IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT ' BILASPUR / 2005 WRIT PETITION No. ((653 PETITIONER: VERSUS @ Adivashi Sewa Samitgc hhizémw L«T Through its President Smt. Urmila Netam, Office at Adarsh Adivashi Colony, Kushalpul, Pumni Basti Raipur, Chhgttisgarh RESPONDENTS: 1. Kamlu Ram KOITam, S/o not known, R/o Plot No. 23 Advashi Colony, Kushalpur, Purani Basti Rajpur, Chhattisgarh. Represented by Special Power of Attorney holder Uttam Singh Thakur, S/o Kamlu Ram Korram, R/o Plot No. 23, Advashi Colony, Kushalpur, Purani Basti Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Commerce & Industry, D.K.S. Bhawan, Manalaya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Registrar, Firms & Societies, Chhattisgarh Office At Plot No. 0/5, Anupam Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Collector, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI SR. NAYAK, CJ PETITIONER RESPODNENS T WRIT PETITION No.5653 OF 2005 Adivashi Sewa Samiti, Chhattisgarh, Through: Its President, Smt. Utmiia Netam, Office at Adarsh Adivashi Colony;- Kushalpur, Purani Basti, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS (1) Kamlu Ram Korram, S/o not known, R/o Plot No.23, Advashi Colony, Kushalpur. Purani Basati Raipur. Chhattisgarh. Represented by special Power of Attorney Holder Uttam Singh Thakur. Slo Kamlu Ram Korram, R/o Plot No.23. Advashi Colony, Kushalpur, Purani Basati, Raipur, Chhauisgarh. (2) State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, Department of Commerce & Industry, DKS Bhawan, Manalaya, Raipur. Chhatisgarh. (3) The Registrar, Firms & Societies, Chhatlisgarh. Office At Plot No.0/5, Anupam Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (4) The Colbctor, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Present: Mr. Satyendra Sahu, Ieamed counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Guru, leamed counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. Yashwant Singh, leamed G.A., for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed onWW 05 December 2005) The order impugned in this writ petition is an order made by the Registrar under $ection 32 of the Chhattisgarh Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short 'the Adhiniyam). Admittedly, against the sai order an appeal Iies under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam to the State Govemment. I do not tind any weighty or substantive reason or ground to permit the petitioner to rush to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india without exhausting altemative statutory appeai remedy provided under Section 4O of the Adhiniyam. On that short ground, the writ petition is dismissed, however, reserviiig liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeai to the State Government under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam. Ail the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are ieft open to be agitated before the Government. There is no order as to costs; Mn? L/ Sd/- 1,‘ Chief Justice d