M.C. SHRIVASTAVA Vs. M.C. SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN any adjudicating atmosphere the cherished ideal, that is solemnity and divine dignity are to be maintained and contentious issues ought to be putforth with intellectual objectivity, poised rationality, calmness of speech, sanguinity of logic and genuine flavour of mutual respect so that the proceeding in a Court epitomises a paradigm. The protagonists who have visited this Court may fight a battle royal, but it has to be fought with nobility, so that loyalty to the solemn and grand majesty of law is honoured with all dignifiedness and stateliness. But, an unfortunate but, in the beginning there was heat and torridity in the atmosphere bereft of resplendence as if the exaltedness of law has to be treated as a pasquinade, but slowly concinnity prevailed and confraternity was restored and the counsel for the parties came to terms and thought it apposite that an atmosphere in a Court or for that matter in any adjudicating arena is to be illuminated with light and not with heat and calmness of the atmosphere is not to be jettisoned by unwarranted heat. This Court expresses its unreserved and uninhibited appreciation for Mr. P. S. Nair, Mr. N.C. Jain and Mr. R.N. Singh, learned senior counsel who commenced the hearing in an excited comportment became collected and composed to acquire the equanimity of a saint, poise of a sage, calmness of the Himalayas, repose of the Pacific and serenity of a savant.

(2.) MR . P. S. Nair, learned Senior Counsel keeping has tryst with consistency and vehemence which are inhered in him submitted that some of the respondents have not yet entered appearance and, therefore, the matter cannot be finally heard.

(3.) ASSASILING the order contained in Annexure P/3 it is submitted by Mr. R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners being assisted by Smt. Shobha Menon that the Registrar has passed the order that the election of the members who were elected on 16 -11 -1997 and in the year 1999 are illegal and, therefore, the election shall be conducted within forty days by founder members. Propones the learned counsel that the Registrar before recording such a finding has not conducted an enquiry as envisaged and enjoined under Section 32 of The Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and hence, the order passed by him is absolutely penetrable. Further submission of Mr. Singh is that the Registrar could not have passed an order for holding of an election, confining it exclusively to the founding members when other members are in existence and founder members are not the only the existing species. The said order which was challenged in an appeal before the State Government, has been brought on record as Annexure P/6 and its validity is called in question by Mr. Singh by drawing attention of this Court to paragraph 13 to highlight that the State Government while expressing the opinion that there is no provision in the bye -laws, to indicate that only the founder members are entitled to participate in the election, has confirmed the order passed by the Registrar in a most laconic and arbitrary manner and, therefore, the same needs to be axed by this Court.