JUDGMENT Heard Sri Som Kartik, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Dileep Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. By an interim order impugned herein passed in a writ petition, a notice issued under Section 24 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 has been put in abeyance as a result whereof the Deputy Registrar now cannot proceed for the investigation of the affairs of the Society about which allegations have been made by the appellant. 3. Sri Dileep Kumar Mishra raises a preliminary objection that the appellant does not have any locus to maintain the writ petition and the present appeal inasmuch as he is neither a member of the society nor does he have any concern with the society and therefore, the Deputy Registrar was not justified in entertaining his complaint. He further submits that the complaint amounts to harassment inasmuch as the respondent-Society has already faced a number of allegations instigated by the appellant himself. He further submits that after the termination of the services of the Head Master of the institution, Sri Rajendra Singh, this complaint has emanated with the aid of the appellant and in this background, the complaint is neither bona afide nor genuine nor entertainable. 4. The learned Single Judge had granted time vide order dated 30.3.2016 calling upon the State to indicate as to what was the material available on the basis whereof the Deputy Registrar had proceeded to issue the notice. 5. The impugned order was passed on 12.4.2016 as the learned Standing Counsel has made a statement that the instructions are not very clear. 6. Sri Dileep Kumar Mishra submits that in the absence of any such material, the Deputy Registrar has no authority to proceed in the matter apart from the absence of locus of the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant however submits that the appellant has a locus inasmuch he was ousted in a manner about which facts have been narrated and even otherwise, he is a social worker. In such circumstances, the information was tendered to the Deputy Registrar by a complaint, a copy whereof is Annexure - 19 to the writ petition and a reminder thereto is Annexure - 20 to the writ petition. In such circumstances, the information was tendered to the Deputy Registrar by a complaint, a copy whereof is Annexure - 19 to the writ petition and a reminder thereto is Annexure - 20 to the writ petition. It has been pointed out that the allegations of misappropriation of the property and misutilization of the funds of the Society have been made. It has also been indicated therein that the society is not getting the accounts audited. Therefore, the grounds were made out for investigation into the affairs of the society keeping in view the provisions of Sections 22, 23 and 24 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that in spite of all this material, the learned Single Judge was not justified in treating the instructions of the learned Standing Counsel to be unclear and therefore, the stay order ought to have not been passed. Learned counsel further submits that non-consideration of such material therefore vitiates the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12.4.2016. 9. Learned Standing Counsel even today is not very clear on his instructions inasmuch as nothing more is available at this stage nor any affidavit has been filed. 10. In the aforesaid background, prima facie, it appears that Section 24 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 empowers the Registrar to proceed to make an enquiry if he is of the opinion that the affairs of the Society are not being conducted in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Section and such opinion has to be formed by the Deputy Registrar himself on the basis of information received in the manner indicated therein which also uses the word 'otherwise'. 11. In such circumstances, the Deputy Registrar on the basis of the information received from any such source with regard to the misutilization of funds or mismanagement of the Society can within the scope thereof proceed to issue a notice. The notice which is impugned in the writ petition dated 29.12.2015 recites that a complaint has been received and in view of the recital in the complaint, the Society was called upon to produce the record. At this stage, it can not be said either way that there was no opinion of the Registrar at all. The notice which is impugned in the writ petition dated 29.12.2015 recites that a complaint has been received and in view of the recital in the complaint, the Society was called upon to produce the record. At this stage, it can not be said either way that there was no opinion of the Registrar at all. There was a complaint and there were facts and allegations made in the complaint with regard to the status of the management and affairs of the Society. 12. The learned Single Judge does not appear to have delved into either the said complaints or objections, nor the learned Single has entertained the writ petition on the ground of non-availability of locus to the petitioner. These reasons being absent, the impugned order therefore deserves to be set aside. 13. We accordingly set aside the order dated 12.4.2016 with a request to the learned Single Judge to re-consider the matter in the light of what has been urged before us and then pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The matter may be listed in the next cause list before the learned Single Judge. The Deputy Registrar in the meantime shall not proceed and shall await orders to be passed by the learned Single Judge in this regard. 14. The Special Appeal stands allowed to the above extent with the said observations.