IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.No. WKOF 2002 : Sakha Ram, aged about 48 Years, S/o Chandan, R/o Katainar, Dist.Korba (CG) PETITIONER VERSUS W41. Reg‘strar, Firms 8s Societies, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) e Regswar, Firms 85 Societies, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal (MP) . Assistant Registrar, Firms & Societies, Vikrant Bhawan, Jarahabhata, Bilaspur (C.G.) Suljeet Singh, Ex—President, R/o I Shasu-i Nagar, Katainar, District Orba’(Chhattisgalh) RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI MANDAMUS PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITSI DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS ORDER OR ORDERS: . 3y Shri Kanbir Sinh, Government Shri Manindra Shrivastava, counsel for the Petitioner. Raspond€nts no.1 (“m 3 Advocate. Shn‘ Vimlesh Bajpai, counssl for respondent no.4. Heard. By 711115. writ petition med under Aru'clt: 226[227 of the Constitution 0f India, petiooucr challenges the order dated. 14.8.2002 passed by the Registrar, Finns- 85 Societies. It is submitted that during the pendency of the petition amendment for challenging the said order was sofight and in pursuance of this Q, amendment was inoorporated. Counsel for the respondents s appeal lies ' under sech'on 4O of the Chhatu'sgarh Society Registration Act. Since the plea of altema for the respondents, the petitio Within 15 daVs and on such authoritv shall consider and I Court order dated 11.10.200 ubmit that against the said order, I tive Iemedy was raised by counsel Der if so desired, may prefer appeal appeal being flled, the appellate decide the same on merits in {11% afev‘q XLHC-zz 3%!q’§i W . / 23E 2001/ m Em mm Ww m mat Hfza W rim 1? T‘gvté} WK a; am m 21.08.2003 we, x‘w’p mug. - ; XI-HGZZ Wm y LoflwwmY . / WW WK 290v With tho directiou aforesaid, this petition is dispossd of at this stage. Accordingly, I.A.No.5619/23002 and 7455/2002 stand disposed of. C.C. as per rules. Sdl- Fakhruddin Judge ' k ”a _~\augw Wm WW mw mmmm‘a mm wm ti W mam 3 accoi‘dancé with law after noticing tha parties‘ It is madé clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on muerits of the { 7 case.