S.S. VATWE Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, petitioner has assailed orders (P-1 and P-2) passed by the Registrar of Firms and Societies and order (P-1) passed by the State Government in exercise of power conferred u/s. 14 of the M.P. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973.

(2.) IT is submitted by the petitioner that the society was M.P. Working Journalist Society. The society was running the activities from the building constructed by the M.P. Working Journalist Union Bhopal. Land of 27000 sq. ft. was leased out by the State Government as per the lease-deed (P-3) dated 11.2.1969. Controversy started when suo-motu enquiry was conducted by the State Government regarding affairs of the society without giving any opportunity to petitioner society. Enquiry was conducted and report was submitted on 13.4.1998. On that basis letter was issued by the respondent and without considering the reply order of removal of governing body was passed u/s. 33 of the Act. State Government vide order dated 27.11.1998 directed that the governing body of the society would function under the supervision and with the approval of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bhopal. An enquiry report (P-4) was submitted. Ultimately the Government did not consider the reply and ordered removal of the governing body on 19.5.1999. An administrator was appointed for a period of one year, later on this period was extended for two years. A writ petition WP No. 2543/99 was filed contending that there was no serious irregularity committed by the governing body of the society and therefore the action u/s. 33 of the Act was unwarranted. Said writ petition was dismissed. As petitioner society was not within the purview of State aided society, an order (P-5) was passed. The Administrator who was looking after the affairs of the society did not call the meeting of general body. Without considering the entire facts, impugned order (P-2) dated 31.7.2001 was passed by the respondent No. 2. An appeal was preferred. Appeal has been dismissed. Earlier another writ petition was filed in which direction was issued to decide the appeal. Aggrieved by the orders (P-1) and (P-2) this writ petition has been preferred. It is submitted that the action u/s. 34 of cancelling registration was not justified.

(3.) SHRI Atul Nema, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the appellate Court has failed to consider the report (P- 4). Earlier writ petition was pertaining to appointment of administrator which was dismissed. It was with respect to removal of governing body, whereas the subsequent order is in the matter of cancellation of registration of the society, hence, the decision of the previous writ petition which has influenced the decision passed by the respondents cannot be of relevance in the matter of cancellation of registration. Matter was required to be considered independently by the respondents, which has not been done.