T.N.K. Singh, J.:- This writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.9.1999 passed in W.P(C) No. 562 of 1999 for quashing the order of the learned Registrar of Societies dated 20.4.95 for interfering with the order of the respondent or/(Shiksha Vikash Sabmiti, Manipur, a Regd. Society) dated 10.8.1998, purely an internal administrative order of the Society for terminating its employee, i.e. the present appellant, Shri Aribam Nilamani Sharma, on the sole ground that the learned Registrar of Societies has no jurisdiction to interfere with the purely internal matter of the Registered Society,i.e.respondent No. 1; but the Registrar of Societies has, no doubt, the power and jurisdiction to call information from the Registered Societies as well as to investigate the affairs of the Societies and on the conclusion of such investigation and inspection, as the case may be, has to send the report with his comment thereon to the State Government and it is the State Government to take the appropriate action against the concerned Society. 2. The following succinct fact will suffice for deciding the present appeal. The Respondent No. 1, Shiksha Vikas Samiti, Manipur is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 and now deemed to be registered under the Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989. The Respondent No. 1 is affiliated to Vidya Bharati Akhil Bharatiya Shiksha Sansthan, New Delhi which is an All India Educational Society. In Manipur the respondent No. 1 manages 5(five) Bal Vidya Mandirs, i.e. 5 educational institutions. The actual management of these schools are carried on by the Managing Committee for each school constituted by the Samity as the Apex Body. However, the Bal Bidya Mandir, located at the Palace Compound, being located at the registered Head Office of the Samiti has been placed under the direct management of the Samiti as decided by the General Body of the Samiti on 4.5.1997 and as such all matters relating to appointment, transfer and discipline of the teaching staffs and other related service matters in respect of the said schools are controlled by the Samiti whose decisions are binding and final. 3. 3. The appellant, it is said, states that he was one of the founder members of the Samiti and he was also one of the teaching staffs of the school employed by the Samiti at the prescribed salaries, but he was not rendering services in the School for nearly 2(two)years before May 28, 1990 and later on he was allowed to rejoin and work as Vice Principal vide Order No. SVS/A/WC dated 28.5.1990 issued by Shri M. Ibotombi Singh, the then General Secretary of the Samity as per resolution No. 3 of the Working Committee Meeting held on 27.5.1990 as he was not qualified to become the Principal of the Samiti at that time. Later on the appellant was appointed as Principal, Bal Vidya Mandir, Palace Compound vide order No. WCM/97 dated 24.1.1997 issued by the respondent No. 2, Shri P. Rajmani Singh, General Secretary, Shiksha Vikash Samiti, Manipur but the appellant in his affidavit-in-opposition in the connected present writ petition, i.e. W.P(C) No. 562 of 1999 as well as his complaint filed on 23.2.1999 to the Registrar of Societies stated that the respondent No. 2, Dr. P. Rajmani Singh, was not the legally elected General Secretary of the Samiti. Had it be so, the appointment of the appellant as Principal of the Bal Vidya Mandir, Palace Compound, Imphal under the said order dated 24.1.97 issued by the Respondent No. 2, Dr. P. Rajmani Singh, will not be valid. 4. For a serious charge of financial irregularities committed by the appellant, he was issued a show cause notice under the order of the Convener of the Sub committee of the Shiksha Vikash Samiti, Manipur. It is said that an Enquiry Committee was constituted by the Working Committee vide its Resolution No. 6(a) on 10.12.1997 and a full dressed enquiry was held against the appellant but, it is said that he did not participate the enquiry by approaching the Civil Judge, Sr. Division-II, Manipur East by filing O.S. No. 2 of 1998. It is also said that the appellant was also put under suspension under the order of Samiti dated 10.12.1997. Later on the appellant was degraded to the Assistant Teacher and transferred to another Bal Vidya Mandir under the order of the Samiti dated 3.1.1998. The appellant also approached this court by filing writ petition being C.R. No. 224 of 1998 challenging the said order dated 3.1.1998. Later on the appellant was degraded to the Assistant Teacher and transferred to another Bal Vidya Mandir under the order of the Samiti dated 3.1.1998. The appellant also approached this court by filing writ petition being C.R. No. 224 of 1998 challenging the said order dated 3.1.1998. This court did not pass any interim order in the said C.R.No.224 of 1998. After completing the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report that the charge against the appellant had been found proved. 5. The Working Committee of the Samiti in its meeting held on 9.8.1999 considered the case appellant and passed resolution No. 2 that the appellant be terminated from service with immediate effect from the school service. Accordingly the respondent No. 2 as per the said resolution issued order dated 10.8.1998 for terminating the service of the appellant as an employee of the Samiti. Against that order, the appellant filed a writ petition being C.R. No. 1343 of 1998 before this court for quashing the said termination order dated 10.8.98 and earlier order dated 3.1.98, which was the subject matter of C.R. No. 224 of 1998, however this court did not pass any interim order. It is said that C.R. No. 224 of 1998 was disposed of as infructuous by an order of this court dated 31.8.1998. Thereafter the appellant filed a review petition being Civil Review No. 981 of 1998 seeking for review of the order of this court dated 31.8.98 passed in C.R. No. 224 of 1998. However, the review petition was disposed of by an order dated 7.12.98 with the observation that the appellant was at liberty to file a fresh writ petition challenging the validity of the order of termination from service. While the said W.P.(C) No. 1343 of 1998 was pending before this court, the appellant filed a representation on 23.2.1999 to the learned Registrar of Societies requesting for withholding the termination order dated 10.8.1998 and also for cancellation of the Registration No. 5033 of 1983 of the Samiti. In his said complaint filed on 23.2.99 to the learned Registrar of Societies, Govt. of Manipur he made some allegations and assertions that the respondent No. 2, Dr. In his said complaint filed on 23.2.99 to the learned Registrar of Societies, Govt. of Manipur he made some allegations and assertions that the respondent No. 2, Dr. P. Rajmni Singh, General Secretary of the Samiti and Shri Aribam Brajakumar Sharma, President, of the Samiti were not even members of the Samiti and also the bye-law was a fake one and some of the officers were not even members and also that the Samiti had failed to file its annual report within time to the Registrar of Societies since its registration as provided under section 17 (1) (c) of the Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989. The respondents have stated in the writ petition as well as in their rejoinder affidavit before the court of the learned Single Judge that in the proceedings of the general body meeting of the Samiti held on 12.5.1998 the respondent No. 2, Dr. P. Rajmani Singh and Shri Aribam Brajakumar Sharma were elected as the General Secretary and the President respectively of the Samiti but the proceedings of the Samiti dated 12.5.1998 had been forwarded to the Registrar of Societies under letter dated 22.8.1998. The said proceedings of the Samiti dated 12.5.1998 was already in the record of the Registrar of Societies when the appellant filed the said complaint/representation to him on 23.2.1999. No doubt, under clause(3) of Section 17 of the Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989 the proceedings of the annual general body meeting of the Societies shall be notified to the Registrar of Societies within 30 days. The Registrar of Societies has the power under section 21 of the Manipur Societies Registration Act 1989 (for short Registraton Act 1989) to call information or/ explanation from the registered Societies by a written order. The Registrar of Societies has the power under section 22 of the Registration Act 1989 to investigate the affairs of a Society. It is the mandate of the clause (5) of Section 22 of the Registration Act 1989 that the Registrar of Societies shall send the said report of the investigation or/ inspection of the Societies with his comment thereon to the State Government. On perusal of such report and comments of the Registrar of Societies, the State Govt. It is the mandate of the clause (5) of Section 22 of the Registration Act 1989 that the Registrar of Societies shall send the said report of the investigation or/ inspection of the Societies with his comment thereon to the State Government. On perusal of such report and comments of the Registrar of Societies, the State Govt. may give such direction as it may think fit to the Societies for removal of any defect or irregularity within such time as may be specified and on the society making default in taking action according to such direction, the State Govt. may direct the Registrar to move the court for dissolution of the Society. The Registrar of Societies has the power U/S 23 of the Registration Act 1989 to take up appropriate actions in the manner contemplated therein. 6. The learned Registrar of Societies after receiving the said complaint of the appellant on 23.2.99 against the respondents, passed the order dated 20.4.99, by taking recourse to in a manner which is not at all contemplated by the Societies Registration Act 1989, for interfering with the purely internal administrative orders of the Samiti dated 10.8.1998 for terminating the service of its employee, i.e. the present appellant. 7. Being aggrieved by the said orders of the Registrar of Societies, Manipur dated 20.4.99, the respondents filed W.P(C) No. 562 of 1999. The learned Single Judge by a reasoned judgment (impugned judgment and order) dated 17.9.1999 had allowed the writ petition W.P(C)No.562 of 1999 by holding that the Registrar of Societies had acted beyond the power in holding that the appellant, i.e. Shri Aribam Nilamani Sharma, shall deem to be the Principal of Bal Vidya Mandir and also that the order of the Registrar dated 10.8.1998 was liable to be quashed and accordingly the order of the Registrar dated 20.4.99 was quashed. 8. From the above discussions, we are of the considered view that the learned Registrar of Societies has no power and jurisdiction to interfere with the purely internal orders of the Registered Society, i.e. respondent No. 1 dated 10.8.1998 for terminating its employees, i.e. the appellant from the service by exercising his power U/Ss 21.22 and 23 of the Manipur Societies Registration Act 1989 inasmuch the power of the learned Registrar of Societies are circumscribed under the provisions of the Manipur Societies Registration Act 1989. As discussed above, the Registrar of Societies has the power and authority to call the explanation/information from the Samiti and after receiving the information/explanation from the Samiti he has to take action at his wisdom in the manner circumscribed by the Sections 21,22 and 23 of the Manipur Societies Registration Act 1989. 9. We are in complete agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order dated 17.9.99 passed in W.P(C) No. 562 of 1999 that the Registrar of Societies has no power or jurisdiction to interfere with the internal matter of the Societies and the Registrar of Societies has definitely power to make enquiry or investigate the affairs of the Societies as provided in the Manipur Societies Registration Act 1989 and not beyond the provisions of the said Act. Accordingly the appellant has failed to make out any case for our interference with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.9.99. Hence, his appeal is devoid of merit and hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.