JASMAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONCISELY , the relevant facts, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, are that as the representation filed by Petitioner -Jasmail Singh was not decided, therefore, in the wake of Civil Writ Petition No. 7094 of 2009, The Registrar, Firms and Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh (Respondent No. 2) was directed to take a final decision on the representation (29.03.2009) of the Petitioner within a period of three months by a Co -ordinate Bench of this Court(Permod Kohli, J.) by virtue of order dated 10.08.2009 (Annexure P -8). In pursuance thereof, Respondent No. 2 decided the indicated representation by way of impugned order dated 25.02.2010(Annexure P -9).

(2.) THE Petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order (Annexure P -9), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter, alia, pleading that Respondent No. 2 has illegally rejected his(Petitioner) representation on the ground that he has no powers under the Societies Registration Act, 1860(hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") to interfere in the election process, validity of the elected members of the society and voter list and without noticing the provisions of Sections 15, 20 and 24 of the Act. The Petitioner claimed that some members of the Executive Committee are enrolling new members for the general council in the garb of Memorandum of Association(Annexure P -1) of the Respondent/Society.

(3.) THE Respondents contested the claim of the Petitioner. Respondent No. 2 filed his written statement, while Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 filed their joint separate written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the writ petition, cause of action and locus standi of the Petitioner. Respondent No. 2 claimed that the prayer of the Petitioner that representation be decided under Section 24 of the Act, cannot be accepted because, Section 24 of the Act has not been notified in the State of Punjab and has only been inserted by Uttar Pradesh Act 11 of 1984. The representation of the Petitioner was stated to have been considered and disposed of in accordance with law by passing a speaking order(Annexure P -9) on the ground that he has no jurisdiction/power to interfere in the internal matters, election process, validity of elected members of the society and voter -list etc. The aggrieved party can get the grievance redressed from the Court of law.