Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 892 (MP)

S. S. Vatwe v. State of M. P.

2006-07-20

A.K.MISHRA

body2006
ORDER 1. In this petition, petitioner has assailed orders (P-1 and P-2) passed by the Registrar of Firms and Societies and order (P-1) passed by the State Government in exercise of power conferred u/s. 14 of the M.P. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. 2. It is submitted by the petitioner that the society was M.P. Working Journalist Society. The society was running the activities from the building constructed by the M.P. Working Journalist Union Bhopal. Land of 27000 sq. ft. was leased out by the State Government as per the lease-deed (P-3)' dated 11.2.1969. Controversy started when suo-motu enquiry was conducted by the State Government regarding affairs of the society without giving any opportunity to petitioner society. Enquiry was conducted and report was submitted on 13.4.1998. On that basis letter was issued by the respondent and without considering the reply order of removal of governing body was passed u/s. 33 of the Act. State Government vide order dated 27.11.1998 directed that the governing body of the society would function under the supervision and with the approval of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bhopal. An enquiry report (P-4) was submitted. Ultimately the Government did not consider the reply and ordered removal of the governing body on 19.5.1999. An administrator was appointed for a period of one year, later on this period was extended for two years. A writ petition WP No. 2543/99 was filed contending that there was no serious irregularity committed by the governing body of the society and therefore the action u/s. 33 of the Act was unwarranted. Said writ petition was dismissed. As petitioner society was not within the purview of State aided society, an order (P-5) was passed. The Administrator who was looking after the affairs of the society did not call the meeting of general body. Without considering the entire facts, impugned order (P-2) dated 31.7.2001 was passed by the respondent No.2. An appeal was preferred. Appeal has been dismissed. Earlier another writ petition was filed in which direction was issued to decide the appeal. Aggrieved by the orders (P-1) and (P-2) this writ petition has been preferred. It is submitted that the action u/s. 34 of cancelling registration was not justified. 3. In the return filed by the respondents, it is contended that number of irregularities were found. An order dated 13.7.1999 passed by this Court has not been assailed. Aggrieved by the orders (P-1) and (P-2) this writ petition has been preferred. It is submitted that the action u/s. 34 of cancelling registration was not justified. 3. In the return filed by the respondents, it is contended that number of irregularities were found. An order dated 13.7.1999 passed by this Court has not been assailed. Registrar thereafter after due application of mind and after taking into consideration the reasons portrayed in the report was left with no other alternative than to declare the society as De-Junet and therefore, cancel the registration of the society. An appeal was preferred, that too has been dismissed. Hence, no case for interference is made out in this writ petition. 4. Shri Atul Nema, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the appellate Court has failed to -consider the report (P4). Earlier writ petition was pertaining to appointment of administrator which was dismissed. It was with respect to removal of governing body, whereas the subsequent order is in the matter of cancellation of registration of the society, hence, the decision of the previous writ petition which has influenced the decision passed by the respondents cannot be of relevance in the matter of cancellation of registration. Matter was required to be considered independently by the respondents, which has not been done. 5. Shri Vivekanand Awasthy, learned GA appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that no case for interference is made out as this Court in the order (P-5) has recorded a finding that there were certain irregularities, the removal of the governing body was held to be proper. Even otherwise, the matter has been considered by the Registrar, Firms and Societies in detail as per order (P-2) and by appellate order as per order (P-1). No case for interference is made out. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, earlier the matter which came to this Court was only with respect to appointment of Administrator and super session of the governing body. This Court did not make an interference as show cause was given. The matter in the instant writ petition is different, is with respect to cancellation of registration which was not the dispute invovled in previous writ petition. Section 34 of the M.P. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 deals with dissolution of societies and adjustment of their affairs. This Court did not make an interference as show cause was given. The matter in the instant writ petition is different, is with respect to cancellation of registration which was not the dispute invovled in previous writ petition. Section 34 of the M.P. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 deals with dissolution of societies and adjustment of their affairs. Sub-section (2) of section 34 deals with the power of Registrar to dissolve the society in case society is persistently making the default in the observance of the provisions of this Act, or the regulations or bye-laws made thereunder, it is one of ground that society has become defunct and no useful purpose is likely to be served by continuing the society, as Registrar by an order in writing can cancel the registration thereof not otherwise as provided in sub-section (3) of section 34. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 34 are quoted below; "34. Provision of dissolution of societies and adjustment of their affairs. (2) The Registrar may, if on information received by him or otherwise is of the opinion that a society has become defunct or has been persistently making default in the observance of the provisions of this Act, or the regulations or byelaws made thereunder, by a notice served on the society, call upon the governing body within the period specified in the notice which shall not be less than thirty days, to show cause as to why registration of the society should not be cancelled. (3) The Registrar may after considering the reply received, if any, after the expiry of the notice period on being satisfied that no useful purpose is likely to be served by continuing the society by an order in writing cancel the registration thereof as from the date specified in the order and thereon society shall be deemed to have been dissolved for the purposes of the Act." 7. An order has been passed by the Registrar, Firms and Societies to the effect that only 3 members were left as such it was not possible to elect the governing body, whether it was possible to induct the other members was not given much importance and finding has also to be recorded that no useful purpose is likely to be served by continuing society which is missing. That aspect appears to have been ignored. That aspect appears to have been ignored. While deciding the appeal, bare reading of an order (P-1) goes to show that question has not been examined with reference to provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 34. Effort has not been made by the appellate authority to apply the mind to various factual aspects including the report (P-4) which was submitted. 8. Thus, the appellate Court is hereby set aside. The State Government is directed to decide the appeal afresh after hearing the petitioner within a period of six months. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred.