Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2050 (RAJ)

Emmanuel School Society v. State of Rajasthan

2006-06-13

K.S.RATHORE

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Society has filed five writ petitions registered as SB Civil Writ Petitions No. 2043106, 2083/06, 2084/06, 2068/06 and 2069/06 for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 28.2.2006 issued by the Registrar Societies, Kota by which the registration of the petitioner society has been cancelled and the bank account of the society were also seized. 2. Since all these writ petitions are filed against the order impugned dated 28.2.2006 and involves similar question of law, the same are decided by this common order and the facts of the case of Emmanuel School Society (SBCWP No. 2043/06) are taken as a leading case. 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner society is registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 and the Registrar of Society Kota issued registration certificates to the petitioner society. 4. It is given out that Arch Bishop Dr. M.A. Thomas is the Chairman of the petitioner society, who is a philanthropist, recipient of Padma Shree Award by the President of India in the year 2001 for the social services being rendered to the society. 5. Dr. Thomas was conferred Mahatma Gandhi award in the year 2002 by the Government of Maharashtra and the Mother Teresa Award in 2005 by the All India Chrisitan Council. 6. The Society is also running institutions/schools which are affiliated to the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer and Central Board of Secondary Education. And other societies which are engaged in social work with religious and charitable objectives are also running by the petitioner society like M/s Emmanuel Christian Believers Fellowship Assembly, Mis Emmanuel Mission Chikitsalaya Samiti, M/s Emmanuel Orphanage Society and M/s Emmanuel Bible Institute Samiti. 7. To run the societies they framed Rules and Regulations. The membership of the society restricted to the persons admitted as such by the Governing Body which shall constitute minimum 13 members and maximum 15 members. 8. 7. To run the societies they framed Rules and Regulations. The membership of the society restricted to the persons admitted as such by the Governing Body which shall constitute minimum 13 members and maximum 15 members. 8. All members of the society shall constitute the Governing Body and the affairs of the society shall be managed and controlled by the Governing Body and such members continues for life and shall not be removed except on the grounds of Permanent invalidness due to physical or mental illness; conviction of offence involving moral turpitude and participation in activities subversive to the cause and ideas of the society and such removal can only be taken by at least half of the member of the remaining members, after giving an opportunity of explaining his/her conduct. 9. The aims and objects of the society are as under:- (a) To carry on the work of establishing and running educational, Medical and other charitable institutions in Rajasthan or a Social service on a non-communal basis, and without distinction of Caste, creed or relation, (b) To take over, maintain, conduct and develop such institutions or any other institutions or organizations that may be deemed necessary for or conducive to the furtherance of the above objects. (c) To organise games and sports and cultural activities and to establish social centres for the maintenance and betterment of physical and moral standards. (d) To accept donations, presents contributions or funds and to administer them for the furtherance of the above objects, and for giving such scholarship to deserving students of the institution of the society or to those of other institutions who may be in need of financial assistance. (e) To build, construct, hold and acquire buildings and lands and other movable and immovable property and to manage and equip the same and to dispose of, lease, transfer invest or deal with such property in any manner as may be in the interest of the society. (f) To employ Principals, Headmasters, teachers and other staff for the institutions under the control of this society. (g) To invest, (dispose of, transfer and otherwise deal with the funds of the society in order that the work of accomplishing the objects of the society may be rendered possible. (h) To do all other things as are incidental, necessary expedient and conducive to the attainment and furtherance of the above objects of the society. 10. (g) To invest, (dispose of, transfer and otherwise deal with the funds of the society in order that the work of accomplishing the objects of the society may be rendered possible. (h) To do all other things as are incidental, necessary expedient and conducive to the attainment and furtherance of the above objects of the society. 10. The Society shall have the office bearers like President, Vice President, Secretary, Joint Secretary, Treasurer and Accountant from amongst the members of the governing body and shall hold office for three years from the date of their election. 11. The controversy arise when the show cause notice was issued by the Registrar of Societies, Kota dated 22.2,2006 calling upon the petitioner as to why registration granted to the petitioner Society be not canceled and three days time was granted to file reply to the show cause notice. 12. In response to the show cause notice dated 22.2,2006 on behalf of the petitioner society reply was filed on 27.2.2006 by the members of the society as the' Chairman/President Secretary were not in town and on 27/28.2.2006, the Registrar of Societies cancelled the registration of the petitioner society and also seized their bank accounts vide order dated 28.2.2006. 13. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 27.2.2006 and 28.2.2006 the society has preferred these five writ petitions. 14. As the petitioner emphasised only on the legal aspect of the matter whether the Registrar Societies is competent and empowered and having jurisdiction to cancel the registration of the petitioner society or not both the parties are confined to address the court on the question of competence of Registrar Societies to pass impugned order. 15. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Bajrang Lal Sharma referred Section 23 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 which reads as under:-- 23. Power to make or issue to include power to add, to amend, vary or rescind orders, etc. - Where, by any Rajasthan Law, a power to make or issue orders, rules regulations, schemes, forms bye-law or notification is conferred, then that power includes a power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any) to add, to amend, vary or rescind any orders, rules, regulations, schemes, forms, bye-laws or notifications so made or issued." 16. And also referred Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Central) which reads as under : 21. Power to issue, to include power to add to, amend, vary or rescind notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws.- Where by any (Central Act) or Regulations a power to (issue notifications) orders, rules or bye-laws is conferred, then that power includes a powers, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions, if any, to add to, amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws- so issued. 17. After referring the aforesaid sections of the General Clauses Act Mr. Sharma referred the impugned order dated 28.2.2006 (Annexure-7). In the opening of the order impugned it was made clear that the order impugned has been passed by the Registrar Society. Kota as per the provisions of Rajasthan Societies Registration Act 1958 read with Section 23 of the Rajasthan General Clauses, 1955. 18. And after referring the order impugned he submitted that the provisions of Section 23 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 are not applicable to the instant case as no such provision for cancellation of registration of the society has been incorporated in the Rajasthan Society Registration Act, 1958. And also referred Section 18-A of the Act of 1958 which deals with the power of Registrar to refuse or to cancel the registration of certain societies which is reproduced here under : 18-A - (1) The Registrar shall refuse to register- (a) a Society under Section 3, or (b) the change of name made under Section 12-A. If the main activities of the Society include Sports and the expression Rajasthan or the name of any District as a part of the proposed name of the Society. (2) If the name of a Sports Society registered before the commencement of the Rajasthan Sports Associations (Registration, Recognition and Regulation) Act, 2005 (Act No. 4 of 2005) contains as part of its name the expression "Rajasthan or the name of District of the State, such Society shall amend its name to remove 'Rajasthan' or, as the case may be, the name of the district from the registered name of the Society within thirty days from such commencement. (3) If any Society fails to comply with the provisions of sub-section (2), the Registrar shall, after giving an opportunity of hearing to such Society, cancel the registration of such Society. (3) If any Society fails to comply with the provisions of sub-section (2), the Registrar shall, after giving an opportunity of hearing to such Society, cancel the registration of such Society. (4) Cancellation of registration under sub-section (3) shall operate as if the members of such Society have resolved to dissolve the Society and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly." 19. After referring Section 18-A of the Rajasthan Society Registration Act, 1958, he submitted that as per sub-section 4 of Section 18-A, the cancellation of registration under sub-section (3) shall operate as if the members of such Society have resolved to dissolve the Society and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. And here in the instant case, no such resolution has been passed by the Society to dissolve the society and thus the Registrar Societies on the eventuality of any resolution passed by the Society with the intention to dissolve the society then only as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Society Registration Act, 1958, the registration of the Society can be cancelled. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of his submissions has placed reliance on the judgment reported in "Asom Rastrabhasa Prachar Samiti Vs. State of Assam" 1989(4) SCC 496 and after relying upon the judgment referred here in above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the pronouncement of the Constitution Bench, the Act and the notification issued under this Act taking over the management of the Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti could not be accepted to be in accordance with the Constitution. 21. Second question raised by the petitioner for adjudication is that while passing a quasi judicial order in nature whether Section 23 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act is applicable or not. As held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Indian National Congress Vs. Institute of Social Welfare reported in 2002 (5) SCC 685 as under : 1. That there being no express provision in the Act or in the Symbols Order to cancel the registration of a political party, and as such no proceeding for deregistration can be taken by the Election Commission against a political party for having violated the terms of Section 29-A(5) of the Act on the complaint of the State. 2. That there being no express provision in the Act or in the Symbols Order to cancel the registration of a political party, and as such no proceeding for deregistration can be taken by the Election Commission against a political party for having violated the terms of Section 29-A(5) of the Act on the complaint of the State. 2. The Election Commission while exercising its power to register a political party under Section 29-A of the Act, acts quasi-judically and decision rendered by it is a quasi-judicial order and once a political party is registered, no power of review having been conferred on the Election Commission it has no power to review the order registering a political party for having violated the provisions of the Constitution or for having committed breach of undertaking given to the Election Commission at the time of registration. 3. However, there are exceptions to the principle stated in paragraph 2 above where the Election Commission is not deprived of its power to cancel the registration. The exceptions are as under:- (a) Where a political party has obtained registration by practicing fraud or forgery; (b) where a registered political party amends its nomenclature of association, rules and regulations abrogating therein conforming to the provisions Section 29-A(5) of the Act or intimating the Election Commission that it has ceased to have faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India or to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy or it would not uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India so as to comply with the provision of Section 29-A (5) of the Act; and (c) any like ground where no enquiry is called for on the part of the Commission. 4. The provisions of a Section 21 of the General Clauses Act cannot be extended to the quasi-judicial authority. Since the Election Commission while exercising its power under Section 29-A of the Act acts quasi-judicially, the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act have no application. 22. The petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment reported in (3) 2003 (2) SCC 111 . 23. So far applicability of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act is concerned, the petitioner categorically stated that the provisions are not applicable to the instant case. He further placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of "HC Suman V. Rehabilitation Ministry Employees' Coop. 23. So far applicability of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act is concerned, the petitioner categorically stated that the provisions are not applicable to the instant case. He further placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of "HC Suman V. Rehabilitation Ministry Employees' Coop. House Building Society Ltd." reported in 1991 (1) SCC 485 wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has manifestly held that in the matter of quasi judicial order powers under Section 23 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act are identical/akin to Section 21 of the Central General Clauses Act. As such, the power of adding, modifying, reversing or reviewing of its earlier order is not available. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred Article 25 of the Constitution of India which provides freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion and Article 26 gives right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; to manage its own affairs in mattes of religion to own and acquire movable and immovable property and to administer such property in accordance with law. And he also referred Article 28 which provides freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions. And Article 23 provides protection of interests of minority. And as per Article 30, all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. And such clause 1A of Article 30 clearly stipulates that in making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1), the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause. 25. The petitioner also referred the provisions of Rajasthan Society Registration Act, 1958 and more particularly referred Section 1-B which is reproduced as under:- 1(B). any seven or more persons associated for any literary, scientific or charitable purpose or for any such purpose as is described in Section 20 may, by subscribing their names to a memorandum of association and filing the same with the Registrar, form themselves into a society under this Act." 26. any seven or more persons associated for any literary, scientific or charitable purpose or for any such purpose as is described in Section 20 may, by subscribing their names to a memorandum of association and filing the same with the Registrar, form themselves into a society under this Act." 26. Petitioner submitted that the order impugned passed by the Registrar Society is a quasi judicial order in nature therefore provision of Section 23 of Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 is not applicable as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case Indian National Congress (supra). 27. Thus, the Registrar Societies, Kota passed the impugned order dated 28.2.2006' cancelling and de-registering the petitioner society be exceeding his jurisdiction and not adhering o the principle of natural justice. There is no such provision to cancel the registration of the Society by the Registrar existed under the condition given in Section 18-A. of the Rajasthan Society Registration Act, 1958 and that too without affording opportunity of personal hearing to the office bearer of the petitioner society. The impugned order passed by the Registrar. Societies, Kota is not only contrary to the facts of the case and also passed without affording opportunity of being heard and without application of natural justice and has relied on the material which was not supplied to the petitioner and thus the order is ex facie illegal. 28. It was further given out that the petitioner society has no relation with the author of the book 'Haqueeqt" and vindictive mind action is being taken by the States against the petitioner by cancelling their registration by leveling forge allegations and seized their bank account. As such the functioning of the society has come to standstill and cannot function at all and by news published in daily newspaper "Rajasthan Patrika" dated 4th March, 2006 State are taking the possession of various premises of the society and trying to merge the society with the Social Welfare Department in a mala fide and arbitrary manner with undue haste and under pressure of people holding high position in the State Government including Minister of Department of Social Welfare. 29. It was also alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned has been passed with undue haste. 29. It was also alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned has been passed with undue haste. To establish this fact, the petitioner referred show cause notice which has issued on 22.2.2006 and the petitioner was asked to submit reply within three days which the petitioner filed on 27.2.06 and the order impugned dated 28.2.06 was passed without affording opportunity of being heard and it is also alleged that the order impugned is passed under the political pressure. 30. In support of his submission that Section 25 of the Rajasthan Society Registration Act, 1958 while exercising quasi judicial power he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in State of Kerala & Others Vs. K.G. Madhavan Pillai & Others AIR 1989 SC 49 and more particularly referred para 13 and 25. 31. And also referred Asom Rastrabhas Prachar Samiti Vs. State of Assam & Others" AIR 1991 Supreme. Court 2126. 32. It was further submitted that the Chairman of the Society Dr. M.A. Thomas has been relentlessly working for the upliftment of the poor, down trodden and weaker section of the Society and people of various walls of life have joined him in his mission of eradication of poverty. And he also referred aims and objects of the Society. 33. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the States submitted that so many grave illegalities were found in the working of the society and it was also found that the society was totally deviating from its objectives and was also involved in the activity of conversion of persons from Hindu and Muslim religion to Christianity. Therefore, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner society and after due consideration of the matter the registration of the petitioner society was cancelled. 34. The States raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition as the registration of the petitioner society has been cancelled by the order dated 27.2.2006 and the society is not at all in existence. 34. The States raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition as the registration of the petitioner society has been cancelled by the order dated 27.2.2006 and the society is not at all in existence. Therefore the so called petitioner society not being in existence has no locus standi to file the writ petition and the writ petition filed in the name of society which is already defunct can 'not at all be entertained and is liable to be dismissed and in support of his submissions he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in the SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3250/94 in the case Kota Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Kota Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others" dated 4.10.94 and SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4058/98. Buniyadi Vikas Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan dated 6.10.98. 35. The maintainability of the writ petition was also challenged on the ground that the affidavits and documents in support of writ petition have not been properly sworn in and attested as required under rule 45, 47 and 51 of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan 1952, as the writ petition has been supported by affidavit of one Mr. M.A. Thomas which has been attested on 4.3.2006 at Jaipur and Shri M.A. Thomas was absconding and the police wanted to arrest him in connection with FIR No. 47/06 registered at Police Station Bhimganj Mandi, Kota and FIR No. 56/06 registered at Police Station Udhyog Nagar, Kota in connection with non bailable offences and it is also alleged that it seems that the papers have been signed blank and typing must have been done thereafter. 36. It was also alleged that Dr. M.A. Thomas signed the papers as a Chairman of the society, whereas; as per Constitution of the society, 'Chairman' is not a sanctioned post in the registered Constitution and only President and Secretary have been authorised to file any litigation. 37. Further challenged the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that no resolution whatsoever has been filed along with the writ petitions authorising Dr. M.A. Thomas to file the present writ petition. 38. Learned counsel for the States has placed reliance on the judgments reported in Indian Railways Construction Company Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar 2003 (4) SCC 579 , D.D.A. Vs. M.A. Thomas to file the present writ petition. 38. Learned counsel for the States has placed reliance on the judgments reported in Indian Railways Construction Company Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar 2003 (4) SCC 579 , D.D.A. Vs. U.E.E. Electrical Engineering Ltd." 2004 (11) SCC 213 , and State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sanjeev Alias Bittoo" 2005 (5) SCC 181 . And After referring the aforesaid judgments he submitted that this Court have a limited scope of judicial review with regard to order impugned passed by the State. 39. It was also stated that mala fide allegations are alleged against the persons without impleading them as party State and such allegations alleged by the petitioner are of no consequence and the petitioner has utterly failed to establish malafides and mere assertion of the malafide allegation does not survive. And he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case "Indian Railways Construction" (supra). 40. With regard to irregularity and illegalities committed by the society, learned counsel for the States pointed out the irregularities and illegalities committed by the society as follows:- A. Constitution of the Society was changed without prior permission of the Registrar or without following the due procedure of changing the Constitution. B. The society has been carrying out its functions outside area of operation. C. Accounts and budget of the society was never placed before the Annual General Meeting and without getting the budget passed the funds of the society-were misutilised by the office bearers of the society in the manner they vished. D. Society was indulged in violation of the provisions of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act and Was misusing the foreign aid in contravention of the provisions of aforesaid Act. E. As per inquiry report of Social Welfare Deptt. the office bearers of the society were also indulged in forcible conversion of religion of the Tribe People and children and were also committing atrocities on the children residing in, orphanages of the society. F. Thus, the society had been acting against and beyond the aims and objects of the society. G. The society was also indulged in anti national activities, as Dr. M.A. Thomas, Chairman of the society and Dr. F. Thus, the society had been acting against and beyond the aims and objects of the society. G. The society was also indulged in anti national activities, as Dr. M.A. Thomas, Chairman of the society and Dr. Samuel Thomas President of the society, are founder and CEO of Hopegivers International which is showing distorted and incomplete map of India at its website and Jammu and Kashmir has not been shown to be part of India. 41. Learned counsel for the States in response to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the Rajasthan Registration Act, 1958 does not provide any provision for cancelling the registration of the petitioner society referred Section 1-A(2) of the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 which reads as under:- "The provisions of Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 8 of 1955) shall, as far may be, apply mutatis mutandis to this Act." 42. And Section 23 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 reads as under:- 23. Power to make or issue to include power to add, to amend, vary or rescind orders, etc.- Where, by any Rajasthan Law, a power to make or issue orders, rules, regulations, schemes, forms bye-law or notification is conferred, then that power includes a power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any), to add, to amend,vary or rescind any orders, rules, regulations, schemes, forms, bye- laws or notifications so made or issued." 43. And after referring the aforesaid provisions of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, learned counsel for the States submitted that the Registrar is empowered to cancel registration of any society, which has failed to fulfil its aims and objects or has acted beyond it saims and objects. Therefore, in the instant case the Registrar Societies has rightly exercised the powers vested in it and therefore there is no infirmity in the order of cancellation of registration. 44. And in support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases ( 1996 (1) SCC 235 ] Janta Dal (Samajwadi) Vs. Election Commission of India , 1994 (4) SCC 575 Tej Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan ; 1989 (2) SCC 505 State of UP Vs. Maharaja Dharmendra Prasad Singh ; AIR 1968 Delhi 226 Narayan Das Vs. Karan Chand. AIR 1956, Hyderabad 91 Mohammnad Fazlur Vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property. Election Commission of India , 1994 (4) SCC 575 Tej Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan ; 1989 (2) SCC 505 State of UP Vs. Maharaja Dharmendra Prasad Singh ; AIR 1968 Delhi 226 Narayan Das Vs. Karan Chand. AIR 1956, Hyderabad 91 Mohammnad Fazlur Vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property. and a judgment of this Court in the case Rup Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1993 (1) RLR 697 . 45. Mr. Rastogi further contended that while enacting the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, the Legislative intention was to provide a self sufficient Act for the registration of literacy, scientific, charitable and certain other societies in the State of Rajasthan as well as to consolidate and amend the law for improving the legal conditions of the society and for the promotion of literature, science or the fine arts etc. Therefore with the aforesaid.....(Sentence incomplete) . 46. it is not disputed that the petitioner society is registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 and upon careful perusal of the provisions of the Act of 1958 as emphasised by the petitioner that the Societies Registration Act does not provide power to the Registrar to cancel the registration of the society, to this effect I have perused Section 13 of the Registration Act. Section 13 only provides for dissolution of societies and adjustment of their affairs and that too by the members not less than two-thirds of the members of a society registered this Act may determine that it shall be dissolved, and thereupon it shall stand dissolved forthwith or at the time then agreed upon and all necessary steps shall be taken for the disposal and settlement of property of the society and its claims and liabilities according to the rules and regulations of the said society. 47. And Section 18-A only provides power to Registrar to refuse registration of certain societies and no specific power under the Act is given to the Registrar to cancel the registration of the society. To decide legal question involved in all five writ petitions I deem it necessary to have look to the provisions of the Rajasthan Society Registration Act, 1958 as also the provisions of Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955. 48. To decide legal question involved in all five writ petitions I deem it necessary to have look to the provisions of the Rajasthan Society Registration Act, 1958 as also the provisions of Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955. 48. Section 1-A(2) of the Rajasthan Society Registration, 1958 clearly stipulates that the provisions of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 shall, as far as may be apply mutatis mutandis to this Act. And Section 18-A of the Registration Act, gives power to the Registrar to refuse or to cancel the registration of certain Societies and Section 23 of the General Clauses Act, (Rajasthan) provides power to issue orders, rules, regulations, schemes, forms, bye-laws or notifications is conferred, then that power includes a power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions if any, to add, to amend, vary or rescind any orders, rules, regulations, schemes, forms, bye laws or notifications so made or issued. Section 23 of the General Clauses Act, 1955 is evidently made applicable in the Rajasthan Society Registration Act, 1958 by incorporating Section 1-A(2). Therefore, the power rightly exercised by the Registrar in view of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 as the provisions of Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 is made applicable by way of incorporating Section 1-A(2) in the Registration Act, 1958. 49. I have also carefully gone through the judgments referred by the respective parties to this effect and I am fully convinced with the submission made on behalf of the States and the Registrar Societies has rightly exercised the power as per Section 1-A(2) of the Rajasthan Society Registration Act, 1958 and Section 23 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955. 50. In view of the aforesaid discussion and observation made, I find no merit in the writ petitions as in view of the provisions of the Rajasthan Society Registration Act, 1958, Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955, General Clauses, Act, 1897 (Central), the Registrar Society is competent to pass the impugned order dated 28.2.2006 by invoking provisions of Section 1-A(2) of the Rajasthan Society Registration Act, 1958 and Section 23 of the General Clauses Act, 1955 (Rajasthan). Thus, all the five writ petitions fail and stand dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******