SHEO SHAKTI MANDIR SAMITY Vs. COMMISSIONER MEERUT DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 2 is said to have cancelled the registration certificate of the petitioner Society by its order dated 31-1-90. This order is impugned in this writ petition. The petitioners seem to have filed an appeal before respondent No. 1 against the order of respondent No. 2. The said appeal was dismissed on 7-4-80. The order of respondent No. 1 dated 7-4-90 on appeal is also impugned in this writ petition. The facts which emerge from the pleadings of the parties are as under!-

(2.) THE petitioners submit that the Society was registered with Registration No. 712 of 1939 dated 26-9-1989 for a term of five years upto 28-9-94 for propagating, protecting and enhancing the Indian culture. Yogabhyas and to run educational Institutions etc. THE respondent No. 3 is said to have filed an application for cancellation of the aforesaid registration of the petitioner Society under section 12-D of the Societies Registration Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. THE petitioners are said to have filed their reply to the application of respondent No. 3 dated 5-10-89. THE reply was filed on 23-11-89 denying the allegation levelled by respondent No. 3 against the petitioner Society. Respondent No. 3 was directed to file rejoinder affidavit to the petitioners' reply. THEreafter, respondent No. 2 cancelled the registration. THE cancellation of the registration is termed by the petitioners as unjust, illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction THE petitioner's appeal was dismissed on 7-4-90 by respondent No. 1. Respondent N. 2 is said to have decided on the following questions which was beyond his Jurisdiction. (1) Whether petitioner No. 2 was authorised to obtain registration certification in respect of Sheo Shakti Mandir Samlty, Sibbanpura ? (2) Whether any prior dispute was pending in respect of Sheo Shakti Mardir ? (3) Who was the person managing the affairs of the property of the temple prior to the registration under the Societies Registration Act ?

(3.) IN his counter-affidavit, respondent No. 3 has stated that the temple IN question is maintained by him and he is looking-after its management. Shops and rooms around the temple are the property of respondent No. 3. There is another temple near the disputed property which is known as phuleshwar Nath Temple in plot Nos 517 to 520 with attached land around it. This temple is being looked after by one Narain Singh Original Sarbarakar of the temple Baba Hari Ram is said to have been murdered for which respondent No. 3 and some others were tried in the sessions court and were acquitted by the said Court. Petitioner No. 2 is said to have obtained registration of the Society on false and fraudulent ground. The interim order obtained by the petitioner No. 2 in the Civil suit is said to have been stayed by the High Court. The petitioner is said to have falsely stated that the disputed property was situated in plot No 525. The impugned order of respondent No. 2 is said to be valid The order passed by respondent No. 1 on appeal Is also said to be perfectly legal. Respondent No. 3 has placed on record site plan as also certified copy of the judgment of Sessions Court, whereby respondent No. 3 was acquitted of the murder charge.