ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. In any adjudicating atmosphere the cherished ideal, that is solemnity and divine dignity are to be maintained and contentious issues ought to be putforth with intellectual objectivity, poised rationality, calmness of speech, sanguinity of logic and genuine flavour of mutual respect so that the proceeding in a Court epitomises a paradigm. The protagonists who have visited this Court may fight a battle royal, but it has to be fought with nobility, so that loyalty to the solemn and grand majesty of law is honoured with all dignifiedness and stateliness. But, an unfortunate but, in the beginning there was heat and torridity in the atmosphere bereft of resplendence as if the exaltedness of law has to be treated as a pasquinade, but slowly concinnity prevailed and confraternity was restored and the counsel for the parties came to terms and thought it apposite that an atmosphere in a Court or for that matter in any adjudicating arena is to be illuminated with light and not with heat and calmness of the atmosphere is not to be jettisoned by unwarranted heat. This Court expresses its unreserved and uninhibited appreciation for Mr. P. S. Nair, Mr. N.C. Jain and Mr. R.N. Singh, learned senior counsel who commenced the hearing in an excited comportment became collected and composed to acquire the equanimity of a saint, poise of a sage, calmness of the Himalayas, repose of the Pacific and serenity of a savant. Ordinarily I would not have started with such a preferatory note, but I feel obligated to say so for the simon pure reason, I would not have been in a position to dispose of this case, if the learned counsel for the parties would not have rendered their fullest co-operation. Hence I proceed. 2. Mr. P. S. Nair, learned Senior Counsel keeping has tryst with consistency and vehemence which are inhered in him submitted that some of the respondents have not yet entered appearance and, therefore, the matter cannot be finally heard. Mr. R. N. Singh, learned senior counsel undaunted and undeterred, canvassed that 'Hamdast' notices had been served on all the respondents but some of them have refused to accept and, therefore, this Court should proceed deeming it that there has been service of notice. This Court accepts the submission of Mr. Singh and treats that service has been effected on all the respondents. This Court accepts the submission of Mr. Singh and treats that service has been effected on all the respondents. Accordingly, I presently proceed to deal with the matter on merits. 3. Sans unnecessary details I may straightway move on to the relief clause whereby the petitioners, two in number, have prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari in exercise of powers conferred on this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 6-10-2000, Annexure P/3, passed by the Registrar, Firms and Societies, respondent No. 2 herein and affirmation thereof by order dated 13-11-2001, Annexure P/6, passed by the Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, respondent No. 1 herein. 4. Assasiling the order contained in Annexure P/3 it is submitted by Mr. R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners being assisted by Smt. Shobha Menon that the Registrar has passed the order that the election of the members who were elected on 16-11-1997 and in the year 1999 are illegal and, therefore, the election shall be conducted within forty days by founder members. Propones the learned counsel that the Registrar before recording such a finding has not conducted an enquiry as envisaged and enjoined under Section 32 of The Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and hence, the order passed by him is absolutely penetrable. Further submission of Mr. Singh is that the Registrar could not have passed an order for holding of an election, confining it exclusively to the founding members when other members are in existence and founder members are not the only the existing species. The said order which was challenged in an appeal before the State Government, has been brought on record as Annexure P/6 and its validity is called in question by Mr. Singh by drawing attention of this Court to paragraph 13 to highlight that the State Government while expressing the opinion that there is no provision in the bye-laws, to indicate that only the founder members are entitled to participate in the election, has confirmed the order passed by the Registrar in a most laconic and arbitrary manner and, therefore, the same needs to be axed by this Court. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. N. C. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7, sounded a contra note and propounded that the Registrar might have used a wrong terminology by mentioning the founder members but if the spirit of Section 32 of the Act is taken into consideration, there is no embargo that Registrar cannot conduct an enquiry with regard to the valid membership and hence, the enquiry conducted by the Registrar and consequent direction to hold election by founding members cannot be faulted and it should be understood that he has referred to valid members. It is also urged by him that founding members are life members and thence, their membership are to be reckoned with and as the same has been done by the Registrar, the finding on that score is invincible. It is also proponed by Mr. Jain that the petitioners who have preferred the instant writ petition invoking the power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution chose not to appear before the original authority on many an occasion though opportunities were granted and presently labouring hard to have the indulgence of this Court for a roving enquiry, which is impermissible because this Court does not exercise ordinary jurisdiction of a Court of appeal in these matters, but the extraordinary jurisdiction which has to be confined to see correctness in the decision-making process and to curb perversity of approach. 6. Mr. P. S. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 has contended that if the scheme of the Act is appreciated in proper perspective, Registrar has the jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry and, therefore, the order passed by him is infallible. Learned counsel has also submitted that the relief at present sought by the petitioners cannot be granted, as in the meantime, in pursuance of the order passed by the Registrar, election has taken place and new rights have been created and the said rights cannot be frustrated by omnibus and spacious prayers made by the petitioners in the writ petition. 7. Mr. R. S. Jha, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State submitted that Registrar has jurisdiction under Section 32(3) of the Act and as the petitioners did not approach this Court at the relevant time this Court should be slow to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. 8. 7. Mr. R. S. Jha, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State submitted that Registrar has jurisdiction under Section 32(3) of the Act and as the petitioners did not approach this Court at the relevant time this Court should be slow to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. 8. It is not disputed at the Bar, the Society, namely, Bank Adhikari Shiksha Samiti, is a society registered under the Act and as has been stated to this Court, it runs two educational institutions. The primary objection raised by Mr. Nair is that the elections have been held and, therefore, the present writ petition having not been amended, the petitioners cannot claim relief. The aforesaid submission at a first flush appears to be quite attractive, but on a deeper scrutiny it melts into insignificance, inasmuch the election has taken place on the basis of the order passed vide Annexure P/3 by the Registrar and it is well settled in law, if the infrastructure does not survive, the superstructure is bound to collapse. It may not be a truism on all sets of facts, but indubitably is one in the obtaining factual matrix, as the action taken on the bedrock of Annexure P/3 is necessarily consequential. But it is to be seen whether infrastructure had collapsed in entirety in the present case or it has dents which can be repaired. Hence, I do not intend to reject the writ petition at the threshold on the preliminary objection which has been urged in a studied manner by Mr. Nair. 9. The seminal issue that arises for consideration is whether the Registrar has jurisdiction under the Act or not to cause an enquiry in regard to validity of membership. To appreciate the aforesaid facet it is apposite to reproduce Section 32 of the Act. It reads as under:- 32. Enquiry and settlement of disputes. - (1) The Registrar may, on his own motion or on an application made under sub-section (2) either by himself or by a person authorised by him, by order in writing, hold an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial conditions of a society. It reads as under:- 32. Enquiry and settlement of disputes. - (1) The Registrar may, on his own motion or on an application made under sub-section (2) either by himself or by a person authorised by him, by order in writing, hold an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial conditions of a society. (2) An enquiry of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) shall be held on the application together with an affidavit in support of its contents of - (a) a majority of the members of the governing body of the society; or (b) not less than one-third of the total number of members of the society. (2) An enquiry of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) shall be held on the application together with an affidavit in support of its contents of - (a) a majority of the members of the governing body of the society; or (b) not less than one-third of the total number of members of the society. (3) The Registrar or the person authorised by him under sub-section (1) shall for the purpose of an enquiry under this section have the following powers, namely:- (a) he shall at all times have free access to the books, accounts, documents, securities, cash and other properties belonging to, or in the custody of, the society and may summon any person in possession, or responsible for the custody of any such books, accounts documents, securities, cash or other properties to produce the same, if they relate to the head office of the society at any place at the headquarters thereof and if they relate to any branch of the society, at any place in the town wherein such branch thereof is located or in his own office; (b) he may summon any person who he has reason to believe has knowledge of any of the affairs of the society to appear before him at any place at the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof or in his own office and may examine such person on oath; and (c) (i) he may notwithstanding any regulation or byelaw specifying the period of notice for a general meeting of the society, require the officers of the society call a general meeting of the society at such time at the head office, of the society or at any other place at the headquarters of the society and to determine such matters as may be directed by him and where the officers of the society refuse or fail to call such a meeting, he shall have power to call it himself; (ii) any meeting called under sub-clause (i) shall have all the powers of a general meeting called under the Regulations or byelaws of the society and its proceedings shall be regulated by such byelaws. (4) When an enquiry is made under this section the Registrar shall communicate the result of the enquiry to the society and may issue appropriate directions to the society, which shall be binding on all parties concerned. 10. (4) When an enquiry is made under this section the Registrar shall communicate the result of the enquiry to the society and may issue appropriate directions to the society, which shall be binding on all parties concerned. 10. On a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision it is quite vivid that Registrar has authority to conduct an enquiry. When the power to conduct an enquiry is conferred on the Registrar, decidedly he has the authority to find out about the validity in respect of the members, because it is the members who constitute a society and a society can never be conceived without members. Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel has not seriously opposed the concept that the Registrar can conduct an enquiry but it is his submission that the said authority cannot direct election to be held by the founding members. 11. Mr. Jain, learned Senior Counsel has also not argued in oppugnation in that regard but it is his submission that founding members must be construed to be valid members of the society. In absence of any disharmony or dichotomy existing between both sets of submissions, I need not to labour hard whether it is the founding members who can participate in the election or not. It is to be construed that they should be the valid members of the Society. 12. The Sixty Four Thousand Million Dollar question that arises (I use such a phraseology because of the initial heat that filled the atmosphere) for consideration whether the founding members have usurped the powers of Society/Federation away from the petitioners. To appreciate the controversy I have carefully perused the order passed vide Annexure P/3. On a scrutiny of the same it is noticeable that the Registrar had given certain dates for production of the documents but the same were not produced. It is submitted by Mr. Singh that series of documents were produced before the appellate authority. The learned counsel has produced the said documents as per Annexures P/16 and P/17 to show that the petitioners along with other members have been conferred the membership from 1984 onwards and the last election was held in the year 1997. The truth or falsity of the aforesaid documents and incorporation thereof cannot be really gone into by this Court. It is strenuously canvassed by Mr. The truth or falsity of the aforesaid documents and incorporation thereof cannot be really gone into by this Court. It is strenuously canvassed by Mr. Singh that the State Government has failed in its duty by not verifying the documents produced before it. 13. The core question that arises for consideration is whether there has been verification with regard to membership or not. 14. Mr. Jha, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State has submitted that the State Government by the order impugned has dealt with it in paragraph 10 and has come to hold that the membership was not done in accordance with bye-law No. 7. Whatever may be, as the petitioner No. 1 is claiming that he is a valid member, I am of the considered opinion, a member should be given opportunity so that he can establish his rights. This Court cannot grant the relief as putforth by the petitioner. To elucidate, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that election should be set aside and the petitioner No. 1 should be allowed to contest in the election which should be fairly held. At this juncture it is submitted by Mr. Nair, learned senior counsel that the petitioner No. 1 himself had participated in the election. Be that as it may, that would not be an impediment to seek relief. 15. To appreciate the aforesaid aspect, I have carefully perused paragraph No. 7 of the order passed by the State Government. True it is, the appellate authority has adverted to it but on a scrutiny of the aforesaid facet it is quite apparent that there has not been deep delving in that regard. 16. In view of my preceding discussion, I am disposed to direct that the petitioner No. 1 should be given one more opportunity to justify his valid membership of the society in question and their induction was done in accordance with bye-laws of the Society. Needless to emphasise that the Registrar shall scrutinise all the necessary documents putforth by the petitioner No. 1 to find out if there had been proper induction of the members. I may hasten to add while conducting such an enquiry Registrar shall also see, if any other valid members have been left out. He shall not be influenced by the concept of founding members. I may hasten to add while conducting such an enquiry Registrar shall also see, if any other valid members have been left out. He shall not be influenced by the concept of founding members. The Registrar shall also see whether there is concept of life members in the bye-laws or the said status has been conferred by some documents which have come into force or have acceptance in law. 17. In the result, the orders passed vide Annexure P/3 and Annexure P/6 are quashed. Registrar shall conduct an enquiry with regard to the validity of members and pass appropriate orders as envisaged under Section 32 of the Act. To cut short delay, it is directed that the petitioner No. 1 shall appear before the Registrar, respondent No. 2 herein on 8-1-2001. Private respondents shall also appear on that day to controvert the stand of the petitioner No. 1. There will be exchange of documents by the parties and the Registrar shall conduct an enquiry as expected of a quasi judicial authority. The principles of natural justice shall be given due weightage. However, entire verification shall be done and final order shall be passed by end of February, 2002. The Registrar while passing the order shall not be influenced by earlier order passed by him inasmuch as it has lost its life spark. That apart, it will be incumbent upon him to peruse all the documents produced by both the parties to arrive at the truth in regard to validity of the memberships of the Society. It needs no special emphasis to mention that the enquiring authority while doing a particular act under a Statute is expected to do such other ancillary acts so that purpose of the Act is carried out. This Court expects the authority shall understand the same as a basic principle. 18. After passing of such a direction I would have parted with the case, but as election has taken place and I have not set aside the same and hence, further direction need to be given. The Registrar, if satisfied that there has been exclusion of valid members, will pass further direction so that election is properly held and I think as a logical corollary, no right would accrue to the presently elected members. The Registrar, if satisfied that there has been exclusion of valid members, will pass further direction so that election is properly held and I think as a logical corollary, no right would accrue to the presently elected members. As the Society is running two educational institutions and the status of the present elected members is under scrutiny, it is expected they shall not take any action against the teachers without prior permission of the Registrar of the Society. That apart, any amount which is spent, proper account shall be maintained and regular intimation thereof shall be sent to the Registrar so that, he will be apprised of the functioning of the Society. That apart, the Registrar, suo motu, may call for such information, if necessary, to find out about the smooth functioning of the Society. The present arrangement is made keeping in view the directions given above and the peculiar circumstances which have emerged in this case. 19. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.