IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16626 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY, MAADINU SSAQUAFATHIL ISLAMIYYA, SWALATH NAGAR, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARY MUHAMMED. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.ABDUL KAREEM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR & REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE GENERAL SECRETARY, AL-IRSHAD ISLAMIC CENTRE, TRIPPANACHI P.O., KUZHIMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 16626 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 31st day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the Secretary of a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The 4th respondent is the Secretary of another Society, which is also registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. The petitioner contends that the two Societies propose to merge together to form a single Society for which permission from the 1st respondent is required. Seeking such permission, the petitioner has filed Ext. P3 petition before the 1st respondent. The petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P3 expeditiously. 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that the Act does not provide for merger of two Societies and therefore the application cannot be considered. I am of opinion that that is a matter which the 1st respondent has to consider while passing orders on Ext. P3, after hearing the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P3 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent. I make it clear that I have not considered the eligibility of the petitioner and the 4th respondent for merger, which has to be considered by the 1st in accordance with law, by himself. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.