ORDER 1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner/society has assailed the order dated 6.7.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the State Government, whereby the order dated 7.11.2005, passed by Registrar, Firms and Societies, MP, Bhopal (Annexure P/15) is set aside and the matter is remitted back with certain directions to the Registrar, Firms and Societies. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the matter are as under:- The petitioner is a duly registered society under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter called as “Adhiniyam”). A notification was issued by the Administrator for holding elections of the society. Pursuant to notification, Annexure P/4, the objections were filed and were considered by the Administrator. The objections were rejected by communication, Annexure P/5. Thereafter, election was held. Before that final voter list was published. The elections were held on 5.9.2005. The intimation of holding elections was furnished to the Registrar and members. Against the election, an application was preferred by respondent No. 4 (Annexure P/12). By preferring this application, it is prayed that the election dated 5.9.2005 be declared as illegal. No other relief was prayed for. The society, in turn, filed his reply (Annexure P/13) and contended that the respondent No. 4 has already been removed from the primary membership of the society and, therefore, he has no locus to submit the said application. In turn, the Registrar adjudicated the matter and passed the order (Annexure P/15). The application preferred by respondent No. 4 dated 12.9.2005 (Annexure P/12) was rejected by the said authority. Against this order, the respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal before the State Government. By impugned order dated 6.7.2007 the State Government set aside the order of the Registrar and remitted the matter back to the Registrar with following directions :- 1- lnL;rk ds laca/k esa vkosnuksa ij iz’kkld }kjk fopkj dj mUgsa fujk—r fd;k x;kA ;g Li”V djsa fd D;k iz’kkld dks u, lnL; cukus dk lnL;rk lekIr djus dk vf/kdkj gSA 2- lfefr ds fuokZpu ds laca/k esa vihykFkhZ }kjk izLrqr vihy dks jftLVªkj }kjk bl vk/kkj ij fujLr fd;k x;k gS fd ;g Li”V ugha gS fd vihy fdl /kkjk ds varxZr dh xbZ gSA ;g Li”V djsa fd pquko laca/kh ;kfpdk lquus dk vf/kdkj fdldks gS \ rFkk D;k mDr rduhdh fcUnq ij vihy fujLr djuk mfpr gS \ 3. Criticizing this order, Shri V.K.Bharadwaj, learned senior counsel submits that the respondent No. 4 was removed from the primary membership of the society. The attention is drawn on Annexure P/17 and on the reply, Annexure P/13. He submits that the application of respondent No. 4 before the Registrar was not maintainable. The Registrar can exercise its power only under section 32 of the Adhiniyam because as per the said provision, the application of respondent No. 4 was not tenable. He submits that the State Government has erred in passing the order, Annexure P/1, and passed the order which is extraneous in nature. It is contended that Registrar had no power to travel beyond the scope of the application preferred by the respondent No. 4. He relied on 1991 Supp (2) SCC 36 (Nagri Pracharini Sabha and another v. Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi and others) to bolster his contention that the respondent No. 4 has a remedy to file civil suit against the election and it was not open for him to file a dispute under the provisions of the Adhiniyam. 4. Per Contra, Shri RBS Tomar, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and learned Government Advocate supported the order, Annexure P/1. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The Adhiniyam gives certain statutory power to the Registrar to conduct enquiry or pass appropriate orders. section 32 is enabling provision for exercising power regarding enquiry and settlement of dispute. This power can be exercised by the Registrar on his own motion or on an application made in following manner – (a) application by a majority of members of the governing body of the society, and (b) by not less than 1/3rd of the total number of members of the society. Admittedly, in the present case the Registrar has not passed the order, Annexure P/15, in any suo motu proceedings. The said action was taken on the application preferred by the respondent No. 4 by Annexure P/12. On the face of it, said application could not have been entertained as per section 32(a) and (b) of the Adhiniyam because it was neither by a majority of members of the governing body nor by more than 1/3rd of total members of the society. The Registrar in Annexure P/15 opined that the application is not according to the provision of the Adhiniyam. The Registrar in Annexure P/15 opined that the application is not according to the provision of the Adhiniyam. The respondent No. 4 is not even a member of the society. The respondent No. 4 has not deposited the membership subscription and, therefore, his membership was cancelled. In my considered opinion, the application, Annexure P/12 was not maintainable under section 32 of the Adhiniyam. 7. A specific question was asked to the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 as to under which provision of law, Annexure P/12, application was preferred by the respondent No. 4. Shri R.B.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that the said application was preferred under section 40(1)(b) of the Adhiniyam. 8. Section 40 (1)(b) of the Adhiniyam reads as under:- “40. Appeal.- (1) An appeal shall lie, — (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) if the order is made by the sub-ordinate officers appointed under sub-section (2) of section 4 or any other person to the Registrar appointed under sub-section (1) of Section 4.” 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, appeal under section 40(1)(b) can be filed against the order made by such subordinate officers, who are appointed under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Adhiniyam. No such order was challenged by the respondent No. 4 before the Registrar. He challenged the entire election proceedings and, therefore, section 40(1)(b) has no application. Thus, it is clear that neither section 32 nor section 40 of the Adhiniyam provides any remedy to the respondent No. 4. Putting it differently, the application of respondent No. 4 (Annexure P/12) could not have been entertained either under section 32 or under section 40(1)(b) of the Adhiniyam. Thus, no fault can be found in the order, Annexure P/15, passed by the Registrar. 10. The State Government has remitted the matter back to the Registrar with twin directions reproduced above (in Hindi). Para 7 of the order of the State Government shows that the appellant therein (respondent No. 4 herein) could not show any material/document to establish that his membership was continuing and it was not cancelled because of non-submission of membership fee. In absence of discharging this burden by the respondent No. 4 before the State Government, there was no question of entertaining his appeal. Yet, the State Government directed to decide aforesaid twin points. 11. In absence of discharging this burden by the respondent No. 4 before the State Government, there was no question of entertaining his appeal. Yet, the State Government directed to decide aforesaid twin points. 11. In the opinion of this Court, when a person approaches the quasi-judicial/judicial forum, his locus standi and relief claimed has to be seen. The quasi-judicial authorities are not required to conduct any roving enquiry. The enquiry has to be confined on the basis of case made out by the parties. The State Government in direction (1) aforesaid directed to examine regarding the decision of administrator to induct new members or cancel the membership of old members. The respondent No. 4 in his prayer in Annexure P/12 has not prayed for setting aside the decision of the society/administrator in discontinuing his membership nor he prayed that he be treated as a member. No relief could have been granted which was not prayed for. In direction (2) the State Government directed the Registrar to decide as to under which provision appeal was preferred. In my opinion, it was for the appellant to satisfy that he invoked correct provision and his appeal was maintainable under any provision of law. In absence of establishing the same, no interference was warranted by the State Government. No fishing enquiry was required to be done on such appeals. 12. On the basis of aforesaid analysis, in my opinion, the State Government has erred in interfering with the order of the Registrar and remitting the matter back. 13. Resultantly, the order dated 6.7.2007 (Annexure P/1) is set aside. Petition is allowed. No costs.