R. S. GARG, J. ( 1 ) THE facts which infact are chequered and as I understand are as follows ; on 16. 11. 1990 (Annexure R-7) the society known as G. C. F. Karmachari Union School was superseded by the State Government and an administrator for a period of one year was appointed. By order dated 29. 10. 1993 (Annexure R-2) the said administrator held that the 48 members who were inducted by the then Secretary Balak Ram Verma were not properly inducted therefore, they had no right to take part in the election. He further held that 15 member as were on the roll on 11. 5. 1981 and other 15 members who were on roll on 1. 4. 1984, in all 30 members were entitled to take part in the elections. The supersession order (Annexure R-7) was challenged by the said Balak Ram Verma in M. P. No. 4242/89. Before the said writ petition could be heard order (Annexure R-2) dated 29. 10. 1993 was passed by the administrator. It appears that the said writ petition No. 4242/89 was disposed of on 11. 12. 1993 (under Annexure R-16) but the order dated 29. 10. 1993 was not brought to the notice of this Court. This Court in its judgment dated 11. 12. 1993 observed that no new managing committee of the society was constituted by the authorised officer. This Court disposed of the petition with the direction that the State and Registrar should hand-over the management of the petitioner-society to its managing committee through its Secretary Balak ram Verma within 10 days of 11. 12. 1993. This Court also directed that it would be for the person in-charge to take necessary steps to conduct the elections in accordance with law, rules or regulations bye-laws as applicable to the petitioner-society for the said purpose. The records show that M. P. No. 4492'/93 was filed by G. C. F. Karmachari Union School through Secretary, balak Ram Verma some where in November against the administrator's order dated 29. 10. 1993 (Annexure R-2 ). After obtaining some interim orders, during pendency of M. P. No. 4492/93 the elections were held. The said elections were held on 24. 4. 1994. ( 2 ) AN information was submitted to the Registrar under Section 27 of the Madhya Pradesh Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. 10. 1993 (Annexure R-2 ). After obtaining some interim orders, during pendency of M. P. No. 4492/93 the elections were held. The said elections were held on 24. 4. 1994. ( 2 ) AN information was submitted to the Registrar under Section 27 of the Madhya Pradesh Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. Before any order on the said application could be passed by the Registrar, M. P. No. 4492/93 was withdrawn by the union represented by Shri Balakram Verma on 24. 6. 1994 (Annexure R-3 ). It appears that on 28. 6. 1994 the Registrar took the names of the newly elected office bearers on record vide his order no. Jabalpur 33/5/1838/94 (Annexure P-1 = R-8 ). ( 3 ) THE order dated 28. 6. 1994 was challenged by other set of 30 members through B. N. Mukherjee before the State Government. Vide order dated 24. 6. 1996 the State Government set aside the order passed by the Registrar. Order of the State Government is available on record as (Annexure R-9 ). It appears that before Registrar had taken the names of 1994 body on record, elections for 1996 were held on 11. 4. 1996. Vide Annexure P-2 the names of the newly elected body were taken on record on 11. 4. 1996. It appears that the other 30 members also held the elections and gave an information to the registrar. The Assistant Registrar by his order dated 12. 7. 1996 bearing No. ARJ/1037/96 informed Shri B. N. Mukherjee that the list submitted by Shri b. N. Mukherjee representing 30 members) could not be accepted. The order is available on record as Annexure R-11. ( 4 ) AGAINST the order dated 12. 7. 1996 (Annexure R-11) Shri B. N. Mukherjee and Shri R. C. Singh showing themselves to be the President and secretary of the Union filed W. P. No. 3229/96. On 19. 9. 1996 (Annexure R-12), this Court in W. P. No. 3229/96 directed that the matter was yet to be decided by the Assistant Registrar, it was not required to go into the details of the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties. This Court observed that so long the final decision by the Assistant Registrar is not taken the office bearers said to have been elected on 24. 6. 1994 and 1. 4. 1996 shall not be allowed to function. This Court observed that so long the final decision by the Assistant Registrar is not taken the office bearers said to have been elected on 24. 6. 1994 and 1. 4. 1996 shall not be allowed to function. The Collector, Jabalpur was required to nominate a person to look after the functioning of the union till the decision by the Assistant Registrar. In the said petition Shri Balakram Verma was joined but not as a Secretary of the union. The said Balakram, however, filed his return (Annexure R-4), in w. P. No. 3229/96 in his capacity as Secretary of the union. During pendency ofw. P. No. 3229/96 vide order No. ARJ/1993/96 dated 14. 10. 1996 (Annexure r-13) the Asstt. Registrar passed the order holding that the elections held on 24. 4. 1994 and 1. 4. 1996 were in accordance with law and the 48 members were entitled to elect the body. ( 5 ) AFTER the order dated 14. 10. 1996 (Annexure R-13) was passed by the asstt. Registrar, W. P. No. 3229/96 again came up for hearing before this court. On 22. 11. 1996 vide Annexure R-5, this Court disposed of the petition with liberty in favour of Shri B. N. Mukherjee and R. C. Singh that as the statutory remedy of appeal would be available to these persons they may file appeal against the order dated 12. 7. 1996 (Annexure R-11) and 14. 10. 1996 (Annexure R-13) within three weeks with a copy to Balakram Verma, respondent No. 5. The parties present in the Court were directed to appear before the appellate authority on 18 December, 1996. The appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the parties. The parties were given liberty to agitate all their respective contentions in relation to the membership as well as the legality and propriety of election of respondent No. 5. According to the direction given by this Court on 22. 11. 1996 (Annexure R-5) two appeals were filed by Shri B. N. Mukherjee and Shri RC. Singh representing the union as President and Secretary. It is to be seen that present petitioners were not joined in the said appeals but Balakram Verma was alone joined as party respondent in his personal capacity. 11. 1996 (Annexure R-5) two appeals were filed by Shri B. N. Mukherjee and Shri RC. Singh representing the union as President and Secretary. It is to be seen that present petitioners were not joined in the said appeals but Balakram Verma was alone joined as party respondent in his personal capacity. It is also to be seen that Balakram Verma was not joined in the said appeals in his capacity as Secretary. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing the parties, the State Government by its order No. F l (l)/61/96/a/11 dated 27th March. 1997 (Annexure R-14), allowed the appeals and set aside the orders dated 12. 7. 1996 (Annexure R-ll) and 14/10/1996 (Annexure R-13) and remitted the matter to the Registrar Firms and Societies with a direction that he himself should decide the matter in accordance with law keeping in view the orders passed by the administrator pertaining to the membership. The Registrar was required to decide the matter for taking the names of the office bearers on record in accordance with Section 27 of the act. ( 7 ) AFTER the said remand the Registrar Firms and Societies by its order dated 21. 5. 1997 (Annexure R-15) ordered that names of the body represented by Shri B. N. Mukherjee and Shri R. C. Singh be taken on record. He observed that B. N. Mukherjee submitted before him that the elections were held by them in accordance with the list approved by the administrator. He also observed that Balakram Verma could not lead proper evidence relating to membership and the State Government by its order dated 27. 3. 1997 (Annexure R-14) has already set aside the orders dated 12. 7. 1996 (Annexure r-ll) and 14. 10. 1996 (Annexure R-13 ). From the order passed by the registrar, it does not appear that he has tried to understand the dispute or has even applied his mind to the orders passed by the State Government or ever tried to understand what the State Government was asking him to do. From order Annexure R-14 it would clearly appear that the State had simply set aside the orders dated 12. 7. 1996 and 14. 10. 1996 and directed the registrar to decide the matter in accordance with law keeping in view the order earlier passed by the administrator on 29. 10. 1993 (Annexure R-2 ). From order Annexure R-14 it would clearly appear that the State had simply set aside the orders dated 12. 7. 1996 and 14. 10. 1996 and directed the registrar to decide the matter in accordance with law keeping in view the order earlier passed by the administrator on 29. 10. 1993 (Annexure R-2 ). The State government did not decide the dispute but has simply remitted the matter to the Registrar. ( 8 ) BE that as it may, the present petitioners who are claiming to have been elected in meeting dated 1. 4. 1996 for a period of 2 years have filed this petition inter alia pleading that the order dated 27. 3. 1997 (Annexure R-14) passed by the State Government deserves to be quashed because the said order has been passed against their interest without realising that they were not joined as parties. ( 9 ) THE petition was admitted for hearing on 16. 6. 1997 and this Court stayed the operation of the order dated 27. 3. 1997 (Annexure R-14) till 7. 10. 1997. It appears that before the interim order could be passed the Registrar had already decided the matter on 21. 5. 1997 vide (Annexure R-15 ). On 11. 7. 1997, the matter was adjourned and the interim order granted on 1. 6. 1996 was continued until further orders. On 20. 8. 1997, the matter was again adjourned. The matter was again adjourned time and again and ultimately came up for hearing on 11. 2. 1999. ( 10 ) SHRI Bhave learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 27. 3. 1997 (Annexure R-14) is patently illegal because the State government has set aside the elections of the petitioners without realising that they were not Joined as parties in the appeal. His further submission is that any notice to Balakram Verma was not a notice to the petitioners because balakram Verma was joined in his personal capacity in W. P. No. 3229/96 and was not representing the society or the committee elected on 1. 4. 1996. According to him, the State Government even on the merits was not justified in observing that order dated 14. 10. 1996 was not traceable in records and its non-availability would bring the proceedings conducted by the Assistant registrar within sphere of suspicion. ( 11 ) SHRI Ravindra Shrivastava learned Counsel for the respondents Nos. 4. 1996. According to him, the State Government even on the merits was not justified in observing that order dated 14. 10. 1996 was not traceable in records and its non-availability would bring the proceedings conducted by the Assistant registrar within sphere of suspicion. ( 11 ) SHRI Ravindra Shrivastava learned Counsel for the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 submits that the orders passed by the State Government are in accordance with law and as the Registrar has already passed the order on 21. 5. 1997 (Annexure R-15), the petition deserves to be dismissed. He also submit that in the present matter principles of natural justice did not require either the State Government or Registrar to issue notice to the petitioners or bear them. He further submits that the orders passed by the State and registrar are in accordance with law. ( 12 ) SHRI Bhave in reply to the arguments submits that from the appeal memo filed by the respondents it would clearly appear that election of 1994 and 1996 were challenged. The State Government did not try to appreciate that the order of administrator stands superseded by the order of the Registrar. The State Government also did not try to appreciate that if the petitioners were sought to be thrown out from their office then they were required to be heard. ( 13 ) I have heard the parties at length. The facts would clearly show that the present society was elected on 1. 4. 1996 for a period of two years. Their period has came to an end on 31. 3. 1998, they would have no right to continue in the office after their term is over. From the order of the Registrar dated 21. 5. 1997 (Annexure R-15) it appears that proceedings under Section 32 are pending. The manner in which the 48 members represented by the present petitioners or Balakram Verma on one side and the 30 members represented by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 on the other hand are conducting themselves would clearly indicate that none of them are interested in the smooth working of the society but are simply fighting as to who are the validly elected office bearers. ( 14 ) TRUE it is that the order dated 29. 10. 3 and 4 on the other hand are conducting themselves would clearly indicate that none of them are interested in the smooth working of the society but are simply fighting as to who are the validly elected office bearers. ( 14 ) TRUE it is that the order dated 29. 10. 1993 (Annexure R-2) was not challenged by the 48 persons before any authority but at the same time it cannot be lost sight of that by order dated 11. 12. 1993 passed in M. P. No. 4242/89 the order of suspension was set aside and the society was to be handed over to Balakram Verma. The said Balakram Verma held the elections on 24. 4. 1994 and informed the Registrar immediately thereafter. The list submitted by Shri Balakram Verma relating to the body elected in 1994 was not challenged by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4. It appears that either of the parties are not playing fair either before the Registrar or before the state Government or before the High Court. Each set of the parties are suppressing the material facts. After going through the entire record I am of the opinion, that the Registrar is required to appoint an administrator for conduction of day to day work and proper administration of the society. The Registrar shall also be obliged to hold an inquiry into the constitution of the society which shall include the induction of the members and validity of their membership. ( 15 ) CONSIDERING the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion, that the orders passed by the different authorities should not be allowed to stands because on the side Balakram Verma filed his return in M. P. No. 3229/96 as Secretary but was not joined as Secretary to represent the interest of the present petitioners in the appeal filed by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4. It would be better that the Registrar makes an inquiry into the induction of the members and validity of their membership. The parties present in the Court shall appear before the Registrar on 5th April 1999. The registrar shall issue notices to all the 78 members te. 48 members who have been represented by the present petitioners and 30 members who are being represented by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4. The parties present in the Court shall appear before the Registrar on 5th April 1999. The registrar shall issue notices to all the 78 members te. 48 members who have been represented by the present petitioners and 30 members who are being represented by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4. After serving notice to all the 78 persons in accordance with law, the Registrar shall give them proper opportunity to lead evidence being influenced by the earlier orders passed by the administration 29. 10. 1993 or by the Assistant Registrar on 12. 4. 1996, 14. 10. 1996 or by the order of the State dated 27. 3. 1997 or its own order dated 21. 5. 1997. The Registrar shall record a proper finding that who are valid members of the society. After recording his findings on the subject he shall direct the administrator to hold the elections. The Registrar shall conclude the inquiry within a period of 6 months from the date of serving of the notices on the above referred 78 persons and shall see to it that the elections are held within 3 months from the date he disposes of the dispute finally. ( 16 ) THE petition is disposed of with the directions aforesaid. There shall be no orders as to cost. Petition disposed with direction. .