JUDGMENT 1. - Both the Revision Petitions filed under Section 35(2) of the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Association) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') pertain to the challenge of appointment of Adhoc Executive Committee for the Rajasthan Wrestling Association (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Association') and therefore with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, they were heard finally at the admission stage. After the filing of the petitions and the replies, the counsels for the parties had sought to produce additional documents which are taken on record. 2. Both the revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner Shri Shivlal Greval as the Secretary of the Association against the respondents under Section 35(2) of the said Act. The Revision Petition being No. 181/15 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 1.10.15 passed by the respondent No.1- Registrar Co-operative Societies, appointing Adhoc Executive Committee for the Association, and the order dated 30.10.15 passed by the Secretary, Department of Sports and Youth Affairs (appellate authority) confirming the said order. The other Revision Petition being No. 182/15 has been filed challenging the earlier order dated 2.7.15 passed by the respondent No.1-Registrar and the order dated 13.8.15 passed by the appellate authority. The court vide order dated 4.11.15, after hearing the learned counsels for the petitioner as well as for the respondent No.3, had stayed the elections of the Executive Committee of the petitioner Association scheduled to be held on 9.11.15. 3. The short facts, as transpiring from the record, giving rise to the present petitions are that the said Association is registered under the said Act and affiliated with the Rajasthan State Sports Council, Rajasthan Olympic Association and Wrestling Federation of India. Pursuant to the notices dated 27.2.12 issued by the elections Officer for the elections of office bearers of the said Association, the elections were held on 18.3.12 in the General Body Meeting of the Association. As per the certificate issued by the elections Officer, one Mr. R.K. Dhabhai was elected as the President, the respondent No.3 Nirbhay Singh was elected as one of the Vice Presidents and the petitioner Shiv Lal Greval through whom the present petition has been filed on behalf of the Association, was elected as General Secretary. As per the certificate issued by the elections Officer, one Mr. R.K. Dhabhai was elected as the President, the respondent No.3 Nirbhay Singh was elected as one of the Vice Presidents and the petitioner Shiv Lal Greval through whom the present petition has been filed on behalf of the Association, was elected as General Secretary. It appears that on 14.3.12 one Shri Ranveer Singh had filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act') in the court of District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur seeking injunction against the State Sports Council, and others from holding the said election. On 17.3.12, the Addl. District Judge No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') had passed an ad-interim order staying the said elections of the said Association to be held on 18.3.12. On 26.3.12, the said applicant Ranveer Singh filed another application before the said court for restraining the respondents in the said proceedings from entertaining the office bearers of the Association who were elected on 18.3.12. On 3.4.12, while dealing with the said second application, the trial court observed interalia that the interim order dated 17.3.12 was obtained by the applicant Ranveer Singh by concealing the material facts and therefore the court refused to grant the ad-interim injunction as prayed for in the said application. On 12.4.12, the present petitioner Shiv Lal Grewal filed an application in the said proceedings for impleading him as party-respondent under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, which application was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 24.4.12. On 10.5.12, the applicant Shri Ranveer Singh again filed third application for restraining the office bearers who were elected on 18.3.12 from conducting the affairs of the Association. The said application came to be rejected by the trial court vide order dated 17.7.12 on merits after hearing the learned counsels for the parties. Thereafter the main application filed by the applicant Ranveer Singh under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act came to be dismissed by the said court for want of prosecution vide the order dated 20.10.14. 4. The said application came to be rejected by the trial court vide order dated 17.7.12 on merits after hearing the learned counsels for the parties. Thereafter the main application filed by the applicant Ranveer Singh under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act came to be dismissed by the said court for want of prosecution vide the order dated 20.10.14. 4. It further appears that the present respondent No.3 who was also elected as the Vice President of the Association in the elections held on 18.3.12, had filed one writ petition being No. 4967/15, on 23.4.15 posing himself to be the Secretary of Bharatpur District Wrestling Association, suppressing the fact that he had also participated in the elections held on 18.3.12, and that he was elected as the Vice President. In the said petition he had prayed for the direction against the Registrar to appoint an Adhoc Executive Committee of the Association to conduct the elections within three months. The court at the first instance disposed of the said petition by passing the following order on 23.4.15:- "This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner contending that Rajasthan State Wrestling Association is a registered body and it is governed with the Rajasthan Sports Act, 2005 and its own constitution. On 11.7.10, the elections of the executive committee were held, which has tenure of four years. On 18.03.2012, few persons tried to conduct elections of the Association but on 17.03.2013, Court of Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur City passed an order staying the elections on 18.03.2012. It is contended that despite order passed by this Court, elections were held illegally on 18.03.2012 and Wrestling Federation of India is allowing those persons as the representative of the Rajasthan Wrestling Association. Further the tenure of the elected body of 2010 has come to an end in 2014, but no elections has been conducted. The office of Registrar has taken no efforts to appoint ad-hoc committee. It has also not taken any measures for taking elections. Contrary to the same, those who were elected in the elections dated 18.03.2012, they are illegally running the Association. Having regard to the facts aforesaid, the petitioner is required to approach Respondent No.3, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur by way of filing an application along with order of this Court for appointment of ad-hoc committee for holding elections. Contrary to the same, those who were elected in the elections dated 18.03.2012, they are illegally running the Association. Having regard to the facts aforesaid, the petitioner is required to approach Respondent No.3, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur by way of filing an application along with order of this Court for appointment of ad-hoc committee for holding elections. Appropriate order on the application of the petitioner be passed within a period of two months from the date of its filing. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of. Stay application also stands disposed of." 5. The respondent No.1-Registrar thereafter passed the order dated 12.7.15 appointing the Adhoc Executive Committee of the Association under the guise that the High Court had directed to appoint such committee. The present petitioner therefore had preferred an appeal before the Appellate authority challenging the said order. The Appellate authority vide the order dated 13.8.15 partly allowed the said appeal by upholding the decision of the Registrar forming the Adhoc Executive Committee to conduct fresh elections, however set aside the order of the Registrar constituting the Committee, and directed the Registrar to give an opportunity of hearing to the appellant i.e. the present petitioner and to reconstitute the Adhoc Executive Committee within 15 days after taking into consideration all relevant facts. The appellate authority also directed that the notices dated 28.7.15 issued by the Adhoc Executive Committee constituted by the Registrar was rendered void. The said orders dated 2.7.15 passed by the Registrar and order dated 13.8.15 passed by the appellate authority are challenged by the petitioner in Revision Petition being No. 182/15. It appears that the respondent No.3 had also challenged the said order dated 13.8.15 passed by the appellate authority by filing the petition being No. 12414/15, which according to the respondent No.3 is pending before this court. 6. It further appears that after the remand of the case to the respondent No.1-Registrar, he has passed the order dated 1.10.15 appointing the same members of the committee who were appointed in his earlier order dated 2.7.15. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred the appeal before the appellate authority, who by the order dated 30.10.15 dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order dated 1.10.15 passed by the Registrar. The said order dated 1.10.15 and 30.10.15 are under challenge in the Civil Revision Petition No. 181/15. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred the appeal before the appellate authority, who by the order dated 30.10.15 dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order dated 1.10.15 passed by the Registrar. The said order dated 1.10.15 and 30.10.15 are under challenge in the Civil Revision Petition No. 181/15. 7. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Peush Nag for the petitioner that the Registrar as well as the Appellate Authority had appointed the Adhoc Executive Committee under the guise of complying with the order passed by the High Court in SBCWP No. 4967/15, though no such order was passed by the High Court. Taking the court to the orders passed by the trial court in the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act filed by the applicant Ranveer Singh, he submitted that the trial court had passed detailed order on 17.7.12 in the said proceedings holding that the said applicant had suppressed the material facts from the said court and that thereafter the said application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act was dismissed by the trial court for default on 20.10.14. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307 and in the case of Amarjeet Singh & Ors. v. Devi Ratan & Ors. (2010) 1 SCC 417 , he submitted that the interim order would always merge into the final order and where the case is dismissed, interim order stands automatically nullified. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors. (2002) 1 SCC 633 and in the case of Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2003) SCC 111 , he submitted that the authority under the Statute has to exercise the powers in the manner provided under the Act only and not in any other manner, and that in the instant case the Registrar had failed to exercise his powers of holding enquiry before appointing Adhoc Executive Committee, as contemplated in Section 23 and 24 of the said Act. 8. However, the learned counsel Mr. 8. However, the learned counsel Mr. Amit Mathur for the respondent No.3 submitted that the earlier order of the appellate authority dated 13.8.15 confirming the decision of the Registrar to appoint Adhoc Executive Committee pursuant to the order passed by the High Court had remained unchallenged by the petitioner and it was only when the subsequent orders were passed by the Registrar and the appellate authority, the petitioner challenged the said orders. He also submitted that the earlier elections held in 2010 were under challenge before the concerned court and the elections held on 18.3.12 being in violation of the order dated 17.3.12 passed by the said court, the same were illegal. The said elections therefore were challenged by the respondent No.3 by way of writ petition in which the order dated 23.4.15 was passed. On specific quarry being put by the court as to why the respondent No.3, who was petitioner in the said petition, had not disclosed the correct facts and more particularly the fact that he himself had participated in the elections held on 18.3.12 and was also elected as Vice President, Mr. Amit Mathur for the respondent No.3 failed to give any reply except that the respondent No.3 had annexed the certificate of Election Officer declaring the names of office bearers along with the writ petition. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma appearing for the respondent No.1-Registrar has submitted that the Registrar had appointed the committee in compliance with the order passed by the court. 9. Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, it will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Act. It may be stated that the Registrar has the powers to appoint the Adhoc Executive Committee after giving opportunity of hearing to the affected Association, and after holding the enquiry under Section 23 of the said Act. The relevant provisions are reproduced as under:- "23. Inquiry-(1) The Registrar may - (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, held an enquiry, either himself or by a person duly authorised by him. Inquiry-(1) The Registrar may - (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, held an enquiry, either himself or by a person duly authorised by him. (2) The Registrar or the person authorised by him shall, for the purpose of any inquiry have all the powers to inspect records, direct production and take copy of any document of the concerned Sports Association for the purpose of the enquiry. 24. Disqualification.-(1) After holding an inquiry the Registrar, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the affected Sports Association, may- (a) appoint an Adhoc Executive Committee and cause to hold fresh elections of the Executive Body within three months; (b) in the case of misappropriation of funds take action in accordance with law." 10. Section 16 which deals with the Conciliation and Arbitration reads as under:- "16. Conciliation and Arbitration- (1) If any dispute arises touching the constitution, management activity, elections or claim to affiliation of any Sports Association, the same shall be resolved through conciliation and arbitration. (2) The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Central Act No. 26 of 1996) as amended from time to time shall apply to the conciliation and arbitration proceedings referred under sub-section(1)." 11. From the bare perusal of the said provisions, it transpires that the dispute with regard to elections has to be resolved through conciliation and arbitration as per the provisions contained in the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. So far as the powers of the Registrar to appoint Adhoc Executive Committee is concerned, it is required to be noted that the Registrar is required to hold an enquiry on the request of State Level Sports Association or at the request of not less than one tenth of total members of the Association or on his own, as per Section 23, and after holding enquiry, and after giving opportunity of hearing to the affected Association, he may appoint Adhoc Executive Committee. So far as the facts of the present petitions are concerned, the respondent No.1-Registrar had appointed Adhoc Executive Committee vide order dated 2.7.15, without holding any enquiry under the guise that the High Court had directed him to appoint the Adhoc Executive Committee. So far as the facts of the present petitions are concerned, the respondent No.1-Registrar had appointed Adhoc Executive Committee vide order dated 2.7.15, without holding any enquiry under the guise that the High Court had directed him to appoint the Adhoc Executive Committee. In this regard it is note worthy that the order dated 23.4.15 passed by the court in SBCWP No. 4967/15 specifically required the petitioner to approach the respondent No.3 by way of filing of application along with the order of the court, for appointment of Adhoc Executive Committee. It was only the petitioner who was directed to approach the Registrar with necessary application for appointment of Adhoc Executive Committee and there was no direction to the Registrar to appoint the Adhoc Executive Committee and that too without following the procedure as laid down under Sections 23 and 24 of the said Act. Hence, the Registrar had on the misinterpretation and misconstruction of the order passed by the High Court had appointed the committee vide order dated 2.7.15 which order was absolutely illegal. The appellate authority had also endorsed the said order without application of mind and had remanded the matter to the Registrar again for appointment of Adhoc Executive Committee after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Both the orders dated 2.7.15 and 13.8.15 therefore suffered from non-application of mind at the instance of the Registrar and the appellate authority. It is needless to say that in absence of any direction from the High Court to appoint the Adhoc Executive Committee dehors the provisions contained in the said Act and ignoring the specific provisions contained in the said Act, the Registrar could not have and should not have appointed the Adhoc Executive Committee and the appellate authority also should not have confirmed such decision of the Registrar to appoint Adhoc Executive Committee under the guise of complying the order of the High Court. It is true that the petitioner had not challenged the orders dated 13.8.15 passed by the appellate authority at the relevant time and has now challenged it along with subsequent orders passed by the said authorities, nonetheless, the subsequent orders dated 1.10.15 and 30.10.15 also suffer from gross non application of mind inasmuch as they have reiterated their stand of appointing the Adhoc Executive Committee under the pretext of complying with the order of the High Court. Hence, the said orders also being in contravention of the provisions of the said Act are illegal, and deserve to be set aside. 12. Though it was sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Amit Mathur for the respondent No.3 that the said elections held on 18.3.12 were in contravention of the orders dated 17.3.12 passed by the trial court in the application filed by the applicant Ranveer Singh and therefore were illegal, the said submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the respondent No.3 himself had participated in the said elections and was also elected as the Vice President. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent No.3 had challenged the said elections held on 18.3.12 after about 3 years, by filing the said writ petition being SBCWP No. 4967/15, suppressing the material facts from the court that he himself had participated in the said elections. He had not stated the correct facts in the petition which had resulted into passing of the said order dated 23.4.15 by the High Court. It is significant to note that when the said order was passed by the High Court, the proceedings of Section 9 filed by the applicant Ranveer Singh had already stood terminated before the trial court, and that the ex-parte order dated 17.3.12 passed by the trial court in the said proceedings had also stood nullified, the said application having been dismissed on 20.10.14 by the trial court, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Amarjeet Singh & Ors. v. Devi Ratan & Ors. (supra). The trial court had also, while dismissing the subsequent applications filed by the applicant Ranveer Singh in the said proceedings filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, had observed in its orders dated 3.4.12 and 17.7.12 interalia that the said applicant had obtained the ex-parte order dated 17.3.12 suppressing the material facts from the court. (supra). The trial court had also, while dismissing the subsequent applications filed by the applicant Ranveer Singh in the said proceedings filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, had observed in its orders dated 3.4.12 and 17.7.12 interalia that the said applicant had obtained the ex-parte order dated 17.3.12 suppressing the material facts from the court. In any case, the said proceedings having already been terminated as per the order dated 20.10.14, it was highly improper on the part of the respondent No.3 to contend before the High Court, during the course of hearing of writ petition on 23.4.15, that the elections were held on 18.3.12 despite the order dated 17.3.12 passed by the trial court, when the said order had already stood vacated in view of the subsequent orders passed by the trial court on 3.4.12, 17.7.12 and 20.10.14. It was sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 that the respondent No.3 being not a party-respondent in the said proceedings, he was not aware about the said orders, however the said submission is also devoid of merits. When he knew about the order dated 17.3.12 and when the said Association was impleaded as the party-respondent in the said proceedings, the respondent No.3 being Vice President elected on 18.3.12 was deemed to have knowledge about the pendency of the said proceedings and of the orders passed in the said proceedings. Under the circumstances, the court is of the opinion that the respondent No.3 had filed the writ petition being No. 4967/15 misusing the process of law and challenging the elections dated 18.3.12 suppressing the fact that he himself had participated in the said elections and was elected as Vice President. Since the said non-disclosure of correct facts at the instance of the respondent No.3, had led to the passed of the order dated 23.4.15 by the High Court, and subsequently the impugned orders by the Registrar and the Appellate authority, the present petitions deserve to be allowed by imposing cost on the respondent No.3. 13. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders dated 2.7.15 and 13.8.15 as well as the orders dated 1.10.15 and 30.10.15 passed by the respondents-Registrar and by the appellate authority deserve to be quashed and set aside, and are hereby set aside. The respondent No.3 is directed to pay cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner-Association. 13. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders dated 2.7.15 and 13.8.15 as well as the orders dated 1.10.15 and 30.10.15 passed by the respondents-Registrar and by the appellate authority deserve to be quashed and set aside, and are hereby set aside. The respondent No.3 is directed to pay cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner-Association. Both the petitions stand allowed accordingly. By this order, the stay applications in both the petitions also stand dismissed. 14. A copy of this order be placed in the connected revision petition.Both Revision Allowed. *******