:< • INi^E'm(^.C^MI^=ffi<'.iffiHMt^©A.R%®BII.AtPU8^ ,Wnt^;PelM ;lf2®^^d.^©ll3'Gtf.20(^^-^ Petifioner/ . ' ' ^ Smt. DKan'®^^^^^^ Appli£:ant/, ., • : ',, ,^Anaj^.age^3@;ygai^,;^IQ';SH^^ AppeIIa.ni , : '. G aiy^^s3—.,MungeIt,District-^ :.,..(©^)-;;t,-,.^.^3.-:,y... VerSusl:.-',:;' •,' ::;: '; :'"''•'•. '":'.'::: : • ':: '•'^.•/ :'ft.":':-^.::'';:' Respondents; :1., : . . ^ate...of: ehhattisga^,/,thrQUgK3^gtsti:ar, OhhatlisgaEli ]• •CQ-opera.tive^' ^. : Sa&teties,, ^Saipur5^istrict—R^ur^:^e.Q.)..;';,A.^;^^^^^^ ,2. ':.Assistant ..I%gistFar,^;,;.]5'i^ :; '^ : ;Bila.spar,,';E)jstnct—^iIaspHK'(©.G.^» 'SK^. • ^- 3. Smt. Cliandrakali Ratre, President> : s r'? ; 4.:. , : Ssst. .HeEnlsalt Patle,: Seeretaiy-::: .' '.s^ ^S: :: ^'' ^; S. • .Smt. Bujha Patre, yiG&lE'i'esident..^' ^x^..^S:';, ;. 6. , : .'Sint, Purain^andony'I|E^sui^.^:^-.?^v •7...., •' SrSt..Meena^AnanS,^Stsl^| '.,,:, •^S.,..'l;,:giS,SiEtfgKaa^^ii^a|Fa,:'Ifl®i^ ^'9.'';.1: ;:;x:;.^iilK^I3aEasl£^a;Sga^e^] ^^ ^.'^•'Affii^ai'eSSfeja^jlg;::^ ^"'SBilss^^SgB^3^as;>^armSs'''E% ^, 1 (5o^, .Ta3^il'tN;'iM^eli;' Distriet^ %^ •(C.^.-' -.,•:' .:>.:;:^ WRn'PETITOKEUNDERARTieDE2270F'rHE^ ' - ; i ;CONSTlTUTiaN.'OI<"INE)M.';.''-.::':: •..-: ,1' •': .J..:;: :y;£::^KS.-: ":i,.: •-; (SB: Hon^le-.SIm,Satish'K,;AgniKe^i%};''^? Shn e^K. KesUerwajii^AdVocate fbrthepetitidner^^^ ' Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for. tl'te resp6nden{s :SOi£gt^8|t3.^^ ':.&RT)'KR^,,f.:'l^'':.';';^'-":;'"r.^ (Passed,on'thts:'2©&:Bay..Qf'Ai^sty3%§).?;.'''^ t. WitH the eonsenf of learFi^^ CQunsel;lappeaEii^^for;tHei.^^ ^ the^matterlsheard Bnally.;'.., ,:; ::-:'.:r,, ^:'^.^.r:;:' ^"\>^;.^^ 2. The petkjaner has,filed^this^etiti0n:'Gballei^^ • • and. legality' of tKe:,(:)rdeF.^a^i^'-%^.2^8yi'^ ^l:-:;.^;:^'S'-.::siN^S^^ passed :;.by.^the,;,SpeciaI',.';Secr^tai^g.,State^^ :Goiruiierce 'and':IndustneSI^Depar^ ?S? a:1: :filed.by^tHe.petitione:j^;'^:;,.,^ ;:.^^^.. :^-^^^ Tfae^lKneffa£^s,mecessaJ3EMfeicJj o&N^^^^ aie tliatitlie' p^fFtiorieF: is.!;agme£@fieEl>f|:thM^aa:;§a:^ lUii .f... ShikshaSevayikasSainiti,Dhanga6nGonsai,Tahsil-Mungeli, District Bilaspur (for short fhe Sainiti'), which was registered on 25.3.2004, under the Chhattisgarh Society Regisfrikaran Act, 1973 ( for short 'the Acf, 1973), h^ving registration No. 1908. As sonie dispute arose between the meinbers of the Samiti, the Assistant Registrar, Firms & Sbcieties, Bilaspur Division passed an order dated 5.7.2006, authorizing the executive body of the Samiti, constituted in the first general body meeting dated 10.5.2004, to continye. It was also directed that on completion of the term.s of the existing executive body, the new election bfe cQnducted in accordance with law.' / - •:.-;:. • . . ; In response to the'order'dated 5.7.2006, passed by the Assistant Registrar,;, the petitioner (Smt. Dhan Bai) submitted the information, as requifed.under Section 27-of the Act, 1973, on 24.4.2007, statingthatthe executive body has been constituted on 7.9.2005:, the term of which shall be w.e.f. 18.4.2007- to;t8.4.20Q8. The Assistant Registrant declined to take fhe infonhation ori reeord as the same was neitiier in accordance with law nor in accordanGe with the order dated 5.7.2006. : . ;— - - .•- • '• - The respondentNQ.3(Smt. Ghandrakali Patre) also subraitted information, as requiredunder.Section 27 oftheAGt, 1973, oh 12.3.2007, stating, that the exeGutive t)pdy of the Samiti was constituted ori 30.1.2007. Acp'ording to ,the informa.tiQn, the proceeding dated 3Q. 1.2007 'was. approyed by 17 memBers and the term of the execytive body •s.hall be w.e.f. 5.3.2007 to 31.1.2010.' The Assistant. Registrar, finding that ,.the 1 l!:!|i''i:: iiT!;;!T111:!'"!"!: ^ \^°^/' "'f^am^' information subraitted by the respondent No.3 was in accordance with law, took the same on record, vide order dated 17.5.2007 (Annexure P/3). The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 17.5.2007 (Annexure P/3), filed an appeal under Section 40_of ttie Act, 1973 before the Registrar, Firms 85' Societies, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, which was dismissed vide order dated 21.8.2007 (AnnexureP/2). Thereafter, the petitioner filed second appeal before the State Govemment, which was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 1.3.2008 (Annexure P/l), passed bythe Special Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Commerce and Industries Department, Raipur. Thus, the pefitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. It is evident that the Registrar, Firms and Sociedes, Raipur had afforded proper opportunity of hearing to the parties and carefully examined the records and evidence in detail. The Registrar has passed the order dated 21.8.2007 (Annexure P/2), finding inter alia that.the information submitted by the petitioner was not in accordance with law. The term of the existing executive body was from 10.5.2004 to 10.5.2007, whereas in response to the order dated 5.7.2006 of the Assistanf Registrar, the petitioner submitted the information on 24.7.2007 that the executive' body was constituted on 7.9.2005 for the termw.e.f. 18.4.2007to 18.4.2008. 9. It is crystal clear that the direction of the Assistant Registrar was dated 5.7.2006, whereas the petitioner submitted the 7. 8. ^. '(, > u 10. ll^ Thakur ? information that the executive body was constituted on 7.9.2005 i.e. much prior to the date of the order dated 5.7.2006. The Special Secretaiy to the Government of Chhattisgarh also dismissed the appeal after having examined the matter and affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. The questions raised herein are purely questions of facts which have been exarained and settled by the three authorities below. This Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, cannot unsetfle the finding of facts which are in accordance with law, based on records, recorded by the authorities below. This Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularily or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. In view of the foregoing, I do not find any force in this petition. The petition is ruerit-Iess, which deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed at motion stage. ^'.M^ ^ p^ s^li^ ^.-