P. P. NAOLEKAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a Society registered under the society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act')having Registration no 2596/72. The Society has been created for the purpose of running educational institutions. A notice was issued under section 32 (1) of the Act for making an enquiry into constitution, working end financial condition of the Society. The petitioner-Society was also issued notice by the Vigilence Officer for making inquiries of the affairs of the Society and the petitioner was asked to remain present during inquiry under the Act. Aggrieved by these notice the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India in this Court. The further change of events necessitated the Society to make necessary amendments and challenge the subsequent steps taken by the respondents. During the pendency of the petition a report was submitted by the inquiry officer under Section 32 of the. Act which was challenged by the society. Thereafter on 31 7 1990 a notice for supesession of the governing body, exercising powers under Section 13 of the Act, was issued to the petitioner-Society and by order dated 16. 11 1990 the order of supersession was passed. The notice and the order of supersession was also challenged by the petitioner through amendment. ( 2 ) THE notice for supersession was Issued on the grounds that the society has committed financial irregularity, that the Society has not cooperated in the conduct of the inquiry, that the members of the managing committee had not properly behaved with the employees of the Society, that there is consistent default on the part of the Society to comply with the orders issued bv the State Government and that the Socety had not produced the documents to the show cause notice issued. The Society submitted its reply on 16 6 1987 denying allegations made So far as the charge no 1 WHS concerned. it was said In the notice that the managing committee had misused the funds deposited with it for the management of the school and that the certain amount had been withdrawn without any authority and that amount has been misapproprlated. it was said In the notice that the managing committee had misused the funds deposited with it for the management of the school and that the certain amount had been withdrawn without any authority and that amount has been misapproprlated. According to the Society, the amount which has been spent is duly audited and the auditors report is filed, it has come to the notice of the society that certain teachers had illegally recovered the amount from the students and the Society had taken disciplinary steps against those teachers for misconduct. For the misconduct of the teachers, the Society cannot be held responsible. As for the non-production of the documents and thereby non-co-operating with the inquiry, according to the Society they have not been asked to furnish anv specific records or documents of the Society and in those circumstances It was not possible for them to produe the entire record of the Society before the inquiry officer. As regards non-compliance of the order of the State Government, it is said that although there is a direction issued for fixation of salaries of the teachers the Society was not effectively and sincerely working on it although the Society on its own has taken up the matter of fixation of the salary of the teachers According to the State, it is not sufficient compliance of the directions issued by the State and therefore the Society is guilty of the breach to comply with the direction issued by the State Government. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that reading the order as a whole, issued 16- 11- 1990, by the State superseding the Society, it is apparent that there is no application of mind by the authority who has heard the matter and the authority has mostly relied on the report of the inquiry officer. There are no specific allegations given of the financial irregularity nor the specific documents have been asked for to be produced and in such circumstances it would not have been possible for the Society to show that there was no irregularity In financial matters in the conduct of business of the Society nor the Society can be held responsible for non-production of the documents. ( 3 ) AFTER going through the records and considering the arguments before us. we do feel that there is much substance in the contentions raised by the petitioner. However, as. ( 3 ) AFTER going through the records and considering the arguments before us. we do feel that there is much substance in the contentions raised by the petitioner. However, as. presently advised we need not go into the question in view of the provision of sub-section (3) section where in the order of supersession of the governing body shall remain in force not more than three years, thus, the order of supersession passed by the state Government on 16-11-1990 shall cense to have any effect from 17 II. 1993 on the expiry of three years, period and as a result thereof the officer appointed by the State to manage the affairs of the Society will also cease to be an authorised officer for the management of the Society 17-11-1993. Sub-section (6) of Section 33 contemplates that the authorised officer, at the expiry of the period of his appointment, arrange for constitution of a new governing body in accordance with the regulations of the Society From 17-1-1993 the management of the petitioner-Society will vest with the managing committee which was superseded by order of the State Government, if new governing body is not constituted by the authorised officer in accordance with sub-section (6) of Section 33 of the Act and the bye-laws or the regulations of the Society. We have been informed that no new managing committee of the Society was constituted by the authorised,officer. Under the circumstances, we direct respondents 1 and 2 to hand over the management of the petitioner Society to its Managing Committee through its Secretary Balakram Verma within ten days of this order, if not handed over so far. It is now for the persors incharge to take necessary steps to conduct the elections in accordance with the law, rules or regulations or bye laws as applicable to the petitioner-Society for the said purpose. ( 4 ) WITH the above direction , the petition is disposed of No order as to costs. Security amount deposited shall be refunded to the petitioner. Order accordingly. .