JUDGMENT : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3 – the Inspector General, Registration, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, the copies of which have been communicated to the respondent no. 6 as well as the petitioner’s secretary being the authority of Indian School of Learning, Dhanbad vide memo no. 216 dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner has been disposed of without considering its claim, rather the executive committee of the petitioner-Society, which has been illegally constituted on 06.06.2016, has been allowed to submit report regarding compliance of all the statutory provisions since its date of constitution till date. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondent to register the executive committee of the petitioner-Society which was constituted in November, 2007 for the period of five years i.e., till November 2012 but unanimously continued till November, 2017 and to allow the petitioner’s secretary to submit the report regarding proceedings of the society in the office of the respondent no. 3. 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-Society was originally registered in the erstwhile State of Bihar in the year, 1973 and after re-organization of the State, the petitioner-Society was re-registered in the State of Jharkhand on 06.08.2007 in the office of the respondent no. 3 with the same executive body and members. The petitioner-Society constituted its executive body by way of election in November, 2007 for a term of 5 years and the same executive body unanimously continued till November, 2017. After death of some office bearers, they were unanimously replaced by the existing members of the Society. 3. It is also submitted that the petitioner-Society is engaged in running schools in the name of ‘Indian School of Learning’ having its branches spread over far-flung areas and for managing the schools effectively as well as handling its day-to-day affairs, the executive body of the Society has established local managing committees. Moreover, the bank accounts of such schools are also handled by the local managing committees as per instruction and guidance of the executive body of the Society. Moreover, the bank accounts of such schools are also handled by the local managing committees as per instruction and guidance of the executive body of the Society. One of the schools of the Society running in the premises of Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad has been closed after expiry of the lease period, however, its furniture, books and other articles as well as the money deposited in its bank account were not handed over to the executive body of the Society. Shobha Sinha, the Secretary of the local managing committee pertaining to the said school, who was also the Vice-President of the executive committee of the Society, organized a meeting of local persons including the respondent no. 6 on 20.03.2016 and elected a new executive body of the Society in connivance with Madan Mohan Arora – another executive member of the Society. Thereafter, an application for registration of the said executive body by changing its office address was filed before the respondent no. 3 claiming that the earlier executive body of the Society was not working after its registration in 2007-08. 4. It is further submitted that except Shobha Sinha and Madan Mohan Arora, none of the individuals who attended the said meeting was ever a member of the Society and hence, the said meeting was not convened as per the existing by-laws of the Society which has no provision for election of the executive committee prior to completion of its term. 5. It is also submitted that ‘no objection’ of the existing members, who were removed from the executive body, was required for amendment in constitution of the office bearers of the executive body. However, no notice to such members or to the registered office of the Society was ever sent. They did not even publish any notice in the newspapers for the general public. The petitioner filed a complaint along with all the relevant documents in the office of the respondent no. 3 on 14.06.2016 requesting cancellation of amendment made in the executive body of the Society registered on 06.06.2016. Thereafter, the Assistant Inspector General, Registration, Government of Jharkhand issued a letter as contained in memo no. 738 dated 11.07.2016 requesting the respondent no. 4 – the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Registrar, Dhanbad to conduct an enquiry on the complaint filed by the petitioner. 3 on 14.06.2016 requesting cancellation of amendment made in the executive body of the Society registered on 06.06.2016. Thereafter, the Assistant Inspector General, Registration, Government of Jharkhand issued a letter as contained in memo no. 738 dated 11.07.2016 requesting the respondent no. 4 – the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Registrar, Dhanbad to conduct an enquiry on the complaint filed by the petitioner. The enquiry was conducted by the District Sub- Registrar, Dhanbad, who clearly mentioned in the report submitted to the respondent no. 4 that the respondent no. 6 had sworn false affidavit for obtaining the amendment certificate dated 06.06.2016. It was also found that the respondent no. 6 was never nominated as a member/office bearer of the petitioner-Society since the 2007 to 2016, however neither the amendment certificate was cancelled nor any proceeding was initiated against the erring persons including the respondent no. 6, who were indulged in fraudulent act of creating false documents. 6. Learned Senior Counsel also contends that the respondent no. 6 claiming himself as the secretary of the petitioner- Society had earlier filed a writ petition i.e., W.P.(C) No. 1917 of 2017 seeking issuance of direction upon the respondents therein not to interfere in the day-to-day affairs of the petitioner-Society and to conclude the enquiry pending against the Society. The said writ petition was disposed of on 15.05.2019 with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to conclude the pending enquiry within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 passed the impugned order dated 20.06.2024 which was communicated to the respondent no. 6 and the secretary of the petitioner vide memo no. 216 dated 14.08.2024, whereby amendments of the executive body obtained on the basis of false and fabricated documents, was not cancelled, rather legal sanctity was granted to the executive body constituted in violation of the registered by-laws of the Society. 7. It is further argued that the respondent no. 3 while passing the impugned order has erroneously legalized the illegal actions of the respondent no. 6 and has completely ignored the registered by-laws of the Society, the findings of enquiry report and the documents showing continuous proceedings of the Society since 2007-08 till date. The respondent no. 3 has also failed to appreciate the fact that non-members of the Society were made the office bearers vide amendment certificate dated 06.06.2016. 6 and has completely ignored the registered by-laws of the Society, the findings of enquiry report and the documents showing continuous proceedings of the Society since 2007-08 till date. The respondent no. 3 has also failed to appreciate the fact that non-members of the Society were made the office bearers vide amendment certificate dated 06.06.2016. 8. Learned Senior Counsel also urges that the respondent no. 3 for certain vested reasons has chosen to exercise his quasi- Judicial power in favour of some persons including the respondent no.6, who were found indulged in making false affidavit by misrepresenting the facts for obtaining the amendment certificate dated 06.06.2016. The respondent no. 3 has totally ignored the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 which clearly mention about the entitlement of the office bearers of the Society and the manners in which the changes can be made in the executive body of the Society as well as the annual list of the executive body can be filed. 9. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 submits that the respondent no. 3 has no power to decide the election dispute of any Society and as such, he has rightly not entertained the election dispute raised by the Secretary of the petitioner giving liberty to the concerned parties to move before the competent civil court. It is further submitted that certain irregularities were found in running the Society and as such, the respondent no. 3 has rightly directed the new executive body of the Society to run it in accordance with law. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 11. The thrust of argument of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-Society is that the respondent no. 3 has recognized the new executive body of the Society ignoring the fact that the said executive body has been constituted flouting the by-laws of the Society that too by the non-members of the Society without issuing any notice to the existing members of the Society. It has further been contended that the respondent no. 3 has completely ignored the report of the respondent no. 4 which clearly mentions that the respondent no. 6 had sworn false affidavit for obtaining the amendment certificate dated 06.06.2016 of the Society. 12. It has further been contended that the respondent no. 3 has completely ignored the report of the respondent no. 4 which clearly mentions that the respondent no. 6 had sworn false affidavit for obtaining the amendment certificate dated 06.06.2016 of the Society. 12. Before coming to the merit of the contention of learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to refer relevant provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Societies Registration Rules, 1965. 13. Section 23 of the Act, 1860 reads as under: 23. Cancellation of registration in certain cases – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the Inspector General of Registration may, by order in writing cancel the registration of any society registered under this Act whose office has ceased to be in the State of Bihar by reason of the reorganisation of States or change of the office from the State of Bihar by reason of the reorganisation of States or change of the office from the State of Bihar to another State, or whose activities are subversive to the objects of the Society: Provided that the Inspector General of Registration shall, before passing an order, make such inquiry as he considers necessary: Provided further that no order or cancellation of registration of Society on the ground of activities of the society being subversive to the objects of the society shall be passed until the society has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against action proposed to be taken in regard to it. (2) An appeal against an order made under sub-section (1) may be preferred in such manner, within such time and to such authority as may be prescribed and such authority shall consider and dispose of such appeals in the prescribed manner. (3) The decision of the appellate authority under sub- section (2) shall be final. 14. The aforesaid provisions empower the Inspector General, Registration to cancel the registration of any Society registered under the Act, 1860 after making due inquiry regarding the facts that its office has ceased to be in the State of Bihar by reason of the reorganisation of States or change of the office from the State of Bihar by reason of the reorganisation of States or change of the office from the State of Bihar to another State, or whose activities are subversive to the objects of the Society. 15. 15. Rule 12 of the Rules, 1965 reads as under: 12. The Inspector-General of Registration may in his discretion institute such inquiries or investigations in respect of any matter as may in his opinion be necessary for the proper working of the society and administration of the Act specially when there is a suspicion that the society is engaging itself in activities which are subversive to the objects of the society or the office of any registered society has ceased to be in the State of Bihar. Any original documents or other papers called for from the registered society shall be produced before the Inspector-General of Registration or any officer authorised by the Inspector- General of Registration to enable him to examine the affairs of the society or to enquire into any complaint received against any society. 16. Rule 12 of the Rules, 1965 provides discretion to the Inspector General, Registration to make inquiries or investigations in respect of any matter which in his opinion, is necessary for proper working of the society especially when there is a suspicion that the society is engaging itself in activities which are subversive to its objects or the office of any registered society has ceased to be in the State of Bihar. 17. Thus, on the conjoint reading of Section 23 of the Act, 1860 and rule 12 of the Rules, 1965, it would emerge that the Inspector General of Registration has the power to make enquiries or investigations to see as to whether the society has engaged itself in the activities which are subversive to its objects. 18. Section 13 of the Act, 1860 provides as under: 13. Provision for dissolution of societies and adjustment of their affairs Any number not less than three-fifths of the members of any society may determine that it shall be dissolved, and thereupon it shall be dissolved forthwith, or at the time then agreed upon, and all necessary steps shall be taken for the disposal and settlement of the property of the society, its claims and liabilities, according to the rules of the said society applicable thereto, if any, and, if not, then as the governing body shall find expedient. Provided that, in the event of any dispute arising among the said governing body or the members of the society, the adjustment of its affairs shall be referred to the principal Court of original civil jurisdiction of the district in which the chief building of the society is situate; and the Court shall make such order in the matter as it shall deem requisite. Provided that no society shall be dissolved unless three- fifths of the members shall have expressed a wish for such dissolution by their votes delivered in person, or by proxy, at a general meeting convened for the purpose. Provided that whenever any Government is a member of, or a contributor to, or otherwise interested in any society registered under this Act, such society shall not be dissolved without the consent of the Government of the State of registration.” 19. The aforesaid provision explicitly provides that if at least three-fifth members of any society by convening a general meeting, determine that such society shall be dissolved, then it shall be dissolved forthwith, or at the time then agreed upon. Thereafter, all necessary steps shall be taken for disposal and settlement of the property of the society, its claims and liabilities, according to the rules of the said society applicable thereto, if any, and, if not, then as the governing body shall find expedient. However, in the event of any dispute arising among the governing body or the members of the society, the same shall be referred to the Principal Court of Original Civil Jurisdiction of the district in which the chief building of the society is situated and the court shall make such order in the matter as it shall deem requisite. 20. I have perused the impugned order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3, on bare perusal of which it would be evident that the respondent no. 3 had ordered for inquiry on the complaint made by the Secretary of the petitioner and on receiving the inquiry report, it was found that the election of the society was never conducted after its registration in the State of Jharkhand. It was further found that annual report of the society from the year 2008 to 2020 was not sent to the respondent no. 3 and that change in the executive body of the Society was never informed to the respondent no. 3. 21. The respondent no. It was further found that annual report of the society from the year 2008 to 2020 was not sent to the respondent no. 3 and that change in the executive body of the Society was never informed to the respondent no. 3. 21. The respondent no. 3 after considering the said irregularities and on hearing the parties has observed that the main cause of internal dispute between the members of the Society is not conducting regular election of executive body of the same. The respondent no. 3, however, on mentioning that he has no power to entertain the election dispute of the society, given liberty to the concerned parties to move before the competent civil court. Moreover, the Society has been directed to upload all the reports regarding compliance of statutory provisions from the date of its constitution till date on the online portal and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as penalty for not complying the statutory provisions in time. It has also been observed that if in future the Society does not act in accordance with the legal provisions, the registration of the Society will be cancelled. 22. The petitioner seems to be aggrieved with the election of new executive body of the society at the instance of the respondent no. 6. It has been contended that the meeting held on 20.03.2016 forming new executive body of the society was not attended by any member of the society except one Shobha Sinha and Madan Mohan Arora. It has further been claimed that the meeting was not held as per the existing by-laws of the Society which has got no provision for election of the executive body prior to completion of its term. 23. Thus, the petitioner raised election dispute before the respondent no. 3 which has rightly not been entertained by it in view of Section 13 of the Act, 1860. I also do not find no error in the direction issued by the respondent no. 3 to run the society in accordance with law, failing which its registration would be cancelled particularly keeping in view the provision of Section 23 of the Act, 1860 and rule 12 of the Rules, 1965 which empower the respondent no. 3 to cancel the registration of the society if it is found engaged in the activities which are subversive of the objects of the Society. 24. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 3 to cancel the registration of the society if it is found engaged in the activities which are subversive of the objects of the Society. 24. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The respondent no. 3 is directed to refer the election dispute so raised by the petitioner to the Principal Court of original civil jurisdiction within the district of Bokaro where the petitioner-Society is situated. 25. The pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of accordingly.