IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 12556 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 19th July, 2010. Jagmohan Sarup Petitioner through Mr. Manjit Singh, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner while seeking quashing of the registration of respondent No. 4 Society, claims that since 23.11.1857, his forefathers are Mohtmin/Manager of Guga Mari Shrine situated in village Jhampur and that land measuring 2 kanals 13 marlas comprising Shri Guga Mari along with land measuring 7 kanals 2 marlas appurtenant thereto, was given to their family under the orders of the Commissioner, Ambala Division on 23.11.1857. It is alleged that the petitioner is now sought to be forcibly removed from Mohtmin/Manager of the Shrine on the pretext of constitution of respondent No. 4 as its Prabhandhak Committee. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petitions No. 11459 of 2008 and 15763 of 2009 which were dismissed on account of disputed questions of facts and/or were permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to seek action for cancellation of registration of respondent No. 4 Society. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have served the Additional Registrar, Firms and Societies, SAS Nagar, Mohali with a legal notice dated 19.11.2009 [Annexure P-7], pointing out that respondent No. 4 can not be registered as a religious society because registration of such Society does not fall within the purview of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. No action on the said representation-cum-legal notice appears to have been taken by the authorities, again prompting the petitioner to approach this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the previous orders passed by this Court and the fact that in compliance thereto, the petitioner has already represented, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 to take cognizance of the legal notice dated 19.11.2009 [Annexure P-7] said to have been sent by the petitioner questioning the very registration of respondent No. 4 and redress the petitioner's grievance by passing a speaking order, as early as possible but not later than four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Till then, status-quo shall be maintained with regard to the management and affairs of the subject Shri Guga Mari Shrine. Disposed of. Dasti. July 19, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE