PADAM JAIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are similar in nature and, therefore, on the joint request of the parties, matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.

(2.) Dr. Singhavi, learned senior counsel submits that while allowing the writ appeal, the Division Bench gave a finding that the supersession order smacks of political bias. The Division Bench further directed for holding of election of governing body of the society within a period of three months. On 1.3.2008 election of governing body was held. On 28.4.2008 the State Government moved an application before Division Bench in disposed of Writ Appeal No. 12/2006 without disclosing that in the meantime, election as directed by Division Bench, had already taken place and prayed for extension of time by six months for holding the election. This application was disposed of by the Division Bench without notice to the other side and time was extended. The petitionersociety when came to know about aforesaid ex parte direction in the application filed by the State Government, sought recall of the order dated 28.4.2008. After hearing the parties, the Division Bench recalled the order whereby time was extended. State Government unsuccessfully challenged the order before the Supreme Court and the Apex Court dismissed the SLP on 26.7.2010. It is the common ground of the petitioners that the respondent No.6 is misusing his office and harassing the petitioner-society. The documents at page 166 and 167 are relied on in this regard.

(3.) Dr. Singhavi submits that the respondent No.5, who had taken a back seat since 2005, woke up from his slumber and moved a complaint to the Registrar about alleged irregularities in the society and prayed for an enquiry by submitting application dated 19.10.2010. The Registrar forwarded this letter to the petitioner-society for its reply by communication dated 24.11.2010. On 30.11.2010 the petitioner-society filed its response assailing the tenability of the complaint on the ground that respondent No.5 is not a member of the society and, therefore, the complaint which has been preferred does not have requisite support of one-third members as required under section 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Adhiniyam").