Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, the Goa Cricket Association, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, challenged an order dated 29 May 2026 passed by the District Registrar, North, and Inspector General of Societies, Panaji, Goa (Respondent No. 2). The order directed an inquiry by a panel of auditors into the affairs of the petitioner-society. The petitioner also challenged a communication of the same date sent to the Chairman of the Goa Branch of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India requesting a panel of auditors. The background involves a complaint by Respondent No. 3, a life member of the society, who had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 80 of 2026 seeking directions to investigate allegations. The Registrar, without issuing any notice or hearing the society, passed the impugned order. The High Court examined whether the Registrar could order a suo motu inquiry under Section 36(1) of the Act without affording an opportunity of hearing. The court held that principles of natural justice require that the affected party be heard before an adverse order is passed. The order was quashed as violative of natural justice and the matter was remitted back to the Registrar for fresh consideration after giving a hearing to the society. The court also set aside the communication to the ICAI.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Right to be Heard - Section 36(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 - The District Registrar ordered a suo motu inquiry into the affairs of a society without issuing any notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the society. The High Court held that such an order is violative of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. The court emphasized that even a suo motu power must be exercised fairly and reasonably, and the affected party must be heard before an adverse order is passed. (Paras 10-15) B) Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Section 36(1) - Suo Motu Inquiry - Scope and Limitations - The power under Section 36(1) to order an inquiry is discretionary but must be exercised based on material and after due application of mind. The court found that the Registrar's order was passed without any prior notice or hearing, and the reasons recorded were insufficient to justify the inquiry. The order was quashed as arbitrary and illegal. (Paras 16-20) C) Writ Jurisdiction - Judicial Review - Administrative Orders - The High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, can interfere with an administrative order that is patently illegal, arbitrary, or violative of natural justice. The court set aside the impugned order and communication, directing the Registrar to consider the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the society. (Paras 21-23)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Registrar could order a suo motu inquiry under Section 36(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 without issuing notice or affording a hearing to the society, and whether the impugned order was sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 29 May 2026 and the communication to the ICAI, and remitted the matter back to the District Registrar for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner society.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Right to be heard
- Suo motu inquiry
- Societies Registration Act
- 1860
- Section 36
- Writ jurisdiction
- Judicial review of administrative orders
