CWP No. 12872 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 12872 2009 Date of decision 24 .8.2009 Jagmohan Sarup ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Manjit Singh ,Advocate for the petitioner 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. Through the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to make necessary amendment in the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for brevity 'the Act') in the light of legal opinion sought from Legal Remembrancer, Punjab as the State Like Uttar Pradesh has achieved the purpose by making and inserting in Section 12 of the Act by incorporating Section 12 D whereby power has been given to the Registrar to cancel the registration certificate which has been obtained by mis- representation or fraud. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length we find that the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be granted as such a prayer would amount to issuance of direction to the legislature to frame law The issue is well settled and Hon'ble the Supreme Court in para CWP No. 12872 of 2009 2 27 of the judgement in the case of Municipal Committee, Patiala v. Model Town Resident's Association (2007) 8 SCC 669 has observed that the legislature is supreme in its own sphere under the Constitution subject to the limitations provided for in the Constitution itself. It is for the legislature to decide as to when and in what respect and on what subject matter the laws are to be made and what should be the nature of operation of the statute. The High Court should not over step its own jurisdiction. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has gone to the extent of observing that the Courts cannot issue mandamus directing the respondents to enforce a provision of a statute by issuing appropriate notification within a reasonable time unless there is violation of the Constitution. In that regard reliance may be placed on the observations made by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.K.Roy v. UOI (1982) 1 SCC 271. Accordingly, we find that the prayer made by the petitioner is wholly unsustainable under Article 226 of the Constitution and no direction could be issued to the legislature to make any amendment in the provisions of the Act. For the reasons afore-mentioned this petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jaswant Singh) 24.8.2009 Judge okg