ORDER
N.K. Patil, J.
1. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the report submitted by the first respondent dated 31st May 2008 vide Annexure-C, has presented this writ petition.
One Sri. D. Mallikarjuna is claiming that, he is the Secretary of the petitioner-Vidhya Samsthe and second respondent is also claiming that he is the Secretary of the petitioner-Vidya Samsthe. Both are claiming that they are real Managing committee and they have submitted a audited accounts and etc. for the financial year 2007 as provided under the relevant provisions of the Societies Registration Act, to the District Registrar for approval.
2. The jurisdictional Competent authority after thorough verification of the statement of accounts for the financial year 2007 and after conducting enquiry has submitted the report. Therefore, petitioner was constrained to redress his grievance by way of presenting this writ petition seeking appropriate relief as stated supra.
I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents.
3. The principal ground urged by petitioner at the outset is that, the first respondent has not at all conducted enquiry as envisaged under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act and proceeded to accept unilaterally, the statement and other record submitted by 2nd respondent contrary to Section 2(13) of the said Act and contrary to the bye law. Therefore, petitioner was constrained to redress his grievance before this Court, on the ground that, the said unilateral acceptance of statement and other record submitted by 2nd respondent by the first respondent without conducting enquiry cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside at threshold.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents at the outset submitted that, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable, on the ground that, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the report submitted for the financial year 2007 by first respondent, it is open for the petitioner to redress his grievance before the appropriate Legal Forum and not by way of presenting the instant writ petition. To substantiate his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court A.P. Aboobaker Musaliar v. Dist. Registrar (G) Kozhikode and Ors. (2004) 11 Scc 247 and submitted that, acceptance of list by the District Registrar did not prevent the aggrieved party to establish his claim in a competent Forum. Therefore, he submitted that, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
5. After careful perusal of the grounds urged by the petitioner in this petition and the submission made by learned Counsel appearing for both the parties, it emerges that, after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as second respondent, the jurisdictional Authority has accepted the audited accounts for the financial year 2007 and the list of members of the society submitted by the second respondent, as provided under the Societies Registration Act, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for first respondent. Hence, the prayer sought for by petitioner is misconceived and he is not entitled to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Further, it is significant to note that, the District Registrar has only taken into consideration the limited question of accepting the list of members of governing body. If the petitioner is aggrieved, it is open for him to establish his claim before the competent Court/Forum. Further, After careful perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court as referred above, wherein it is held that, the District Registrar has only taken into consideration the limited question of accepting the list of members of Governing body and if the petitioner is aggrieved, it is open for the petitioner to establish his claim before the Competent court/Forum. Even the District Registrar did not adjudicate any dispute as such, and it was only a question of accepting, prima facie, the list of members of the governing body.
7. If the petitioner's claim was right and justified, merely because the District Registrar accepted the list of the governing body of members given by second respondent, it did not prevent him from establishing his claim in a competent court.
8. In the light of the ratio of the law laid down by the Apex Court as stated above, interference by this Court in the report submitted by first respondent dated 31.5.2008 produced vide Annexure-C is not justifiable. Nor I find any good grounds, as such, to entertain the prayer sought for by petitioner in the instant writ petition. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to redress their grievance before the appropriate competent Legal Forum.
All the contentions urged by both the parties in this writ petition are left open.