Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1993 DIGILAW 517 (MP)

Gavishnath Shiksha Samiti v. Registrar Firms and Societies

1993-09-24

K.L.ISSRANI, M.V.TAMASKAR

body1993
JUDGMENT In the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of Annexures 'F', 'L' and 'N', by which the earlier Executive Committee of the petitioner No.1 Society was approved and continued. The respondents 3 to 8 have raised a priliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition on that ground that the petitioner No.2 Phoolchand Gupta, who was earlier the President of the petitioner No.1 Society, was removed by the Society as a motion of no confidence was passed against him in the General Body Meeting held on 25.9.1984 by the 2/3rd majority of the members and thereafter he no more remained the President. Moreover, the petitioner No.2 has not preferred any appeal or revision under section 40 of the M. P. Societies, Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued orally that the term of the earlier Executive Body expired on 25.9.1984 and a new body came into existence when in the year 1989 fresh elections took place and since then the new body is functioning. Annexure 'P' gives the names of the members of the earlier Executive Committee, which was intimated by the Registrar of Firms & Societies, M. P., Bhopal to the District Education Officer, Satna, on 28.9.1985 vide Annexure 'L' and the said list of the members of the Executive Committee was approved by the District Education Officer, Satna, by his order dated 11.10.1985 (Annexure 'M'). The learned counsel for the petitioner No.2 is not able to show as to whether the petitioner No.2 is still in the Society. As submitted by the counsel for the respondents 3 to 8, some new executive body is functioning at present than the earlier executive body. In view of the fact that the petitioner No.2 did not resort to any remedy under section 40 of the Adhiniyam, which was available to him long back and has not challenged the subsequent changes, no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is called for. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.