JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner, which is a society of minority community registered under the Registration Act, 1860 has questioned the legality and propriety of the order dated 25.10.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No.2-Registrar, Firms and Societies, Raipur by submitting inter alia that Respondents No. 5 to 8, who are not the members of the petitioner’s society, yet the complaint made by them with regard to the constitution and financial source of the Society was taken into consideration and, accordingly, the said authority has passed the order impugned under Section 32 of the Chhattisgarh Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “The Adhiniyam, 1973”). The petitioner has, thus, prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.a. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the order dated 25.10.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 in the interest of justice. 10.b. Cost of proceedings. 10.c. Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant.” 2. From perusal of the entire averments made in the petition, it appears that the main contention of the petitioner is that since the Respondents No.5 to 8 were not the members of the petitioner’s society, therefore, the Respondent No.2-Registrar, Firms and Societies, Raipur ought not to have taken the congnizance of the complaint lodged by them in order to pass the order impugned under the said Adhiniyam, 1973. The entire approach of the respondent no.2 is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 3. It, however, appears from perusal of the record that the Registrar in exercise of its suo motu power provided under sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the said Adhiniyam, 1973 has authorised the Deputy Registrar, Firms and Societies vide order dated 09.02.2010 to conduct an enquiry with regard to the constitution, working and financial conditions of the said Society. The said order referred to in the order impugned has been placed by Respondents No.5 to 8 on record as Annexures R- 5-8/9, which is relevant for the purpose reads as under:- 4. A bare perusal of the aforesaid order would show that certain complaints lodged against the society were came to the notice of Respondent No.2, therefore, while exercising its suo-moto power, a direction was issued to the said authority i.e., the Deputy Registrar, Firms and Societies, to consider those points also as mentioned in the alleged complaint while holding an inquiry. 5. 5. It is, now, to be noted at this juncture, the provision prescribed under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, 1973, which provides as under:- “32. Enquiry and settlement of disputes :-(1) The Registrar may, on his own motion or on an application made under sub-section (2) either by himself or by a person authorized by him, by order in writing, hold an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial conditions of a society. (2) An enquiry of the nature referred to in subsection (1) shall be held on (the application together with an affidavit in support of its contents) of- (a) a majority of the members of the governing body of the society; or (b) not less than one third of the total number of members of the society. (2) An enquiry of the nature referred to in subsection (1) shall be held on (the application together with an affidavit in support of its contents) of- (a) a majority of the members of the governing body of the society; or (b) not less than one third of the total number of members of the society. (3) The registrar or the person authorized by him under sub-section (1) shall for the purpose of an enquiry under this section have the following powers, namely:- (a) he shall at all times have free access to the books, accounts, documents, securities, cash and other properties belonging to, or in the custody of, the society and may summon any person in possession, or responsible for the custody of any such books, accounts documents, securities, cash or other properties to produce the same, if they relate to the head office of the society at any place at the headquarter thereof and if they relate to any branch of the society, at any place in the town wherein such ranch thereof is located or in his own office; (b) he may summon any person who he has reason to believe has knowledge of any of the affairs of the society to appear before him at any place at the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof or in his own office and may examine such person on oath; and (c) (i) he may notwithstanding any regulation or byelaw specifying the period of notice for a general meeting of the society, require the officers of the society to call a general meeting of the society at such time at the head office of the society or at any other place at the headquarter of the society and to determine such matters as may be directed by him and where the officers of the society refuse or fail to call such a meeting, he shall have power to call it himself,(ii)any meeting called under sub-clause (I) shall have all the powers of a general meeting called under the regulations or byelaws of the society and its proceedings shall be regulated by such byelaws. [(4) When an enquiry is made under this section the Registrar shall communicate the result of the enquiry to the society and may issue appropriate directions to the society, which shall be binding on all the parties concerned.]” 6. [(4) When an enquiry is made under this section the Registrar shall communicate the result of the enquiry to the society and may issue appropriate directions to the society, which shall be binding on all the parties concerned.]” 6. It is to be seen at this stage, the principles laid down by the M.P. High Court in the matter of “Evangelical Lutheran Church in M.P. and another vs. State of M.P. and others”, decided on 01.11.2022 in W.P. No.11109 of 2021 as relied upon by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No. 5 to 8, wherein, while considering the aforesaid provision, it has been observed at paragraphs 9 and 10 as under:- “9. It is herein that the learned counsel for the petitioner-Society contends that there is absolutely no material to indicate as to why and in what manner the enquiry has been initiated. In the absence of any material, no enquiry could be initiated under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, 1973. 10. However, the plain reading of Section 32 does not indicate so. It only indicates that the Registrar on his own motion or on an application may initiate an enquiry. Therefore, the suo motu power granted to the Registrar is bereft of any finding or material or any other action prior to exercising of powers under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, 1973. It is apt to indicate that in various enactments, the powers are vested only after certain material is collected or on the satisfaction of the concerned authority that action could be initiated. However, so far as Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 is concerned, no such requirement is postulated. The requirement of having any material or any other reason before initiation of the proceedings is absent under Section 32. Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 only postulates a suo motu power to the Registrar. This is probably intended in order to hold an enquiry with regard to the constitution, working and financial conditions of a society………………” 7. In the light of the aforesaid principles, the Registrar, Firms and Societies, even in absence of any material or any reasons before initiation of proceeding under the Adhiniyam, 1973 can exercise of its suo-moto power under sub-section (1) of Section 32 with regard to the constitution, working and financial conditions of a Society. 8. In the light of the aforesaid principles, the Registrar, Firms and Societies, even in absence of any material or any reasons before initiation of proceeding under the Adhiniyam, 1973 can exercise of its suo-moto power under sub-section (1) of Section 32 with regard to the constitution, working and financial conditions of a Society. 8. It, thus, appears as reflected from the said order dated 09.02.2010, as referred to in the order impugned passed by the respondent No.2- Registrar, Firms and Societies, Raipur, that in exercise of its suo-moto power provided under sub-section (1) of the aforesaid provision, the Deputy Registrar, Firms and Societies was authorised by the Registrar, Firms and Societies, Raipur to hold an enquiry regarding the constitution, working and financial conditions of the said society and by virtue of sub-section (3) of it, the said authority for the purpose of an enquiry has empowered to exercise its powers under clauses (a) to (c) as provided therein. 9. In pursuance to the above mentioned order dated 09.02.2010, the enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Registrar, Firms and Societies, in exercise of the power provided under sub-section (3) and, in turn, has submitted its report on 24.05.2011. It appears further that after receiving the said report, the respondent No.2-Registrar, Firms and Societies, Raipur has supplied the same to the petitioner as well as the Respondents vide its letter dated 06.06.2011, while offering their replies to it. The said enquiry report, as well as the said letter, dated 06.06.2011 are forming part of this petition, marked as Annexure P-14. It appears further that after considering the grounds taken by the parties, the Registrar, Firms and Societies, Raipur in exercise of the powers provided under sub-section (4) of Section 32 of the aforesaid Adhiniyam, 1973 has passed the order impugned dated 25.10.2011 (Annexure P/1), while issuing the appropriate directions to the society. 10. It appears further that after passing of the aforesaid order impugned, the Registrar in exercise of the power provided under Section 33 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 has recommended vide its memo dated 29.10.2011 to the Secretary, State Government for the appointment of the Collector, Bilaspur as Administrator of the said Society in order to look after its administration and financial activities for its smooth functioning. It is to be seen herein that the said order was passed prior to filing of this petition, but the same has found to be suppressed by the petitioner for the reasons best known to it. 11. Be that as it may, what is reflected from the materials placed on record that the order impugned has not been passed on the basis of the complaint of the Respondents No.5 to 8, as alleged by the petitioner herein, and instead, it was found to be passed by the Registrar, Firms and Societies, Raipur in exercise of its suo moto power under subsection (1) of Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, 1973. The petitioner was, thus, very well aware not only regarding the exercise of suo-moto power of the Registrar, Firms and Societies, Raipur, but has suppressed the aforesaid order dated 29-10-2011 as well while projecting as the order impugned has been passed on the basis of the complaint lodged by Respondents No. 5 to 8, which is, however, a false plea that was taken by the petitioner. The petitioner has, thus, approached this Court with malafide intention in order to get the discretionary reliefs. 12. In so far as, the principles laid down in the matter of P.R. Yadav versus Government of M.P. & others, decided by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 06.01.2000 in Writ Petition No.4750 of 1999, is concerned, as relied upon by counsel for the petitioner is, however, noted to be distinguishable from the facts involved herein, as in the said matter, it was held in a case where the Registrar has invoked the jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, 1973, instead of invoking suo-moto jurisdiction under sub-section (1), that before invoking the jurisdiction under sub-section (2), the Registrar has to be satisfied with regard to the condition provided therein, which is, however, not the issue in the instant matter, as no action was initiated under sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, 1973, and therefore, the principles laid down therein would be of no use. 13. In view of above, the petition as framed deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.