GWALIOR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is second visit of the petitioners to this Court. Petitioner No.1 is a registered society under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (in short the Adhiniyam). The registration certificate of petitioner No.1 is filed as Annexure P/2. It is stated that earlier election of the society took place on 31.7.2011 and the next elections are due on completion of three years from the said date as per the bye-laws. The petitioner No.1 was served with a show- cause notice by respondent No.2 dated 30.6.2012 (Annexure P/13). The petitioner No.1 submitted its reply to the same but the said authority issued communication Annexure P/25 and stated that petitioner No.1 did not file its reply. At this stage, petitioner No.1 filed W.P.No.6995/12 before this Court. This Court disposed of the said petition on 27.9.2012. On perusal of the material, it was found by this Court that petitioner No.1's reply was very much received by the Assistant Registrar, and therefore, his finding that reply has not been received runs contrary to the record. On the basis of aforesaid, it was found that there is violation of principles of natural justice and the making process was not proper. Consequently the order, Annexure P/1 therein, was set aside and direction was issued to the parties to appear before the said authority on an appointed date and the Assistant Registrar was directed to proceed further in accordance with law.

(2.) SHRI Harish Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that after the order of this Court dated 27.9.2012 although certain dates of hearing were fixed by the Assistant Registrar, but he ultimately passed the order Annexure P/1 dated 24.1.2013 wherein there is no consideration of the reply submitted by petitioner No.1. This communication (Annexure P/1) is called in question on following counts:-

(3.) SHRI Praveen Newaskar, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3, supported the communication Annexure P/1 and submits that communication is appealable under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam. He submits that two appeals are available to the petitioners under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, and therefore, this petition is not entertainable. He submits that merits and demerits of the matter cannot be gone into at this stage by this Court, more so when there exists an alternative, efficacious remedy to the petitioners.