ORDER : Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J. This Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 25.07.2023 passed by Principal Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Investment Encouragement in File No.F-IPI/02/2022/B-11, Bhopal. 2. It is the case of petitioner that petitioner is a Society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam. A show-cause notice dated 25.09.2017 was served upon petitioner requiring it to submit an information under Section 27/28 of Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam. Petitioner submitted the information to the respondent within stipulated period and paid the deficit amount. The information dated 12.12.2017 has been filed as Annexure P/3. By order dated 19.09.2019, respondent No.3/Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies cancelled the registration of petitioner Society for non fulfillment of requirements of Section 27/28 of Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam. The said order was passed on the basis of complaint made by respondents No.5 and 6 in personal and revengeful manner. 3. Being aggrieved by order passed by Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies, petitioner preferred an appeal before Registrar, Firms and Societies, which was partially allowed by order dated 18.12.2020 and petitioner was directed to submit an information under Section 27/28 of Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam within a period of one month with a further stipulation that in case, if petitioner fails to comply the aforesaid direction, then respondent shall be free to take action in accordance with law. It is the case of petitioner that accordingly, on 12.01.2021, petitioner submitted its information under Section 27/28 of Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam with requisite fees. 4. Being aggrieved by order dated 18.12.2020, respondents No.5 and 6 preferred an appeal under Section 40 of Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam before the Principal Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Investment Encouragement. By the impugned order dated 25.07.2023, the appeal has been allowed. 5. Challenging the order passed by respondent No.2, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner Society is involved in social services. After cancellation of registration, the Registrar, Firms and Societies by its order dated 18.12.2020 had permitted the petitioner to submit requisite information within a period of one month, which was duly complied by petitioner. Audits of Society were conducted from time to time and because of inadvertent mistake, information was not sent to the concerning authority. Audit was conducted by Shri Atul Agrawal, Charted Accountant, whose report was submitted. Audits of Society were conducted from time to time and because of inadvertent mistake, information was not sent to the concerning authority. Audit was conducted by Shri Atul Agrawal, Charted Accountant, whose report was submitted. However, respondent No.5 also threatened Shri Atul Agrawal of taking a false action against him. Parliamentarian fund as mentioned in the appeal by respondent No.5 was not received by petitioner Society. Whatever works were done by petitioner Society were executed by Public Works Department. All the instructions issued to the Society by the Registrar from time to time were complied with. However, on account of some bonafide mistake information could not be submitted, which has been done now. Various social activities were organized by petitioner Society in Tahsil Waraseoni, District Balaghat. Since petitioner was not aware of the requirements of Section 27 and 28 of Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, therefore, information was not filed and the said aspect has been rectified by petitioner. 6. Respondent No.5 has filed his return. It is submitted by counsel for respondent No.5 that there is no authorization letter in favour of Shri Lakhiram Ramchandani to file present petition. Without any authorization, he is not competent to file present petition on behalf of the Society. Respondent No.5 was raising regular objections against the irregularities committed by petitioner Society mainly on the ground that Samiti do not carry out its audit regularly, which is against the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam and bye-laws of the Society. The Samiti had also received fund from Sansad Nidhi through Public Works Department and therefore, Collector was duty bound to direct for carrying out of regular audit, which was not carried out. The non-performance of audit has resulted in financial embezzlement and defalcation on large scale. The Samiti has constructed six complexes in Gurunanak Dharmashala. Office bearers and members have sold it amongst themselves. The aforesaid complexes were sold in violation of bye-laws and provisions of Society Act. The Dharmashala established by office bearers and members of Society is being used to raise money in violation of bye-laws, which is contrary to its original purpose. It is submitted that a joint committee report clearly stated that there was no audit till 10.08.2018. It was further mentioned that Rs.10 Lakhs have been received through Sansad Nidhi. The Dharmashala established by office bearers and members of Society is being used to raise money in violation of bye-laws, which is contrary to its original purpose. It is submitted that a joint committee report clearly stated that there was no audit till 10.08.2018. It was further mentioned that Rs.10 Lakhs have been received through Sansad Nidhi. Even the office bearers of Samiti had themselves admitted that there is no regular audit and only upon the complaint of petitioner, audit was done after 2018. It is submitted that after year 2018, in one go the audit was done to cover up the defaults and defalcations. From 2008 to 2011, audit was carried out by C.A. Pramod Bothra and from 2012 to 2020, it was carried out by C.A. Atul Agrawal. Later on Shri Atul Agrawal cancelled his own audit report upon learning about the illegalities of members and office bearers of Samiti merely on the ground that he was never informed that registration of Samiti was already cancelled on 19.09.2019. Section 28 of Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam mandates that audit should be carried out yearly and so also bye-laws say so. Six complexes were transferred/sold by members and office bearers of Society amongst themselves thereby causing loss to the Society. There is no permission from the Registrar before making such allocation/transfer/sale, therefore, action of members and office bearers of Society is in complete violation of Section 21 of Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam and also bye law No.23. Even the sale was made without permission of the State, which was contrary to the agreement entered into between the State and the Society. FIR has also been registered against members of Society. Initially Police was not taking any action and accordingly, a complaint was filed and in compliance of order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the Police registered the FIR. 7. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties. 8. Respondent No.2 has allowed the appeal in a very cryptic manner. In the order, from paragraph 1 to 7 the facts of the case and grounds raised by respective parties were mentioned. In the first part of paragraph 8 there is mention about the order passed by Assistant Registrar as well as Registrar. The second part of paragraph 8 speaks about the arguments of respondent, whereas third part of paragraph 8 speaks about the arguments of petitioner. In the first part of paragraph 8 there is mention about the order passed by Assistant Registrar as well as Registrar. The second part of paragraph 8 speaks about the arguments of respondent, whereas third part of paragraph 8 speaks about the arguments of petitioner. The operative part of order i.e. fourth part of paragraph 8 reads as under: ^^mijksä fLFkfr ls Li"V gksrk gS fd laLFkk ds iath;u fujLrhdj.k vkns'k ds fo:) jftLVªkj QElZ ,oa laLFkk;sa e/;çns'k] Hkksiky ds le{k çLrq r vihy esa vihyk/khu vkns'k fnukad 18@12@2020 ls lgk;d iath;d }kjk tkjh iath;u fujLrhdj.k vkns'k dks fujLr dj] vihykFkhZ laLFkk dks ,d ekg ds Hkhrj okafNr tkudkjh tek djus lacaf/kr funsZ'k fn;s x;s Fks blh e/; fopkjk/khu vihy ds vihykFkhZ Jh fouksn lpnso }kjk ek-mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ;kfpdk nk;j dh xbZ lkFk gh çfrçkFkhZ }kjk Hkh ,sls dksbZ vfHkys[kh; lk{;@ nLrkost çLrqr ugha fd;s x;s ftlls fl) gks lds fd muds }kjk vihyk/khu vkns'k fnukad 18@12@2020 dk ikyu le;kof/k esa fd;k tk pqdk gksA pwafd laLFkk ,d lkekftd laLFkk gS ftlls fla/kh lekt dk fgr fufgr gSA vr% jkT; 'kklu ,rn~ }kjk mijksDr fLFkfr ds –f"Vxr fopkjk/khu vihy ekU; djrs gq;s] jftLVªkj QElZ ,oa laLFkk;sa e/;çns'k] Hkksiky }kjk tkjh vihyk/khu vkns'k fnukad 18@12@2020 dks fujLr djrk gSA 9. The appeal has been allowed merely on the ground that the petitioner has not filed any document to show that order dated 18.12.2020 was complied with, whereas it is the case of petitioner that on 12.01.2021, audit reports were submitted. Covering letter dated 12.01.2021 has been filed as Annexure P/5, which also bears acknowledgment of Registrar, Firms and Societies. 10. There are no findings by respondent No.2 with regard to allegations made by respondents No.5 and 6. There is nothing on record to show as to whether any complex was alienated by the office bearers and members of Society amongst themselves and whether the same was in contravention of any provision of law or agreement or not? 11. 10. There are no findings by respondent No.2 with regard to allegations made by respondents No.5 and 6. There is nothing on record to show as to whether any complex was alienated by the office bearers and members of Society amongst themselves and whether the same was in contravention of any provision of law or agreement or not? 11. So far as the cancellation of report by C.A. Atul Agrawal is concerned, the cancellation certificate has been filed by respondent No.5 as Annexure R/3 in which it is mentioned that he was not informed about the fact that registration of Society has already been cancelled by the Assistant Registrar by order dated 19.09.2019 and therefore, it was mentioned that he has an apprehension that some more information must have been suppressed by the Society and therefore, audit report submitted by him for the financial year from 2011-12 to 2019-20 was cancelled. It was further observed that in case, if an audit is done by some other CA, then he would not have any objection. 12. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that since order passed by respondent No.2 is cryptic in nature and does not disclose the application of mind, therefore, the same is set aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 to decide the appeal afresh by specifically considering the following aspects apart from others: 1. Whether non-compliance of provisions of Section 27/28 of Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam was deliberate or not? 2. Whether the petitioner Society had received any Sansad Nidhi or not? 3. Whether petitioner Society had constructed any commercial complex or not and if so, whether it was allotted or transferred amongst the office bearers/members of the Society or their family members and relatives? 4. Respondent No.2 shall be free to consider other aspects also. 13. Let final decision in this regard be taken within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 14. With aforesaid observation, petition is finally disposed of.