DILIP KUMAR, Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Jai Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the I.G. (Registration) had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 06.10.2010 (Annexure 8) setting aside the suspension of the Respondent No. 3, by the Society. Against such suspension, he filed a writ petition being W.P.C. No. 2981 of 2006 which was disposed of on 26.07.2006 on the basis of his submission that he had filed a representation before the I.G. (Registration). Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of permitting the Petitioner to pursue his representation. The Petitioner were not noticed in the said writ petition and moreover the said order cannot mean that this Court decided that I.G. (Registration) had power to decide the dispute between the Society and one of the members. He further submitted that after the said order was passed in the said writ petition on 26.07.2006, Petitioner filed a suit being Title Suit No. 108 of 2006 on 23.12.2006 for the self same relief suppressing the order of this Court and also pursued the matter before the I.G. (Registration). The I.G. (Registration) set aside the order of suspension, though he had got no power to interfere in the dispute between the Society and the members under Rule 12 and 13 of the Bihar Societies Registration Rules, 1965.

(2.) ON this, Mr. Awanish Shankar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 3 submitted that the suspension was for five years and such period came to an end in February 2011, and therefore, this writ petition has become academic. He further submitted that Respondent No. 3 will withdraw the said suit.

(3.) IN the circumstances, in this case it is not necessary to go into the question whether I.G. (Registration) had power to pass impugned order or not, as the suspension itself has come to an end.