points of enquiry and no
opinion was formed and only information was sought from the petitioners with regard to the complaint submitted by the Jaipur Sports Cricket Club.
14. The respondents have also referred to the order dated 07.03.2019 passed by this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4858/2019 [District Cricket Association, Sawai Madhopur and Anr. Vs. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Socities and Ors.]
whereby in similar circumstances, the writ petition is said to have been dismissed.
15. The respondent No.5 has filed a separate reply and it has been emphasized that the provisions of the Act of 2005 and Rules of 2004, do not contemplate that while issuing notice for enquiry, the Registrar is bound to supply copy of the
complaint. The respondent No.5 reiterated that the petitioners were given full opportunity to appear before the Registrar and the present petition has been filed with malafide intentions by leveling false allegations of violation of principles of
natural justice, as the petitioners were already supplied with the demanded documents before the writ petition was preferred. The respondent No.5 has asserted that the petitioners were in knowledge that enquiry has been called for by the
Enquiry Officer, as the complaint was made by 36 Cricket Clubs and the respondent No.5 was one of the complainants. The respondent No.5 has raised an objection in the reply that if there has been a procedural irregularity, the same can be
assailed by the person aggrieved and order of the Registrar can be challenged before the appellate authority, in view of Section 35 of the Act of 2005.
16. The respondent No.7 â€" Enquiry Officer, who has been arrayed as party in private capacity, has filed a separate reply. He has asserted that serious allegations were levelled against the petitioners and various documents were annexed
with the complaint filed against the petitioners. The Registrar, Institutions, Jaipur had appointed the respondent No.7 as Enquiry Officer with direction to conduct enquiry to the complaint and submit report within 20 days and the petitioners had
appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 25.04.2019 and certified copy of the complaint along with the documents were given to them and further 15 days’ time was granted to submit reply.
17. The respondent No.7 has pleaded that decision to conduct enquiry into the complaint under Section 23(1)(c) of the Act of 2005 was taken by the competent authority and he acted as Enquiry Officer, in compliance of the enquiry order
dated 18.04.2019, in a fair and transparent manner, in discharge of his duties. He has also pleaded that the notice issued to the petitioners under Section 23(1)(c) of the Act of 2005 was in accordance with law and the same could not be termed
as malafide and bias and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. The impleadment of respondent No.7 as party respondent, by name, on the allegations of malafide and bias, is also said to be wholly unjustified.
18. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners Mr.Kamlakar Sharma has submitted that the impugned order dated 18.04.2019 is without jurisdiction and a wrong exercise of power by the respondent No.3. Mr.Sharma has submitted
that there is a wholesome breach of the provisions of Rules 8(1) & 8(2) of the Rajasthan Sports Rules, 2004. Mr.Sharma has submitted that before Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Sports Rules, 2004, an order for conducting enquiry under Section 23
of the Rajasthan Sports Act, 2005, has to contain specific points, on which the enquiry is to be made, and the period, within which the enquiry is to be completed, and the report, to be submitted to the Registrar.
19. Mr.Sharma submitted that the copy of the order for conducting enquiry under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 is required to be supplied to the affiliating Association to which the Association in respect of which the enquiry is being conducted,
is affiliated and in the present case, the same has not been done.
20. Mr.Sharma has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajasthan Tennis Association Vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies reported in 2008 (2) WLC (Raj.) 27 and further placed reliance on the
judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Calcutta Discount C. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Companies District I Calcutta and Another reported in AIR 1961 SC 37 a2nd Jeans Knit Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax,
Bangalore and Others reported in (2018) 12 SCC 36.
21. Per contra, Mr.S.S.Raghav, Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent No.1 to 4 has submitted that the present writ petition, challenging the order issued under Section 23(1)(c) of the Act of 2005, is not maintainable before
this Court. Counsel submitted that since there were serious complaints against the petitioners, as such, the Registrar by invoking the power conferred under Section 23 of the Act of 2005, has rightly appointed the Enquiry Officer and the
complaint will be duly examined by him. Counsel has submitted that principles of natural justice have not been violated, as the petitioners have been supplied copy of the complaint and order of appointment of the Enquiry Officer. Counsel has
submitted that the petitioners have appeared before the Enquiry Officer and without waiting for the outcome of the enquiry, they have wrongly approached this Court by leveling false allegations of violation of principles of natural justice.
22. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that if any order affecting the rights of the petitioners is passed, the petitioners can always avail the statutory remedy provided to them and as such, the present writ petition is wholly
misconceived.
23. Learned Additional Advocate General, in support of his submission, placed reliance on the order dated 12.03.2019 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3720/2019 [District
Cricket Association, Pratapgarh & Another Vs. Dy.Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Another]; order dated 13.09.2019 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13139/2019 [District Basketball Association,
Alwar and Anr. Vs. Dy.Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Others]; order dated 07.03.2019 passed by this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4858/2019 [District Cricket Association, Sawai Madhopur and Anr. Vs. Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative Socities and Ors.]; and a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28.
24. Mr.Sandeep Taneja, counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 has adopted the same arguments, as raised by the other respondents.
25. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record.
26. Before adverting to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Sports Act, 2005 and the Rules, 2004:-
“Section 23.Inquiry. - (1) The Registrar may:-
(a) on the request of a State Level Sports Association, or
(b) on the request of not less than one tenth of the total members of a Sports Association, or
(c) on his own motion,
hold an enquiry, either himself or by a person duly authorised by him.
(2) The Registrar or the person authorised by him shall for the purpose of any inquiry, have all the powers to inspect records, direct production and take copy of any document of the concerned Sports Association for the purpose of the
enquiry.â€
Rule 8.Procedure for conduct of an inquiry. - (1) An order for conducting an inquiry under Section 23 shall, among other things, contain the following, namely:-
(a) name of the person authorized to conduct the enquiry;
(b) name of the Sports Association whose affairs are to be enquired into;
(c) specific point(s) on which the enquiry is to be made and the period within which the enquiry is to be completed and report is to be submitted to the Registrar;
(d) any other matter relating to the enquiry.
(2) A copy of an order for conducting an inquiry under section 23 shall be supplied to the affiliating Association to which the Association in respect of which the enquiry is being conducted, is affiliated.
(3) to (8) XX XX XXâ€
27. The first and foremost question which is required to be considered by this Court is in respect of the order dated 18.04.2019 passed by the respondent No.3, while exercising power conferred under Section 23(1)(c) of the Act of 2005. This
Court finds that by the said order, the respondent No.3, has appointed the Enquiry Officer (respondent No.4) and directed him to inquire into the complaints received by the Registrar by completing the enquiry within 20 days. The order dated
18.04.2019 (Annex.7) is quoted hereunder:-
( ), ,
, , , , : / / /2019/66
18.04.19
()
( ) 2005 23 (1) ()
20
( )
( )
: . / / /2019/67-
70Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
                       18.04.19
:- -
1- ,
2- ,
3- . . , ,
4-
)
( )
â€
28. A perusal of the order dated 18.04.2019 shows that the Registrar has not framed the specific points, on which enquiry was to be made. The reference of only a complaint, to be inquired into, does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 8(1)(c),
as the procedure for conducting enquiry stipulates that an order for conducting enquiry shall contain specific points on which enquiry is to be made. The Registrar under Section 23 of the Act of 2005, has to apply his mind and then he has to
form an opinion that enquiry under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 is needed and thereafter he has to formulate the specific points in respect of which such enquiry is to be held. The act of the Registrar for ordering an enquiry, is not a ministerial
act but there has to be due application of mind and the specific points are required to be formulated on which the Enquiry Officer, has to conduct the enquiry.
29. This Court finds that the power of Registrar to hold enquiry is circumscribed by certain parameters and the rule making authority has specifically required the Registrar before conducting an enquiry that he must apply his mind and must
formulate the specific points for enquiry. The complaint, which is received by the Registrar, has to be looked into and after processing the same, the Registrar, has all the rights to formulate issues/specific points, on which the enquiry needs to
be conducted.
30. This Court finds that the order dated 18.04.2019 has been issued in a mechanical manner and there seems no application of mind, while asking the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry.
31. This Court finds that merely supplying of copy of complaint by the Enquiry Officer, to the petitioners would not meet the requirement of the Rules and the Enquiry Officer will not assume the role of the Registrar, if the enquiry is not
conducted by the Registrar himself under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 and if he assigns enquiry to be conducted by any other person, the role of the Enquiry Officer is to conduct enquiry, on the specific points/issues, as have been formulated,
by the Registrar, while exercising powers, conferred under Section 23 of the Act of 2005.
32. This Court finds that if the Registrar himself has to hold an enquiry, in such a situation also, he has to first frame the specific points and then to hold the enquiry. The Registrar, in the present case, while passing the impugned order dated
18.04.2019, has left to the discretion of the Enquiry officer that on the basis of the complaint, he will conduct the enquiry. The complaint, given by the complainant, may contain several allegations but it is for the competent authority â€" the
Registrar, under Section 23 of the Act of 2005, to apply his mind and formulate the specific points, on which he wants an enquiry to be conducted. The complaint itself cannot become chargesheet or points of enquiry and after due application
of mind, if the allegations in the complaint require enquiry, the Registrar has all the powers to order for such enquiry to be conducted by himself or by any other authorized person. The discretion of holding enquiry is not taken away of the
Registrar but the pre-condition is that he must look into the complaint, apply his mind to the allegations and if he finds that the allegations are required to be inquired into, then specific points of enquiry can be held.
33. This Court finds that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajasthan Tennis Association (supra) has dealt with similar issue and while deciding the scope of Rule 8, has interpreted that the order for conducting enquiry under
Section 23 of the Act of 2005 must specify the points in respect of which the enquiry is to be made. The extract of relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced as under:-
“2.Mr.Manoj Kumar Sharma, the Counsel for the appellant made the following submissions in assailing the order of the Single Judge dt. 22.09.2006:
(i) That the order of the Single Judge is non -speaking order. In this connection, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors., (2006 Indlaw SC 533);
(ii) That it was incumbent upon the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur to hear the appellant before the order dt. 09.06.2005 came to be passed. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case ofC anara
Bank v. V.K.Awasthy (2005) 6 SCC 321;
(iii) That the order dt. 09.06.2005 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur is not in conformity withR.8 of the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Rules, 2004 inasmuch as no
specific points on which the enquiry is to be made have been formulated.
(iv) That the complaints on a fair reading would show that they relate to the controversy concerning the management activity/election of the appellant association and such controversy has to be resolved through Conciliation and Arbitration as
required under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Act, 2005.
3. to 12 XX XX XX
13. Re: contention (iv); Before we take up contention (iii), we thought it fit to consider contention (iv).
14. Section 16 of the Act of 2005 provides for settlement of disputes. According to this provision, if any dispute arises touching the constitution, management activity, election or claim to affiliation of any Sports Association, such dispute is to be
resolved through conciliation and arbitration. For this purpose the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended from time to time has been made applicable to the conciliation and arbitration proceedings.
15 â€" 16. XX XX XX
17. It would, thus, be seen that an order for conducting an inquiry under Section 23, inter alia, must specify the points in respect of which the inquiry is to be made. When we look at the order dt. 09.06.2005 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, in exercise of his powers under Section 23(c), we find that the specific points for which the inquiry is to be held are not mentioned. Section 23 read with Rule 8 do not contemplate a roving and fishing inquiry to be held by the
Registrar or his nominee. If any complaint is received by the Registrar with regard to the mismanagement of the affairs of a Sports Association, he has to apply his mind and if he forms an opinion that inquiry under Section 23 needs to be held,
then he has to formulate the specific points in respect of which such inquiry is to be held. The order dt. 09.06.2005 falls short of this legal requirement. As a matter of fact, Mr. Sagar Mal Mehta, Senior Counsel, confronted with this legal flaw
in the order dt. 09.06.2005 submitted, and, in our view fairly, that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies may formulate the specific points in respect of which the inquiry is to be held.
18. In what we have said above, we dispose of the appeal by the following order:
(i) The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan shall have a relook at the complaints received by him from various District Tennis Associations, reference of which has been made in the order dt. 09.06.2005, and if he forms an opinion for
holding an inquiry into the allegations made in the said complaints, he will pass a fresh order indicating therein the specific points in respect of which the inquiry is to be held.
(ii) The order dt. 09.06.2005 is, thus, rendered ineffective.â€
34. In regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that show cause notice issued under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 needs to be challenged before the appropriate authority, after order is passed and remedy of appeal is
available under Section 35 of the Act of 2005, this Court finds that the notice which has been issued in the present case, is in gross violation of the statutory Rules and as such this Court needs to examine the same in the writ jurisdiction. This
Court finds that there has to be existence of necessary conditions prevalent which confers jurisdiction upon an authority to exercise its power and if such conditions are not present, the authority concerned has no jurisdiction to issue such order.
35. Insofar as, reliance placed by learned counsel for the respondents on the order dated 12.03.2019 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3720/2019 [District Cricket
Association, Pratapgarh & Another Vs. Dy.Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Another], treating the notice issued under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 to be premature, as no decision was taken on the notice which was issued under Section
23 of the Act of 2005, this Court finds that the said order was passed dismissing the writ petition in limine and further the scope of Section 23 of the Act of 2005 and Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules, 2004 have not been considered, so also the
decision passed by the Division Bench in the case of Rajasthan Tennis Association (supra).
36. As regards reliance placed on the judgment of this court in the case of District Cricket Association, Sawai Madhopur (supra), this Court had considered that if some information with respect to affiliation and constitution of elected body and
other information relating to registration of primary units, as per the Act of 2005, was called by the Registrar, the same was found to be within jurisdiction of the Registrar for eliciting information and considering the facts of the information
sought, this Court had held that by issuing notice under Section 23 of the Act of 2005, the Registrar was not determined to disqualify the petitionerAssociation. This Court after considering the decision passed by the Division Bench in the case
of Rajasthan Tennis Association (supra), in the said order, did not interfere with the notice issued to the petitioner-Association. The relevant order passed by this court in the case of District Cricket Association, Sawai Madhopur (supra) is
quoted hereunder:-
“This Court finds that if the Registrar on his own motion has sought certain information from the petitioners with respect to affiliation/constitution of the elected body and other information relating to registration of primary units as per
Section of the Act of 2005 and further the information with regard to orders which have been passed by the different Courts, this Court cannot term the said notice to be wholly without jurisdiction or Registrar having no competence to issue
such notice. The show cause-notice which has been given to the petitioners can always be issued for eliciting information, which has been sought, and only by issuance of notice under Section 23, it cannot be said that the Registrar or
respondents are determined to disqualify the petitioners association. This Court further finds that the dispute with regard to elections which have taken place in past is not the subject matter by which the Registrar has sought information or he
intends to overturn the judgment which has been passed by the competent Court. The information which is sought by way of show cause notice in no way affect rights of the petitioners at this juncture and as such the show cause-notice cannot
be faulted on the ground that the Registrar has invoked power under Section 23 of the Act for conducing the inquiry.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court has laid down the law in the case of Rajasthan Tennis Association through its President Vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Societies & Ors. (supra), that Section 23 read with Rule 8
do not contemplate a roving and fishing inquiry to be held by the Registrar or his nominee, this Court finds that in the present case by issuing show cause-notice no opinion is formed and only information has been sought from the petitioners
association with regard to certain elections which are said to be complained of.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Apex Court has not approved power of the executive authorities to nullify a judicial verdict, this Court finds that by issuing the notice to the petitioners, the Registrar has not formed
any opinion or he has not flouted any order passed from time to time by different Courts. It goes without saying that the petitioners if have orders in their favour, passed by the competent Courts/authorities, they can always place the same
before the Registrar who has issued the show cause notice.
This Court does not find any force in the instant petition and the same is dismissed.â€
37. This Court finds that the aforesaid judgment would be of no assistance to the respondents, as this Court has considered the facts, particularly of that case and the scope of Section 23 of the Act of 2005 and the Rules 8(1) & (2) of the
Rules, 2004 was not available for consideration before this Court and accordingly, the order was passed.
38. Insofar as, the reliance placed by counsel for the respondents on the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of District Basket Ball Association (supra), this Court find that in the said case, the notice, issued
under Section 23(1), was a show cause notice for conducting enquiry and final decision was not taken and as such the writ petition was treated as premature. The said judgment is of no assistance to the respondents, as the coordinate Bench
has not considered the scope of Section 23 of the Act of 2005 and Rules of 2004.
39. As regards, judgment of the Apex Court, relied upon by the respondents, in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (supra), this Court finds that the Apex Court had observed that the show cause notice did not give
rise to the cause of action because it did not amount to an adverse order and writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. The same judgment also lays down that writ jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and it should not be ordinarily exercised by quashing the show cause notice or chargesheet and in some very rare and exceptional cases, the High Court can quash the chargesheet or show cause notice, if it is found to be
wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason, if it is wholly illegal. The law laid down by the Apex Court in the said case was in respect of cancellation of a forged caste certificate issued to a candidate, on the basis of which he got job
and to take action against him. The candidate challenged the charge memo and the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the charge memo. The Apex Court, on an appeal filed by the Union of India, came to the conclusion that the
candidate was required to file reply to the charge memo and the disciplinary authority was required to decide the same. This Court finds that the said judgment does not apply to the present fact situation.
40. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.04.2019 and the notice dated 23.04.2019, issued by the Enquiry Officer, since are not passed in accordance with the law, are quashed and set aside. The Registrar (Institutions), the respondent
No.3, will have liberty to re-look at the complaints received by him, reference of which has been made in the order of appointment of Enquiry Officer and if he is of the opinion to hold an enquiry into the allegations made in the said complaints,
he can pass a fresh order indicating therein the specific points in respect of which the enquiry is to be held. The Registrar, if forms his opinion to hold enquiry, will deal with the matter in expeditious manner.
41. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed, in the aforesaid terms.
