Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2314 (RAJ)

Balendu Singh v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies

2013-12-18

AMITAVA ROY, BANWARI LAL SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This intra-court appeal registers a challenge to the judgment and order dated 10.4.2013 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4240/2013 thereby negating the appellants/writ-petitioners' assailment of the validity of an enquiry instituted under Section 23 of the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Act, 2005 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for investigating into the issue of registration of the appellant no.4/writ petitioner no. 4- Rajasthan Rifle Association, Jaipur, the report dated 12.12.2011 and the installation of an Ad hoc Executive Committee under section 24 and/or 26 of the Act by displacing its (appellant no. 4/writ petitioner no. 4) duly elected Executive Committee. 2. By the order dated 31.5.2013, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the present appeal had directed the parties to maintain status quo as obtained on that date. 3. We have heard Mr. K.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Rajendra Prasad and Mr. Syed Sadat Ali, Advocates for the respondents. 4. The essential facts as pleaded would assist in better comprehension of the contrasting arguments based thereon. The appellant no. 4/writ-petitioner no. 4 i.e. Rajasthan Rifle Association (for short, hereafter referred to as "the RAA/Association" as the appellant-writ petitioners contend, is a State Level Sports Association (for short, hereafter referred to as "the SLSA") duly registered under the provisions of the Act and the appellants no. 1 to 3/writ petitioners no. 1 to 3 are the elected officer-bearers thereof. The RAA was constituted prior to the year 1980 and was recognised by the National Rifle Association of India. It was duly registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 on 29.4.2000 and was awarded a registration no. 31/2000-2001. With the advent of the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Ordinance, 2004 (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Ordinance"), the precursor of the Act, all associations related to the field of sports were required to be registered thereunder. The appellants-petitioners have pleaded that in Schedule-B of the said Ordinance, as many as 40 sports associations were enlisted as pre-existing associations and construed to be eligible to be registered in terms thereof. The RAA was enlisted at serial no. 27 being a pre-existing association. The appellants-petitioners have pleaded that in Schedule-B of the said Ordinance, as many as 40 sports associations were enlisted as pre-existing associations and construed to be eligible to be registered in terms thereof. The RAA was enlisted at serial no. 27 being a pre-existing association. The RRA duly adopted the Ordinance and framed its bye-laws in conformity therewith and applied for registration thereunder and was registered by the competent authority on 28.10.2004 with registration no.3/2004. The Act followed Ordinance and in Schedule-B thereof as well the RAA was enlisted at serial no. 27 as a pre-existing association. The appellants-writ petitioners have averred that under the Ordinance/Act, the State Level Sports Association and the District Level Sports Association (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the DLSA") were distinct and independent entitles and thereunder the status of the SLSAs was recognised and the DLSAs were deemed to be in existence on the basis of the affiliation certificate issued by their respective SLSA. However, in terms of Section 5(2) of the Ordinance/Act, a time frame of nine months from the date of registration of its SLSA was granted to the DLSA for its registration. 5. According to the appellants/writ-petitioners, after the registration of the RRA, the elections of the Executive Committee thereof had become due in the year 2007, which were accordingly held in terms of its bye-laws. That in the said elections, its affiliated District units did participate in presence of the observers of the Rajasthan State Sports Council and the Rajasthan Olympic Association and that the proceedings were completed as required under section 13 of the Act without any demur, has been emphasized. It has been alleged that after-6 years of the registration of the RPA under the Ordinance/Act, some unauthorized persons with their associates contemplating a back door entry in the Association and to wrest the management thereof, started making complaints. According to the appellants/writ petitioners, the respondent no. 4 in pursuit of such design laid a complaint under section 23 of the Act before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Registrar") for cancellation of the Registration Certificate of the RRA alleging that the registration obtained by it was illegal. The Registrar, however, did not take cognizance of this complaint and instead indicated that an appeal under section 35 of the Act was contemplated. The respondent no. The Registrar, however, did not take cognizance of this complaint and instead indicated that an appeal under section 35 of the Act was contemplated. The respondent no. 4 picked up this clue and filed an appeal under section 35 of the Act before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Secretary, Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur reiterating the allegations and seeking revocation of the registration of the RRA. The appellants/writ-petitioners have asserted that the Appellate Authority however without affording an opportunity of hearing to the RRA and sans examining the maintainability of the appeal as well as his jurisdiction vis-a-vis the issues raised, passed order on 13.6.2011 and directed the Registrar to hold an enquiry under section 23 of the Act and to proceed under section 24 thereof. 6. Contending that the appeal was not only misconceived and was incompetent having been made by a third party besides being enormously delayed, the appellants/writ- petitioners filed an application to recall the order, which however, was kept pending and was eventually disposed of as being infructuous as meanwhile the enquiry directed was completed by the Deputy Registrar, Raisem, Jaipur appointed for the purpose. Noticeably, by the order dated 12.8.2011 whereby the Enquiry Officer was appointed, the enquiry was ordered to be conducted with regard to the registration of the RRA and that of its Members District Rifle Associations. This, according to the appellants/writ-petitioners, was beyond the scope of the enquiry as ordered by the Appellate Authority. The appellants/writ-petitioners have averred that the enquiry that followed thereafter was of a roving nature, more particularly with regard to the aspect of registration of the members District Rifle Associations of the RRA and that too without issuing any notice to or affording an opportunity of hearing to them. The Enquiry Officer in his report though recorded that there was no illegality in the registration of the RRA, observed that because of the late registration of its constituent District Level Sports Associations, it (RRA) had lost its status with time. The Enquiry Officer in his report though recorded that there was no illegality in the registration of the RRA, observed that because of the late registration of its constituent District Level Sports Associations, it (RRA) had lost its status with time. A notice under section 24(1) of the Act followed from the Registrar disclosing that in terms of the finding in the enquiry, the elections of the Executive Body of the RRA held on 27.9.2007 and 15.9.2011 could not be construed to be valid and they (appellants/writ-petitioners) were asked to show cause as to why in terms of Section 24(1) of the Act, an Adhoc Committee would not be constituted. The appellants/writ-petitioners responded contending in essence that the District Level Sports Associations of the RRA had been given deemed recognition at the time of its registration which continued till the registration of the said associations (DLSAs). In their reply, the appellants/writ-petitioners also disclosed that at the time of the enquiry, as many as 12 District Rifle Associations affiliated with it had been registered. It was asserted that these constituent entitles were distinct and separate enjoying independent status and that it was their responsibility to obtain registration and not of the State Level Sports Associations, and that therefore, their late registration did not eventuate in any illegality and for that matter, the RRA could not be penalised therefor. The appellants/writ-petitioners also pleaded that the provision with regard to the registration of the District units within the time frame prescribed was directory in nature and thus, any breach of the deadline to that effect would not entail any disqualification in law. That in the last elections of the RRA held on 15.9.2011 for constituting its Executive Committee, all its 12 registered District Rifle Associations had participated and had elected the body, was clearly stated. That three office-bearers i.e. President, Secretary and Treasurer of the 12 registered member District Rifle Associations of the RRA had also submitted a joint representation insisting that they were only eligible to be appointed as members of the proposed Adhoc Executive Committee and that they have full confidence in the Executive Committee and that no fresh election was necessary, has been stated as well. The Registrar, however, by order dated 6.3.2013 dissolved the elected Executive Committee of the RRA and appointed an Adhoc Executive Committee thereof comprising of the 7 Members, out of which, according to the appellants/writ- petitioners, 6 were outsiders and not eligible to be so. This order dated 6.3.2013 however was modified by the order dated 19.3.2013 whereby the name of one of the members Ms. Shagun Choudhary was deleted as she had resigned from the Adhoc Executive Committee. The tenability of the enquiry under section 23 of the Act having been initiated at the instance of the third party was questioned as well. Elaborating further in this regard, the appellants/writ-petitioners also stated that the respondent no.4 had earlier challenged the process by a writ petition before this Court which was eventually dismissed for want of his locus standi, following which the results of the elections were duly declared and the Executive Body was elected for the term 2011-2014. It is in this pleaded background that the reliefs as outlined at the threshold had' been prayed for by the appellants/writ petitioners. 7. The recorded reply of the respondents is to the effect that the appellants/writ-petitioners have an alternative remedy under section 35 of the Act. Without prejudice to this, they have asserted that in terms of Section 3 of the Act, it is compulsory that every Sport Association whether it is at the District Level or State Level has to be registered thereunder. They have averred that at the time of the elections for constituting the Executive Body of the RRA on 27.9.2007, out of the 9 District Level Associations participating therein, except the District Association of Jalore, none other was either registered and recognised under the Act or had even by then submitted their applications for such registration. While endorsing the validity of the enquiry ordered by the Registrar under section 23 of the Act, the answering respondents have maintained that 12 District Level Rifle Associations affiliated to the RRA had been registered after 2007 and that in 7 Districts in the year 2011. They thus pleaded that at the time of registration of the RRA, no District Level Rifle Associations had been registered under the Act. Contending that as the appellants/writ-petitioners were not parties in the appeal preferred by the respondent no. 4 before the respondent no. They thus pleaded that at the time of registration of the RRA, no District Level Rifle Associations had been registered under the Act. Contending that as the appellants/writ-petitioners were not parties in the appeal preferred by the respondent no. 4 before the respondent no. 2, there was no occasion for issuing any notice to them, they have averred further that the plea of want of competence or lack of jurisdiction of the Enquiry Officer, as imputed by them, is wholly misconceived. According to them, the action of the Registrar in appointing the Adhoc Executive Committee under section 24 and 26 of the Act is valid and warranted in the attendant facts and circumstances and thus, no interference therewith was called for. 8. The learned Single Judge, as the impugned judgment and order e would reveal, dismissed the writ petition principally on the ground of non-exhaustion of alternative remedy under section 35 of the Act. In arriving at this conclusion, the learned Single Judge recorded that there was no dissensus that a statutory remedy of appeal was available under the aforementioned legal provision. While observing that alternative remedy per se is not absolute bar for invocation of the writ jurisdiction of a superior Court, it was held that the appellants/writ-petitioners had not claimed enforcement of any fundamental right but only a statutory right to remain as office-bearers of the RRA. According to the learned Single Judge, the Appellate Authority though before ordering enquiry under section 23 of the Act had afforded opportunity to the office bearers of the Association to participate in the appeal, but they did not do so and thus, the cavil of violation of the principles of natural justice was not tenable. That under section 23 of the Act, the Registrar has the jurisdiction to hold an enquiry, was held. The participation of the appellants/writ-petitioners therein was also noticed. According to the learned Single Judge, the proceedings of the enquiry held under section 23 of the Act also could not be said to be vitiated for want of jurisdiction. While dismissing the writ petition, the appellants/writ-petitioners were left at liberty to avail the remedy of appeal under section 35 of the Act. 9. Mr. According to the learned Single Judge, the proceedings of the enquiry held under section 23 of the Act also could not be said to be vitiated for want of jurisdiction. While dismissing the writ petition, the appellants/writ-petitioners were left at liberty to avail the remedy of appeal under section 35 of the Act. 9. Mr. Sharma has emphatically urged that the enquiry purportedly conducted under section 23 of the Act and the decision to constitute the Adhoc Executive Committee in ostensible invocation of Sections 24 and 26 thereof being patently in contravention of the statute, those are liable to be adjudged non est and the learned Single Judge thus had fallen in error in dismissing the challenge on the ground of alternative remedy. Referring to the provisions of the Act as well as the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Rules, 2004 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), the learned Senior Counsel has argued that as admittedly, the RRA had been duly registered under the enactment and at that time, its constituent District Level Associations had been affiliated with it, the finding in the enquiry that though the registration of the RRA was valid, it with time for the failure of its District Level Sports Associations to get themselves registered within the time frame prescribed, had lost its status, is patently repugnant to the provisions of the Act and the Rules and thus, the impugned decision to constitute the Adhoc Executive Committee is ab initio void. While asserting that the respondent no. 4 being a stranger to the institutional set up as envisaged by the Act and the Rules, his complaint ought to have been summarily rejected and that his appeal too apart from being misconceived was atrociously time barred. Mr. Sharma has insisted that the enquiry ordered under section 23 of the Act is even otherwise misconceived being impermissible under the Act. 10. According to him, enquiry under section 23 of the Act is contemplated only in the eventualities as set out in Section 24 thereof and thus, in the attendant facts and circumstance, the order to that effect is illegal thus rendering the finding recorded in the report in connection therewith non-existent. 10. According to him, enquiry under section 23 of the Act is contemplated only in the eventualities as set out in Section 24 thereof and thus, in the attendant facts and circumstance, the order to that effect is illegal thus rendering the finding recorded in the report in connection therewith non-existent. Reiterating that RRA as an existing Association under the Act had obtained its registration in terms thereof and had its constituent District Level Sports Associations affiliated to it, any delay on their part in getting themselves registered under the enactment per se did not signify their disqualification ensuing in the loss of its (RRA) registered status, the learned Senior Counsel has maintained that as Section 24 is invocable only in the contingencies envisaging disqualification as enumerated in Section 22, the i impugned decision of installing the Adhoc Executive Committee in purported exercise of power on the face of the record is misconceived and lacks jurisdiction. He urged that in any view of the matter, the constitution of the Adhoc Committee being opposed to the letter and spirit of the Act and the 5 Rules as 5 of the chose members are strangers, it has no legal actuality and is liable to be adjudged as such. Mr. Sharma contended that the statutory provisions pertaining to disqualification are required to be construed strictly and thus, assuming without admitting that the constituent DLSAs of the RRA had failed to comply with Section 26(5) of the Act, no action under section n 26(2) was warranted thus rendering the impugned order dated 19.3.2013 void. He added that registration of the DLSAs under section 26(1) within the time frame prescribed was neither mandatory nor necessary. To endorse his pleas, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arun Singh Alias Arun Kr. Singh v. State of Bihar 1 and ors., ( 2006(9) SCC 375 ) , Joseph M. Puthussery v. T.S. John and ors., (2011(1) SCC 507) and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Hooghly Mills Company Limited and ors., ( 2012(2) SCC 489 ). 11. Mr. Mathur, as against this, has strenuously urged against the maintainability of the writ proceedings citing availability of alternative remedy s under section 35 of the Act and has insisted that in the face thereof, the impugned judgment and order does not merit any interference. 11. Mr. Mathur, as against this, has strenuously urged against the maintainability of the writ proceedings citing availability of alternative remedy s under section 35 of the Act and has insisted that in the face thereof, the impugned judgment and order does not merit any interference. Aside this, the learned Senior Counsel has asserted that as the registration of the RRA under the Act had been accorded on 28.10.2004 and its constituent District Level Sports Associations had failed to obtain their registration within the period of 9 months therefrom as mandated by Section 26(1) of the Act, the impugned decisions are even otherwise valid and unassailable. Contending that the RRA being a State Level Sports Association, is a representative body of its constituent associations and thus, ought to suffer the consequences of their failure to comply with the enjoinments of law, Mr. Mathur with reference to the documents on record argued that as would be apparent therefrom, the registration of the affiliated DLSAs of the RRA had been between 2007 and 2011, much beyond the time frame prescribed by Section 26(1). According to him, therefore, as on the dates of the elections in the years 2007 and 2011, the District Level Sports Associations affiliated to the RRA were non- entities, their participation in the electoral process was inconsequential and thus, the decision to instal Adhoc Executive Committee to prevent perpetuation of illegality can by no means be faulted with. While contending that the provisions of the Act ought to be accorded purposive interpretation to achieve the objectives thereof, the learned Senior Counsel with reference to Sections 9(1) and 14(3) of the Act in particular has pleaded that the membership of the District Level Sports Association of the State Level Sports Association is contemplated only of those bodies which are duly registered under the Act. That the elections of the RRa are also invalid in absence of any observer of the Rajasthan State Sports Council as obligated by Section 13 of the Act, has been urged as well. According to Mr. Mathur, the Adhoc Committee comprised amongst others of Col. Rajyavardhan Singh, an Olympic Medalist is valid and in conformance of the letter and spirit of the Act. To buttress his arguments, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in East India Hotels Ltd. and anr. According to Mr. Mathur, the Adhoc Committee comprised amongst others of Col. Rajyavardhan Singh, an Olympic Medalist is valid and in conformance of the letter and spirit of the Act. To buttress his arguments, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in East India Hotels Ltd. and anr. v. Union of India and anr., ( 2001(1) SCC 284 ) and Deewan Singh and ors. v. Rajendra Pd. Ardevi and ors., (2007(1) WLC (SC) Civil 348 : 2007(10) SCC 528 ). 12. In endorsement of the above, Mr. Prasad has maintained that the complainant-respondent no.4 being himself a highly acclaimed National Level Shooter, his bonafide is beyond reproach and thus, the plea to the contrary is wholly misplaced. According to him, there being no statutory constriction on the scope of Section 23, the direction to hold an enquiry thereunder in the facts and circumstances of the case is unquestionably valid. The learned counsel contended that the plea of want of fairness as raised by the appellants/writ-petitioners is frivolous and they having duly participated in the enquiry, their application for review of the enquiry ordered was also misconceived. Referring to Section 25 of the Act, the learned counsel urged that thereby one validly constituted representative body for the entire State is contemplated. Further, in terms of Rule 12(5) of the Rules, it is not mandatory to induct as a member of the Adhoc Executive Committee a person who is eligible to be elected to the Executive Body of the Association and thus, the impeachment of the constitution of the Adhoc Executive Committee in terms of the order dated 6.3.2013 and/or 19.3.2013 is fallacious. 13. The pleaded assertions and the arguments advanced in the backdrop of the Act and the Rules framed under the Ordinance (now Act) have been duly analyzed. 14. Having regard to the issues seeking adjudication, apt it would be to address the factual disclosures phase-wise culminating into the impugned decision or dissolving the Executive Committee of the RRA to be substituted by an Adhoc Executive Committee. To clear the deck for the curial scrutiny proposed, we are of the comprehension that in view of the exhaustive dialectics, the aspect of alternative remedy has been rendered inconsequential. We, therefore, proposed to resolve the dissensus on merits. 15. To clear the deck for the curial scrutiny proposed, we are of the comprehension that in view of the exhaustive dialectics, the aspect of alternative remedy has been rendered inconsequential. We, therefore, proposed to resolve the dissensus on merits. 15. Undeniably, the RRA before the enforcement of the Act had been registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 on 29.4.2000. Admittedly as well, that it was enlisted at serial no. 27 of Schedule-B to the Act as one of the State Level Sports Associations eligible for registration at the commencement thereof. It did apply for and obtain registration under the enactment on 28.10.2004. The elections thereafter to its Executive Body were held in 2007 and 2011 and its present tenure on the basis of the last electoral process otherwise would have been three years therefrom, but abrogated vide the action impugned. 16. The portentous process for the appellant-Association was set in motion by a complaint filed by the respondent no. 4 on 17.3.2011 with the Registrar alleging in substance that the RRA at the time of its elections after the enforcement of the Act had produced a list of nine constituent District Level Sports Associations, out of which, none had been registered at the time of commencement thereof and six therefrom had not been registered even thereafter. It was alleged as well that the President of the RRA Sushil Choudhary was not the official of any registered District Level Sports Association and thus, he was not eligible to be elected to any office of the State Level Sports Association. Referring to Sections 26 and 27 of the Act, it was asserted that the registration of the RRA as a State Level Sports Association was thus invalid and ought to be canceled forthwith and an Adhoc Committee ought to be installed for the administration of the affairs thereof (RAA) and legal action ought to be taken against the office bearers thereof for producing forged and false documents to obtain its registration. 17. The Registrar vide a communication dated 20.4.2011 conveyed to the respondent no. 4 about the availability of remedy of appeal vis-a-vis his grievances under section 35 of the Act, whereafter, such an appeal was filed by this respondent reiterating the above imputations. In addition to the reliefs already sought for, he prayed for restraint on the RRA from organising or participating in any competition in the concerned sports. 4 about the availability of remedy of appeal vis-a-vis his grievances under section 35 of the Act, whereafter, such an appeal was filed by this respondent reiterating the above imputations. In addition to the reliefs already sought for, he prayed for restraint on the RRA from organising or participating in any competition in the concerned sports. 18. By the order dated 13.6.2011, the Appellate Authority i.e. the Secretary, Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur directed the Registrar to conduct an enquiry under section 23 of the Act in relation to the registration of the RRA within a period of 30 days and take necessary steps on the basis thereof. As the text of this order would reveal, a notice of the appeal had been issued to the RRA arrayed as respondent no. 1 for arranging its representation to which its representative apprised the Appellate Authority that he was abroad and sought for adjournment which was granted fixing 13.6.2011. On that date as well, there was no representation on behalf of the RRA, whereupon the Appellate Authority, on a consideration of the relevant documents, directed the enquiry as adverted to hereinabove. In doing so, he noticed the allegation that the RRA had illegally obtained its registration by inter-alia representing that at that point of time it had the support of 10 District Level Sports Associations, whereas from the inputs received, 4 of such Associations of Sri Ganganager, Karauli, Jaisalmer and Sawai Madhopur were not registered. The Appellate Authority was thus of the prima facie view that the RRA had obtained its registration by furnishing wrong informations. He was further of the view that though in terms of Section 3 of the Act, registration of the District Level Sports Associations, which are constituents of the State Level Sports Association is obligatory, from the informations furnished by the appellants/writ-petitioners, the affiliation of the District Level Sports Associations, the support where of RRA had claimed, was also not established. The Appellate Authority thus reached the conclusion that in these factual perspectives, an enquiry under section 23 of the Act was considered essential. 19. Being aggrieved by this decision, an application for review thereof was filed by the appellants/writ-petitioners. The Appellate Authority thus reached the conclusion that in these factual perspectives, an enquiry under section 23 of the Act was considered essential. 19. Being aggrieved by this decision, an application for review thereof was filed by the appellants/writ-petitioners. Meanwhile, by the order dated 12.8.2011, the Registrar appointed the Deputy Registrar, Raisem, Jaipur to be the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry under section 23 (1)(c) of the Act in terms of the order dated 13.6.2011 of the Appellate Authority. Thereby the Enquiry Officer was required to examine the application of the RRA seeking its registration under the Act and the accompanying documents pertaining to the registration of its constituent District Level Sports Associations at that point of time and thereafter, to submit a report within a fortnight. 20. The Enquiry Officer so appointed, as the reported dated 3.11.2011 would disclose, summoned the relevant records from the office of the Registrar and issued notices to the appellants-writ petitioners and the RRA fixing 9.9.2011 in connection with the enquiry to arrange for their representation. Notice was also issued to the offices of the Deputy Registrars/Assistant Registrars of the respective 9 Districts pertaining to the corresponding District Level. Sports Associations for production of necessary records in connection with their registration. On the first date, an adjournment was sought for on behalf of the RRA, which was granted and after two adjournments granted to it (RRA) on the subsequent dates, the enquiry was conducted in presence of both the sides. Meanwhile, the relevant records from the concerned offices of the Deputy Registrars/Assistant Registrars relating to the registration of the corresponding constituent District Level Sports Associations had been received. 21. After duly adverting to the scope of the enquiry entrusted to him, the Enquiry Officer, on an analysis of the facts, recorded that the RRA on 17.9.2004 had applied for its registration under the Act and as certain deficiencies in the application were noticed on 12.10.2004, it was required to furnish the informations lacking. Thereafter, the RRA on 25.10.2004 submitted its amended constitution and also list of its District representatives. The registration to it under the Act thereafter was granted on 28.10.2004. Thereafter, the RRA on 25.10.2004 submitted its amended constitution and also list of its District representatives. The registration to it under the Act thereafter was granted on 28.10.2004. The enquiry report discloses that the Enquiry Officer did examine as well the Memorandum of Association and the bye-laws of RRA alongwith the documents pertaining to its affiliation to the Rajasthan Olympic Association and also letter dated 2.9.2004 of the Rajasthan Rifle Association disclosing Sushil Choudhary and Balendu Singh to be the President and the Secretary respectively of the RRA. The Enquiry Officer noted that the application filed by the RRA mentioned a list of 9 District Level Sports Associations. 22. In the enquiry, whereas it was contended on behalf of the complainant that the RRA at the time of submitting its application for registration under the Act was lacking in eligibility and that its constituent District Level Sports Associations had not been registered thus rendering it (RRA) legally non est, it was pleaded per contra on behalf of the RRA that as it (RRA), before the commencement of the Act, had already been registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 in terms of Section 26 of the Act, on its application it has been rightly registered and that as its constituent District Level Sports Associations had meanwhile been registered also under the enactment, the allegations leveled are baseless and wanting in bona fide. 23. The Enquiry Officer at the first instance examined the records obtained from the offices of the Deputy Registrars/Assistant Registrars of all the Districts in the State relating to the registration of the District Level Sports Associations under the Act and noted that till then only 12 such District Level Sports Associations had obtained their registration and that too after the year 2007. He recorded further that 7 such Associations had been registered only in the year 2011 and 21 such Associations had not till then been registered. Here turned a finding that at the time of registration of the RRA in the year 2004, none of its constituent District Level Sports Associations had been registered under the Act. He recorded further that 7 such Associations had been registered only in the year 2011 and 21 such Associations had not till then been registered. Here turned a finding that at the time of registration of the RRA in the year 2004, none of its constituent District Level Sports Associations had been registered under the Act. With a detailed reference to the various provisions of the Act and on the basis of the above findings, the Enquiry Officer therefore concluded that though in terms of Sections 26 and 27 of the enactment, as the RRA had already been registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 and was enlisted as a State Level Sports Association at the commencement of the Act, its registration thereunder was at the first instance valid. He, however, reiterated that out of the 9 constituent District Level Sports Associations as listed by it (RRA), none was then registered under the Act and even thereafter in terms of Section 26 and 27 of the Act and thus with the efflux of time, it (RRA) had lost its status of a duly registered State Level Sports Association. In view of these findings and the submission of the enquiry report encompassing the same, the review application filed was by order dated 27.2.2012 adjudged to have been 1 rendered infructuous. 24. On receipt of the above enquiry report, the Registrar by notice dated 13.4.2012 under section 24(1) of the Act required the appellants-writ petitioners no. 1 to 3 to show cause as to why the Executive Body of the RRA 5 would not be dissolved and an Adhoc Executive Committee be installed in its place. As the notice would disclose, the issuing authority on a scrutiny of the report was of the opinion that on the date of the registration of the RRA, none of its 9 constituent District Level Sports Associations was registered under the Act nor these had obtained the same within 9 months therefrom as mandated 10 by Section 5(2) of the Act. The Registrar was also of the view that on the date of the elections to its Executive Body on 27.9.2007, only one District Level Sports Association i.e. Jalore District Rifle Association was registered as required and that its (RRA) President Sushil Choudhary was himself an official of the District Rifle Association, which was not registered. The Registrar was also of the view that on the date of the elections to its Executive Body on 27.9.2007, only one District Level Sports Association i.e. Jalore District Rifle Association was registered as required and that its (RRA) President Sushil Choudhary was himself an official of the District Rifle Association, which was not registered. According to this 15 authority, as in terms of Section 10 of the Act, the State Level Sports Association ought to be a representative body of atleast six District Level Sports Associations, the election held on 27.9.2007 was not valid rendering as well the next electoral process conducted on 15.9.2011 illegal. 25. A host of epistolary exchanges followed and eventually the appellants/writ petitioners did submit their "show cause" on 29.8.2012 reiterating its pleas as detailed in the writ petition. They contended in essence that it was not the enjoinment of the Act that the constituent District Level Sports Associations of the State Level Sports Association were to be mandatorily registered at the time of submission of application by its State body for registration and that their affiliation to it per se was enough and thus, the action proposed was illegal and unwarranted. According to the appellants/writ-petitioners, it having been held that the registration of the RRA as an already registered State Level Sports Association under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act and enlisted to be so in Schedule-B of the Act, was validly done, in terms of Section 26, the same could by no means be rendered inoperative and non-existent, even on the assumed default of its constituent District Level Sports Associations to get themselves registered in time. They contended further that the enquiry was incompetent being impermissible under the Act as the RRA had not at any point of time been charged with any of the disqualifications contemplated in Section 22 of the Act, an essential pre-condition for such an inquisition. That in any view of the matter, the Enquiry Officer had breached the intended contours of the investigation as required by the Registrar, was also underlined. 26. In the same line also, a joint representation was submitted by the office bearers i.e. President, Secretary and Treasurer of the 12 District Level Rifle Associations, the members of the RRA. 27. That in any view of the matter, the Enquiry Officer had breached the intended contours of the investigation as required by the Registrar, was also underlined. 26. In the same line also, a joint representation was submitted by the office bearers i.e. President, Secretary and Treasurer of the 12 District Level Rifle Associations, the members of the RRA. 27. Initially vide an order dated 6.3.2013, the Registrar while rejecting the show cause submitted by the appellants/writ petitioners, constituted in exercise of the powers under section 24 of the Act an Adhoc Executive Committee of 7 persons of which only one i.e. Shashank Korani was the President of the Ajmer Rifle Association, Ajmer and others were outsiders to the Executive Body dislodged. As one of the members of the Adhoc Executive Committee, namely, Shagun Chaudhary later withdrew herself, by order dated 19.3.2013, an Adhoc Executive Committee without her was inducted. 28. To complete the factual narration, it would be worthwhile to record that on the election programme dated 25.8.2011 having been published on the eve of the elections to the Executive Body of the RRA, the respondent no. 4 had laid a challenge thereto before this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 12239/2011. He was joined in the issue raised by the District Rifle Shooting Association, Tonk with Civil Writ Petition No. 12240/2011. Both these petitions were dismissed on the ground of want of locus standi to question the election schedule. Thereafter, elections were held and results thereof were declared and the appellants no. 1,2 and 3 were elected as Secretary, President and Treasurer respectively of the RRA. 29. From the Certificate of Registration issued under the Act as appended to the writ petition vis-a-vis 10 District Level Sports Associations affiliated to the RRA, it would be apparent that those had been granted between 31.5.2008 and 11.8.2011. 30. It is now time to turn to the Act and the Rules framed under the Ordinance (now Act). 31. The preamble of the Act proclaims it to be an enactment to provide for registration, recognition and regulation of the Sports Associations and to facilitate and regulate the activities and affairs thereof and also to provide for recognition and regulation of the right to represent the State and the various Districts thereof. 31. The preamble of the Act proclaims it to be an enactment to provide for registration, recognition and regulation of the Sports Associations and to facilitate and regulate the activities and affairs thereof and also to provide for recognition and regulation of the right to represent the State and the various Districts thereof. The underlying objective of this legislation thus is to effect an overall control and supervision over the Sports Associations at the State and District level and ensure organised and coordinated activities thereof and present these as representative entities of the desired competence in the National Sports circuit. The expressions "affiliation", "District Level Sports Association" and "State Level Sports Association" being of formidable significance are quoted hereinbelow for immediate reference:- "2. Definitions- (b) "affiliation" means establishment of a relationship for the purpose of achieving the objectives of this Act: (f) "District Level Sports Association" means a sports unit, which represents a Revenue District, in a particular game or sports and is duly affiliated to the concerned District Sports Council, State Level Sports Association and District Olympic Association and whose affiliating State Level Sports Association has applied for registration to the Registrar; (v) "State Level Sports Association" means an elected representative body of District Level Sports Associations, for particular game or sports in the State which is duly affiliated to the Rajasthan State Sports Council and affiliated to the Rajasthan Olympic Association and being eligible under Schedule-B, has applied for registration under this Act to the Registrar." 32. A plain reading of Section 2(f) would demonstrate the following salient features of the District Level Sports Association as contemplated by the Act:- (a) a sports unit representing a revenue district in a particular game or sports; (b) duly affiliated to the concerned District Sports Council, State Level Sports Association and District Olympic Association; (c) its affiliating State Level Sports Association has applied for registration to the Registrar under the Act. Similarly, the definition of "State Level Sports Association" authenticates its inalienable attributes thus : (a) an elected representative body of the District Level Sports Association, for a particular game or sports in the State which is duly affiliated to the Rajasthan State Sports Council and affiliated to the Rajasthan Olympic Association; (b) it is eligible under Schedule-B;and (c) has applied for registration under the Act to the Registrar. 33. 33. It would thus be patent from the above definitions that the State Level Sports Association is an elected representative body of the District Level Sports Associations and is eligible under Schedule-B for registration under the Act and has applied therefor. On a conjoint reading of those two definitions, the requirement is that at the time of commencement of the Act, the District Level Sports Associations are to be affiliated to the State Level Sports Association concerned and the latter being eligible under Schedule-B 1 has to apply for its registration under the Act. That the State Level Sports Association has to be an elected representative body of the District Level Sports Association is the mandate of the statute. 34. Whereas Section 3 of the Act makes it inflexibly incumbent or obligatory for every Sports Association under the Act than a primary Sports Body to be registered under the provisions thereof, Section 5 stipulates that the State Level Sports Association enlisted in Schedule-B and any other future State Level Sports Association and its affiliated District Level Sports Associations would have to apply for registration in the manner as laid down therein. Section 5(2) predicates that the District Level Sports Association would be permitted time up to nine months for making an application for registration after its affiliating State Level Sports Association has received the Certificate of Registration. In terms of Section 6, the Registrar, as provided therein, would register the Sports Association and issue a Certificate to this effect. The essential contents of the bye-laws are set out in Section 8. 35. Section 9 in an unequivocal terms enjoins that the District Level Sports Association registered under the Act would be a member of the concerned State Level Sports Association. In terms of Section 10, a State Level Sports Association shall be constituted of a minimum of six District Level Sports Association and the composition of the Executive Body thereof would include minimum of five and a maximum of twenty one members. Section 12 provides for affiliation amongst others to the Rajasthan Olympic Association and the State Level Sports Associations as contemplated thereunder. Section 12 provides for affiliation amongst others to the Rajasthan Olympic Association and the State Level Sports Associations as contemplated thereunder. As per Section 14(3), each affiliated District Level Sports Association would have a right to cast one vote on behalf of that District Level Sports Association for the election of the Executive Body of the State Level Sports Association and the procedure for determining the authorisation of the persons for the purpose thereof would be as prescribed in the bye-laws of the concerned Sports Association. Section 15(3) prescribes that the elected office bearers of all the affiliated District Level Sports Associations are eligible to contest the elections of the State Level Sports Association. 36. Chapter VI deals with disaffiliation, enquiry and disqualification. The following grounds for disqualification cataloged in Section 22 are extracted hereinbelow:- "(a) if the Sports Association fails to maintain accounts and submit the same under section 19 or fails to produce the same when called for inspection; (b) if the Sports Association fails to hold elections in accordance with its bye-laws, or, as the case may be, when enjoined by the provisions of Chapter VII; (c) if the Sports Association fails to carry out its obligations under Chapter VIII; (d) if the Sports Association or any of its Office Bearers or any other member of the Executive Body misappropriates the funds for his personal gains or mismanages the affairs of the Sports Association to give undue benefit to any other person; (e) if the Sports Association is disaffiliated under Section 21." Under section 23, the Registrar may hold an enquiry either himself or by a person duly authorised by him on the following eventualities:-"(a) on the request of a State Level Sports Association, or (b) on the request of not less than one tenth of the total members of a Sports Association, or (c) on his own motion." 37. As provided in Section 24, following an enquiry and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the affected Sports Association, the Registrar may appoint an Adhoc Executive Committee and cause to hold a fresh elections of the Executive Body within three months and in the case of misappropriation of funds, take action in accordance with law, Section 24(2) prohibits an existing office-bearer of the Sports Association so disqualified to contest elections of any Sports Association for a period of six years from the date of such disqualification. Section 26(1), (2) and (5) lodged under Chapter-VII captioned "Transition", in view of their definitive role in the present adjudicative pursuit deserve to be extracted:- "26. Recognition.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, an Association undertaking games or sports activities at State or District level and is already registered under The Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 (Act no. 28 of 1958) shall be entitled to opt to be registered and recognised under this Act and to receive a certificate thereof on application to the Registrar and within thirty days from the date of commencement of this Act shall amend its bye-laws to bring it in conformity with the provisions of this Act to the satisfaction of the Registrar and submit all the documents specified in schedule-"A" of this Act. (2) If no such application is made within thirty days of the commencement of this Act or if the bye- laws of the Sport Association covered under sub-section (1) are not brought in conformity with the provisions of this Act at the expiry of thirty days from the commencement of this Act, the Executive Body of the Sports Association shall be superseded by the Registrar and an Ad-hoc Executive Committee shall be appointed to manage the affairs of the Sports Association. Such an Ad-hoc Executive Committee shall call an Extraordinary General Meeting and get amended bye-laws approved within thirty days of taking charge, apply for registration under the provisions of this Act and then proceed to conduct fresh elections. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the transition of the District Level Sports Associations affiliated to a State Level Sports Association covered under this chapter and themselves not covered 1 under this chapter may be allowed to be completed up to nine months of the registration certificate being granted to the concerned State Level Sports Association." 38. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the transition of the District Level Sports Associations affiliated to a State Level Sports Association covered under this chapter and themselves not covered 1 under this chapter may be allowed to be completed up to nine months of the registration certificate being granted to the concerned State Level Sports Association." 38. The analysis of the above extracted excerpts of Section 26 would t reveal the following features (i) It has a over riding effect qua other provisions of the Act in view of the non obstinate clause; (ii) An Association undertaking games or sports activities at State or District Level and already registered under the Rajasthan Societies i Registration Act, 1958 would be entitled to opt to be registered and recognised under the Act and to receive a Certificate thereof. (iii) The application for registration would have to be made to the Registrar within thirty days from the date of commencement of the Act. (iv) it would have to amend its bye-laws to bring it in conformity with the 1 provisions thereof to the satisfaction of the Registrar. (v) Submit all the documents specified in Schedule-A of the Act. (vi) If no such application is made within thirty days of the commencement of the Act or if the byte- laws of the Sports Association are not brought in conformity therewith, the Executive : Body of the Sports Association would be superseded by the Registrar on the expiry of 30 days from the commencement of the Act and an Ad-hoc Executive Committee shall be appointed to manage the affairs thereof; (vii) Such Ad-hoc Executive Committee would call an Extraordinary General Meeting and get the amended bye-laws approved within thirty days of taking charge, apply for registration under the provisions of the Act and then proceed to conduct fresh elections; (viii) The District Level Sports Associations affiliated to the State Level Sports Association to complete the transition would be granted nine months time from the registration certificate granted to the concerned State Level Sports Associations. 39. Section 27 proclaims that the registration of all the Sports Associations under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 would cease from the date of expiry of their option for registration and recognition under section 26. 40. 39. Section 27 proclaims that the registration of all the Sports Associations under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 would cease from the date of expiry of their option for registration and recognition under section 26. 40. In terms of Rule 9 of the Rules, if the Registrar, on an enquiry, is of the opinion that any ground for disqualification exists, he may appoint an Ad-hoc Executive Committee in accordance with Section 24 (1)(a) of the Ordinance (now Act) to be constituted from amongst those persons eligible to be elected to the Executive Body of the Association at the time of its super-session, subject to the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Ordinance (now Act). In terms of Rule 12(1), if an already registered Sports Association fails to apply for registration under the ordinance (now the Act) as required under section 26, within 30 days from the commencement thereof, the Registrar would issue an order superseding the Executive Body and appoint an Ad-hoc Executive Committee in lieu thereof to manage the affairs of the Association. Rule 12(5) contemplates that the Ad-hoc Executive Committee may be constituted from only among those persons, who are eligible to be elected to the Executive Body of the Association at the time of commencement of the Ordinance (now Act). 41. The revelations in the enquiry for final determination thus would have to be tested on the anvil of the above statutory imperatives. 42. A cumulative reading of the definitions of "District Level Sports Association and the State Level Sports Association" alongwith Sections 5 (2), 9, 10(1), 11, 14(3) and 15(3) of the Act, in our estimation, leaves no manner of doubt that the State Level Sports Association is essentially a representative body of the District Level Sports Associations affiliated to it. Though these constituent District Level Sports Associations are not obligatorily required to be registered at the commencement of the Act, they would have to mandatorily obtain the same under the Act within a period of nine months from the grant of Registration Certificate to the concerned State Level Sports Association. Though these constituent District Level Sports Associations are not obligatorily required to be registered at the commencement of the Act, they would have to mandatorily obtain the same under the Act within a period of nine months from the grant of Registration Certificate to the concerned State Level Sports Association. In terms of Section 26(1) read with Section 5(2), the representative State Level Sports Association has to indispensably apply for its registration within 30 days from the commencement of the Act and also amend its bye-laws as prescribed, failing which its Executive Body is liable to be superseded by the Registrar and replaced by an Ad-hoc Executive Committee to manage the affairs thereof. Neither the Act nor the Rules accord any pliability to this requirement of registration of the State Level Sports Association as well as the District Level Sports Association(s) either in the essentiality thereof or the time frame granted therefor. Section 3 read with Section 26(1) & (2) proclaims this proposition in unambiguous and emphatic terms. 43. The prescription of Section 9 obligates that the District Level Sports Association registered under the Act would be a member of the concerned State Level Sports Association, which essentially in terms of Section 10 has to be constituted of a minimum of six District Level Sports Associations. Section 11 prescribes the size of the Executive Body of a Sports Association. To reiterate, whereas in terms of Section 14(3) each affiliated District Level Sports Association shall have a right to cast one vote on behalf of the District Level Sports Association for election of the Executive Body of the State Level Sports Association, as per Section 15(3), elected office- bearers of all the affiliated District Level Sports Associations are eligible to contest the elections of the State Level Sports Association. 44. Having regard to the overwhelming primacy to the essentiality of registration of the District Level Sports Association under the Act and that too within a time limit statutorily fixed, we are of the firm opinion that to be eligible to contest the elections of the State Level Sports Association,the constituent District Level Sports Associations ought to obtain their registration as mandated by the Act, so much so that elected office bearers thereof are qualified to partake in the said electoral process pertaining to the composition of the Executive Body of the State Level Sports Association. The affiliation per se of the District Level Sports Association to the concerned State Level Sports Association, having regard to its avowed representative standing, as is sought to be secured by the Act, in our comprehension, would not be absence of its registration under the Act within the time frame sanctioned by it (Act) render it (DLSA) eligible to participate in the elections to the Executive Body of the concerned State Level Sports Association. Any other interpretation, having regard to the scheme of the Act and more importantly, the salutary objectives thereof, would be opposed to the underlying legislative intendment. The appellants plea that the RRA having been validly registered under the Act on its commencement and the elections to the Executive Body having been held in 2007 and 2011 with out any demur, the default or delay 1 on the part of its constituent District Level Sports Associations to obtain the registration in terms of the Act would be inconsequential, thus does not commend for acceptance. The inviolable ordainment of registration of the constituent District Level Sports Associations and that too within a time frame # fixed by the enactment being writ large on the face of the legislation, the interpretation as pleaded by the appellants, if accepted, would be mutilative of the scheme of the statute besides being dissentient to the fundamental principles of statutory interpretation. The relevant provisions of the Act referred to hereinabove have to be accorded a harmonious and purposive 1 construction to further the objective thereof, as has been held amongst others in East India Hotels Ltd. and anr. v. Union of India and anr. (supra), Deewan Singh and ors. v. Rajendra Pd. Ardevi and ors. (supra) and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Hooghly Mills Company Limited and ors. (supra). 45. Section 23(1)(c) included in Chapter VI of the Act vests the Registrar with the power to make an enquiry on his own motion either by himself or a person duly authorised by him. Though an endeavor has been made on behalf of the appellants/writ petitioners to contend that such an enquiry has to be essentially vis-a-vis on one or more of the : grounds of disqualification as enumerated in Section 22, we are not inclined to curtail the scope and amplitude of the contemplation and of the power engrafted in Section 23. Though an endeavor has been made on behalf of the appellants/writ petitioners to contend that such an enquiry has to be essentially vis-a-vis on one or more of the : grounds of disqualification as enumerated in Section 22, we are not inclined to curtail the scope and amplitude of the contemplation and of the power engrafted in Section 23. In our view, if such an interpretation is provided, it would be too literal in concept as well as in content overlooking the quintessence and objective thereof, more particularly in : the context of the underlying purposes of the enactment. Having regard to the nature of the imputations made in the complaint and the bearing thereof on the status and locus of the RRA, we are also not persuaded to non-suit the respondent no.4 as an officious outsider and repudiate the enquiry based on his complaint to be incompetent and bereft of jurisdiction. The findings, to reiterate, as recorded in the enquiry, are based on contemporaneous records. That except one constituent District Level Sports Association of the RRA, none of its other affiliated District Level Sports Associations had been registered under the Act at the time of the elections to its Executive Body in the year 2007, is an established fact. The dismissal of the challenge to the election programme of 2011 was not on the ground that its Executive Body in office conducting the same had been validly constituted and thus the decision in the earlier writ petitions has no bearing on the present issues to the advantage of the appellants/writ-petitioners. We are thus also of the view that the enquiry directed under section 23(1)(c) of the Act cannot be annulled as illegal and in contravention of the statute. 46. It has not been debated before us that except Shashank Korani, who was the President of the Ajmer Rifle Association, Ajmer, none other member of the Adhoc Executive Committee installed by the order dated 6.3.2013 is a person eligible to be elected to the Executive Body of the RRA at its super session. Rule 9(2), which mandates that the adhoc Executive Committee shall be constituted from amongst the persons, who are eligible to be elected to the Executive Body of the Association at the time of its supersession, however, makes this stipulation subject to Section 24(2) of the Ordinance (now Act). Rule 9(2), which mandates that the adhoc Executive Committee shall be constituted from amongst the persons, who are eligible to be elected to the Executive Body of the Association at the time of its supersession, however, makes this stipulation subject to Section 24(2) of the Ordinance (now Act). Section 24(2), to reiterate, debars an existing office bearer of the Sports Association which is disqualified to contest elections of any Sports Association for a period of six years from the date of such disqualification. Further, Rule 12(5) makes it discretionary to constitute the Adhoc Executive Committee from only amongst those persons who are eligible to be elected to the Executive Body of the Association. This provision read together with the Act, therefore, in our opinion does not render the Adhoc Executive Committee so constituted in the face of the disqualification of the appellant-Association to be non est in law. By the analogy of this reasoning as well, the order dated 19.3.2013 cannot be faulted with. 47. In the face of the determination made hereinabove on the aspects involved, we see no merit in the challenge in the instant appeal. It is thus dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******