R. S. GARG, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner makes a complaint that respondent No. 1 and 2 are not taking any action against respondent No. 3 to 5 on the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 26 of the M. P. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. According to the petitioner the petitioner is a registered society which is having its own Bye-laws. The petitioner contends that the elections of the petitioner's Samaj were held on 26. 2. 1995 and Shaiten Singh Pal was elected as senior Vice-President. According to the petitioner the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were members of the earlier governing body and as they did not furnish annual accounts to respondent Nos, 1 and 2 and as they did not hand-over the files, documents, account books, etc. to the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the application of the petitioner were duty bound to initiate the action. The petitioner submits that the complaints made by them remained unattended and, therefore, they were forced to file the petition. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contested the petition and submitted that as the petitioner has filed a civil suit No. 46-A/95 in the Court of Vth Civil Judge, Class II, Bhopal raising the same disputes and has suppressed this material fact they are not entitled to any relief. It was also submitted that an application under Section 26 can only be filed by the legally elected governing body after complying with the provisions of section 27 of the Act and as the petitioner did not furnish any information or the itself the members of the governing body or the details about its election, the respondents were unable to take cognizance of the application. The respondent Nos. 3 to 5 also filed reply to the petition but had choosen to remain exparte at the time of hearing. According to their return, the petitioner is not a duly elected body and as they have already filed the civil suit, the petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to Section 26 of the Act, the Registrar can seize the records, etc. According to their return, the petitioner is not a duly elected body and as they have already filed the civil suit, the petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to Section 26 of the Act, the Registrar can seize the records, etc. , where he is satisfied that the records are likely to be tempered with or destroyed and the funds and the property of the society are likely to be mis-appropriated or misapplied or if the governing body of a society is reconstituted at a general meeting of the society and out-going members of the governing body refused to hand-over charge of the records and property of the society to those having to or entitled to receive such property. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to Section 27 of the Act once in every year the general meeting of the society is to be held and within fourteen days a list of the full names permanent addresses, etc. of the governing body shall be filed with the Registrar by the President, secretary or any person authorised. ( 4 ) THE Registrar can take cognizance of the newly elected members or the reconstituted governing body only if a list under Section 27 of the Act is filed. In the instant case, it does not appear from the allegations made in the petition that the present petitioner proclaimed to have been elected as the members of the governing body ever filed any application in accordance with Section 27 of the Act. ( 5 ) SECTION 26 (1) (a) gives the powers to the Registrar to take suo motu action while according to Section 26 (l) (b) it is always on the complaint of the governing body which was reconstituted at a general meeting of the society. ( 6 ) SHRI Lalwani, learnd Counsel for the petitioner submits that if an action under Section 26 (1) (b) could not have been taken by the Registrar because the newly elected body did not comply with the provisions of Section 27 of the Act then too the Registrar was duty bound to take suo motu action. In any opinion, the contention of the learned Counsel is mis-conceived. In any opinion, the contention of the learned Counsel is mis-conceived. An action under Section 26 (1) (b) can only be taken on an application of the body which was reconstituted at a general meeting of the society and has filed the list of the members of the governing body in accordance with Section 27 of the Act. In the instant case when the list was not filed and the result of the election was never disclosed to or was brought to the notice of the Registrar, it is not expected of him that on some application filed by somebody he shall initiate the action under Section 26 (1) (b ). The petitioners were free to file the list of the members of the governing body under Section 27 of the Act and if after filing of the list and lodgment of the complaint an action was not taken by the Registrar then certainly the petitioners can raise the grievance. The cont ention of shri Lalwani that on face of the complaint that the respondent No. 3 to 5 were not handing over the records and charge to'the petitioner, the Registrar should have taken a suo motu action. Suffice it to say that the petitioner would be entitled to records only when they have complied with the provisions of Section 27. On a complaint by anybody it is not expected from the Registrar that he would immediately take an action under Section 26 (l) (a) and seize the records. The seizure of the records, account books, funds and property of the society certainly would cause hinderance in the smooth and regular functioning of the society. The Registrar can exercise the powers only if he is satisfied that the newly elected governing body has come into existence or the records, register or the books of accounts of the Society are likely to be tampered with or destroyed and the funds and the property of the society are likely to be misappropriated or misapplied. If there is nothing before the Registrar to record his satisfaction about tampering with or distortion of the records, registers or books of accounts and misappropriation or misapplication of the funds and property of the society he cannot exercise his powers under section 26 (l) (a ). If there is nothing before the Registrar to record his satisfaction about tampering with or distortion of the records, registers or books of accounts and misappropriation or misapplication of the funds and property of the society he cannot exercise his powers under section 26 (l) (a ). ( 7 ) FROM the complaint (Annexure P/5), it appears that the petitioner Shaitan singh Pal had filed an application on behalf of the Samaj that elections were held on 26. 2. 1995 in which the office hearers were elected. The complete details of the office bearers were not given. In para 5 of the Annexure P/5, the petitioners have submitted that the respondent No. 3 to 5 did not hand-over the records to the newly elected body and the respondent Ramashankar Pali has started publishing the magazine owned by the Samaj in his own name. By Annexure P/5, it was requested that the complete records be seized from the possession of respondent No. 3 to 5 or the earlier office bearer and the same be handed over to the newly elected body. On this application, the Registrar was unable to exercise his powers under Section 26 (1) (a)because the petitioner did not put complete facts and could not be treated to be a reconstituted governing body as they have not complied with the provisions of Section 27 of the Act. By Annexure P/6 Shaitan Singh Pal informed the Registrar that the earlier application dated 7. 4. 1995 has not been considered and the records, etc. have yet not been seized and handed over to the petitioner. It was also submitted that the records be recovered/seized from the earlier members of the governing body. In any case it cannot be held that on these applications which were incomplete in the details the respondent- Registrar could taken an action under Section 26 (l) (a ). The omnibus allegations made by the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court were insufficient to reach to the conclusion that the records were required to be seized. ( 8 ) WITHOUT entering into the merits of the contention regarding pendency of the suit, it can certainly be held that an incomplete application filed under Section 26, the Registrar was not required to take an action. ( 8 ) WITHOUT entering into the merits of the contention regarding pendency of the suit, it can certainly be held that an incomplete application filed under Section 26, the Registrar was not required to take an action. Even today the petitioners are free to file an application under Section 26 (1) (b) after complying with the provisions of Section 27 of the Act. If the petitioners after complying with the provisions of Section 27 of the Act file an application under Section 26 (1) (b), then it is expected of the registrar that he would make an enquiry in accordance with law. The petition has no merits. It is dismissed accordingly. Petition dismissed. .