IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 560 OF 2007 SHRI. VIJAYANAND DNYANPRASARAK SAUNSTHA TIKHAZAN AND 2 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus THE STATE REGISTRAR-CUM-HEAD OF THE NOTARY SERVICES, PANAJI ... Respondent Mr. Mahesh Sonak, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Govt. Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- P. B. MAJMUDAR & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 2nd March, 2009 P.C. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed that the Inspector General of Societies, North, Panaji, Goa be directed to decide the application of the petitioners dated 24.7.2006, on merits, by granting registration of the Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The grievance of the petitioners is that the application of the petitioners regarding grant of registration is not being decided by the Inspector General of Societies, on its merits, under the Act and the decision on merits, one way or the other should be taken by the officer concerned immediately. 2. Petitioner No.1 is the Society running educational institute in the area of Mayem Village, in Bicholim Taluka, State of Goa. It is the say of the petitioners that the petitioner Society is governed by the newly elected members, which includes a Chairman and other members. It seems that there is a dispute between two rival groups of the Society. The petitioners in another Writ Petition being Writ Petition No.635/2007 have challenged the decision of the Director of Education by which the management of the school has been taken over by the Department. This Court, in the said writ petition, has granted stay of the said order of the Director of Education. In the said writ petition, the rival group is also joined as respondents No.3 to 11. 3. Learned Counsel Mr. Sonak for the petitioners submitted that the application for registration of the Society should have been decided on its own merits, especially when no interim injunction is given in the civil suit which is filed by the other group i.e. respondents No.3 to 11. 4. Mr. Dessai, who is representing respondents No.3 to 11 in that writ petition, submitted that the said respondents are duly elected in the election held and the petitioners herein are not the elected members as, according to him, the election was not validly held. 5. So far as the order of the Director of Education regarding taking over of the management is concerned, that is an issue to be examined independently in Writ Petition No. 635/2007. However, we are of the opinion that the Inspector General of Societies should have decided the application submitted by the petitioners on its own merits and from the available record, appropriate decision should have been taken as to whether registration is required to be given or not to the petitioner Society. It is to be noted that there is no injunction in any manner whatsoever by which the Inspector General of Societies is restrained from deciding the application of the petitioners. Simply because a civil suit is pending, is not a ground for not deciding the application, as it is the duty of the Inspector General of Societies to decide such applications, as per law. However, since the other group of respondents No.3 to 11 in Writ Petition No. 635/2007 are claiming to be the elected representatives, while deciding the application of the petitioners for registration of Society, the Inspector General of Societies, North, Panaji, Goa is directed to hear the present petitioners and respondents No.3 to 11 in Writ Petition No. 635/2007 who are permitted to be joined as party respondents No.3 to 11 in the petition, before taking any decision on the registration of Society by the IGS. Respondents No.3 to 11 in Writ Petition No.635/2007 may prefer such an application within two weeks from today before the IGS and the IGS to thereafter take an appropriate decision on merits and in accordance with law. The IGS may decide the application of the petitioners expeditiously and in any case latest by 30th April, 2009 and thereafter communicate his decision on the said application to the concerned parties, immediately. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it is for the IGS to take a decision on the application of the petitioners for registration of the Society, after hearing the petitioners and respondent Nos. 3 to 11. Either of the parties are free to challenge the decision of the IGS, in accordance with law. It is also clarified that so far as the group of respondents no.3 to 11 is concerned, and it may be construed that the intimation to one of them will be an intimation to all 9 of them, so as to avoid further time in serving them in the matter of deciding the application of the petitioners for grant of registration of the Society. Petition disposed off. No order as to costs. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. U. D. SALVI, J. ssm.