HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR W.P. [c] No.2150 OF V2008 PETITIONERS 1. AgrocraTs' Socie’ry for Rural Development Raipur- A Sociefy duly regis’rer'ed under fhe provision of Socie‘ry Regisfr'afion Adhiniya, 1973, having ifs office a’r B—8, Raj Nogar', Sai Vafika, Raipur— Through i’rs President, Dhirendra Mishra, S/o Shri Prem Shunkar Mishra, Aged abouf 39 years, R/o A—20,$ai Va‘rika Colony, Devpuri, Raipur, Disff. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Dhirendra Mishra, S/o Shri Prem Shankar Mishra, Aged abou’r 39 years, Presidenf, Agrocra‘rs' Socie‘ry for Rural Development Raipur, R/o A-20,5ai Va’rika Colony, Devpuri, Raipur, Disf’r. Raipur (C.G.) Vs REsPONDENTs 1. S’ra’re of Chhaffisgarh— Through The Secrefary, Department of Commerce and Industries, D.K;S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Registrar, Firms & Societies, O— 5, Anupam Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Pramod Kujur, Office Superintendent, O/o the Registrar, Firms & Societies, 0-5, Anupa’m Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 4.Manish Shah, S/o Late Shri D.P. Shah, R/o Priyadar'shini Nagar, Raipur (6.6.) 5. Smt. Richa Shah, W/o Manish Shah, R/o Priyadarshini Nagar, Raipur (CG) 6. Smt. Archana Shah, D/o Shri R.P. Rai, R/o Priyadarshini Nagar, Raipur (CG) 7. Smt. Uma Rao, ~R/o Pension Bada, Raipur (6.6.) 8. Smt. Bhumika Gupta, W/o Shri Rajnish Gupta, R/o A—13, Daber Pink City, Gayatri Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 9. Dr. Rajnish’Gupta, S/o Late Shri P.C. Gupta, R/o A‘13, Daber Pink City, Gayatri Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 10.Dr. Vinod Sharma’, S/o Shri P.S. Nareng, R/o Opp. Shanti Girls ” Page 2 of 5 School, Raipur' (C.G.) 11.Dr‘. C.K. Chandravanshi, S/o Shri D.P. Chandravanshi, R/o B/10, Rajnagar, Sui Va’rika, Devpur‘i, Raipur‘ (6.6.) 12.6ur‘ucharan Gango‘rr'i, 5/0 Shri S.L. Gangofr‘i, R/o Near Mangul Bhawan, Om Nagar', Jarhabha‘ra, Bilaspur (CG) 13.5m’r.'5hashi Sajini Kujur‘, W/o Vicfor' Kujur, R/o Shri Rajesh Kujur, B.R.C. Bhawan, Ramanuj Nagar, Surguja (6.6.) Qasem‘: Mg. P. Diwakar', Sr. Advocaie wifh Mr. : For fhe pefi‘rioner'. A. Surana, Advocafe. Mr. Sushi! Dubey, Gov’r. Advoca’re : For The Smfe. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 11 .4. 2008) ‘Dhirendra Mishra, J 1. Heard on admission. 2. This pe‘rifion is direc’red agoinsT fhe order dafed 26.3.2008 (Annexure P-I) whereby ’rhe Regisfrar, Firms & Socie’ries Chha’rfisgarh par’riy allowing The appeal of responden’r No. 4 To 7 herein has in the exercise of suo mo'ru jurisdicfion under Secfion 32 (1) of ’rhe Chha'Hisgarh Socie‘ries Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (for shorf ‘Adhiniyam, 1973') direcTed The respondenT No.3 To conducT enquiry under Secfion 32 (3) of The Adhiniyam, 1973 and submiT his reporT wiThin a period of 3O days. . Briefly sTaTed facTs are ThaT The peTiTioner No.2 is The duly elecTed PresidenT of The peTiTioner No.1-AgrocraTs' SocieTy for Rural DevelopmenT, Raipur regisTered under The Adhiniyam, 1973. PeTiTioner No.1-SocieTy has 24 members, ouT of 24 members applicaTion 17 members were accepTed on 1.12.2003 and They were given regular membership on 14.2.2007. General meeTing was convened on 14.10.2007 and ‘ Page 3 of 5 informa’rion ’ro fhis effecf was sen? m ail ‘rhe members of fhe society on 28.9.2007 and on 14.10.2007 a new executive committee was constituted vide resolution of Annexure P-11. Information about the general meeting was forwarded to the Assistant Registrar, Firms & Societies along with chailan of Rs.400/- as filing fee and the Assistant Registrar vide communication dated 15.11.2007 notified the information submitted by the petitioner No.1—society under Section 27 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 vide AnnexUre P—12. i4. Respondent No.4 to 7 preferred an appeal under Section 4O of the Adhiniyam, 1973 before the Registrar, Firms and Societies against the order of Annexure P-12 notifying the constitution of executive committee. The petitioners submitted their reply to the memo of appeal (Annexure P-14) and thereafter, respondents No.4 to 7 have filed rejoinder of Annexure P-15. The Registrar after hearing the parties and after perusing the record observed that after perusal of the record made available by the respective parties, verification of the documents filed by them is necessary and the same can be done by ordering suo motu enquiry under Section 32 (1) of the Adhiniyam, 1973. .Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has impugned the above order of Annexure P—1 on the grounds that the notification under Section 27»by the Assistant Registrar is not an order within the meaning of Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 against which any appeal lies and therefore, the Registrar committed illegality by entertaining the appeal of the respondent No.4 to 7; the Registrar may exercise the powers under Section 32 (1) on his own motion.and the same could not be passed in an appeal proceeding while partly allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent No.4 to 7; Section 32 (2) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 £1;( ’ - »/..’, Page 4 of 6 envusages 'l'ha’r enqun‘y as confemplafed In sub sechon (1) of Sechon 32 can be ordered on The apphcaflon of maJorI‘ry members of ‘rhe governing body or no’r less Than 1/3” of fhe ’rofal members. In the msfanf case even fhis condmon has no‘r been fu|fl|led as ’rhe appeal was preferred by only four members of fhe soCIeTy . Responden’r No.4 claimin9 himself f0 be fhe Presldenf of fhe Peflfloner No.1-Socie1‘y in his memo of appeal of Annexure P— 13 alleged fhaf The pefifioners by effec‘l‘ing illegal amendmenf in fhe bye—laws of the Soclefy and induc‘ring new members contrary To The rules held The so called general mee‘rlng wxfhou‘r Informa’non To The respondenT No4 To 7 For effecTing amendmenT of memorandum, regulaTlon or bye—laws of The regisTered socieTy procedure envisaged under SecTion 10 of The Adhimyam 1973 Is To be followed Slnce The byes laws were noT validly amended Therefore any general meeTIng convened on The baSIs of illegally amended byelaws and any elecTIon In such general meeTmg would be illegal and vaid The RegisTrar afTer perusal of The documenTs filed by The respecTive parTies reached To The conclusion ThaT The documenTs submiTTed by The parTies require verificaTion and accordingly, by The impugned order exercising suo moTu jurisdicTion under SecTion 32 (1) of The Adhiniyam, 1973 appoinTed respondenT No.3 as enquiry officer and auThorized him To conducT enquiry under sub-secTion (1) of SecTion 32 of The Adhiniyam, 1973 and direcTed him To submiT reporT wiThin 30 days. . Considering The grounds Taken by The respondenTs No. 4 To 7 in The memo of appeal, as deTailed above, The argumenT ThaT The noTificaTion under SecTion 27 by The AssisTanT RegisTrar is noT in order, againsT which appeal lies under SecTion 4O of The Adhini‘yam, 1973, cannoT be accepTed, as SecTion 27 « ‘/uV %7,. , Page 5 of 6 casfs a du’ry upon a regisfer-ed society To file annual refurns affer holding annual general mee’ring of ’rhe socie‘ry according fo The regula‘rions of The socie’ry in the prescribed proforma wi’rhin the specified period and in appropriaie cases, fhe Regisi’rar may gran‘r Time, for reasons to be recorded in writing, no’r exceeding 15 days for compliance of this mandatory provision. This impliedly castes a duty upon the Registrar to ensure that the annual general meeting of the society is held in accordance with law and regulations of the society. Where the Assistant Registrar mechanically accepts information filed by the registered society without verification and notifies the some, appeal against such acceptance under Section 27 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 would lie to the Registrar under Section 4O of the Adhiniyam, 1973. .It is settled law that certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is issued for correcting gross errors of j‘urisdiction i.e. when a subordinate court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction- by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction— by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) ‘ acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice. The jurisdiction is to be exercised if the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of the law, and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. . In view of the above, I am of the opinion that on present facts there is no illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error committed by the Registrar whereby grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned to the petitioners 7 “ a; %. Page 6 of 6 warram‘mg Inferference m fhe exeruse of Jumsduchon under Ar'flcle 226 of Consfl‘tuhon of Indua The parhes may par'fICIpaTe m the enqwr‘y and puf up Their case before ’rhe Enquiry Officer as also before the Reglsfrar fhereaf‘rer 10 In the resulf The peh‘rlon has no mem’r fhe same deserves j 1'0 be dismissed and accordingly the admission lfls hereby dismissed a’r 11. sfage I’rself. No order as fo IV Sd/— ‘ - as cos‘rs. Dhil‘endra MiShm; Judge ’ 11743008