1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2045 of 2014 M/s Maharshi Nikhilesh Sewa Sansthan through its President Sri Jyoti Swarup, son of Late Jagdish Kumar Dutta, having its registered office at 125, Ratanlal Complex, Ratu Road, P.O. & P.S. Sukhdeonagar, DistrictRanchi (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Inspector General, Registration, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, DistrictRanchi (Jharkhand) 3. The Assistant Inspector General, Registration, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, DistrictRanchi (Jharkhand) 4. Sri Ranbir Singh, son of Late Nathuni Singh, resident of Natraj Enclave II, Shivpuri, P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, DistrictRanchi (Jharkhand) ... … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Upadhyay, J.C. to A.A.G. For Respondent No. 4 : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate Order No. 07 Dated: 14.07.2015 Aggrieved by order dated 22.01.2014 passed by the Member Board of Revenue in Misc. Appeal No. 10 of 2013, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner namely, M/s Maharshi Nikhilesh Sewa Sansthan is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is stated that the respondent no. 4 and other two members who were officebearers of the Society purchased property of the Society in their individual names. When the matter was discussed by the governing body, the respondent no. 4 and other two members resigned from the Society by tendering resignation on 07.08.2006 and 31.08.2007. Their resignation was accepted on 2 16.09.2007 and in the General Body Meeting, new members were elected in place of respondent no. 4 and other two persons. The name of newly inducted members was entered in the official record of the I.G., Registration. Thereafter, Rajesh Kumar Verma submitted application dated 09.01.2010 accompanied with affidavit stating that there is no dispute in the Society. The said Rajesh Kumar Verma was not even member of the petitionerSociety. The President of the petitionerSociety filed a complaint on 13.04.2010, on the basis of which an enquiry was initiated and showcause notice was issued to the said Rajesh Kumar Verma vide letter dated 17.05.2010. The affidavit filed by Rajesh Kumar Verma was found false in as much as, a dispute has arisen between the office bearers of the petitionerSociety and the respondent no. 4 and others. However, the said fact was concealed while submitting affidavit with application dated 09.01.2010. The I.G., Registration vide order dated 17.07.2012 cancelled the amendment registered on 12.03.2010. Aggrieved, the respondent no. 4 preferred Misc. Appeal No. 10 of 2013 which has been allowed by the Member Board of Revenue. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. Mr. Prashant Pallav, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was on the complaint of the President of the petitionerSociety that an enquiry was initiated and ultimately, vide order dated 22.01.2014, I.G., Registration cancelled the amendment approved on 15.03.2010 and thus, the petitioner was a necessary party in Misc. Appeal No. 10 of 2013. However, without impleading the petitioner a party in the appeal and without hearing the petitioner, impugned order dated 17.07.2012 has been passed which has seriously affected the rights of the petitioner. The appeal was preferred beyond statutory period of 30 days and the appeal was not accompanied by an application 3 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act still, the appeal has been entertained and, finally allowed. 5. As against the above, Mrs. Ritu Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 raises a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that serious disputed questions of fact are involved in the writ petition. It is stated that the erstwhile President of the Society namely, Jyoti Swarup inducted his wife as VicePresident and finally in the General Body Meeting, the said Jyoti Swarup was removed as President on 29.08.2007. The dispute between the parties has been taken in Title Suit No. 268 of 2007. It is submitted that order dated 22.01.2014 was passed without proper verification of the facts and the enquiry was not properly conducted by I.G. Registration. It is a matter of record that out of 9 members, only 3 persons were included in the list submitted by Jyoti Swarup. Out of 3 persons, one Shankar Sinha has already resigned from the Society on 22.03.2010 and thus, now only Jyoti Swarup and his wife Mrs. Veena Swarup are claiming themselves the duly elected office bearers of the Society. 6. Before dealing with the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties, provisions under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Bihar Societies Registration Rules, 1965 may usefully be noticed. Section 4 of the Act provides that once in every year a list containing the name, address and occupation of the governors, council, directors, committee or other governing body entrusted with the management of the affairs of society shall be filed with the InspectorGeneral of Registration. Section 4A provides that change in the Managing body and the rules of the society shall be sent to the InspectorGeneral of Registration. Section 23 confers powers upon the InspectorGeneral of Registration to cancel registration of a society on the ground of the activities of the societies being subversive to the objects of the 4 society. Section 23(2) provides that an appeal can be preferred against order passed under Section 23(1). Section 24 confers power upon the State Government to make rules and in exercise of power under Section 24, the Bihar Societies Registration Rules, 1965 has been framed which has been adopted by the State of Jharkhand. Rule 12 of the 1965 Rules provides that the InspectorGeneral, Registration may in his discretion institute an enquiry or investigation in respect of any matter which in his opinion is necessary for proper working of the society and administration of the Act. It provides that if there is a suspicion that the society has engaged itself in activities which are subversive to the objects of the society, such enquiry shall be instituted by the InspectorGeneral of Registration. No doubt, such enquiry can be instituted by the InspectorGeneral, Registration on a complaint received or suomotu. 7. The case pleaded by the petitioner is that Ranbir Singh, Treasurer, Rajesh Kumar Verma, Joint Treasurer and Satyendra Prajapati tendered their resignation which was accepted by the Society on 16.09.2007. The Resolution dated 16.09.2007 was intimated to I.G. Registration on 07.10.2007 and amendment was carried out accordingly, on 05.11.2007. However, suppressing the fact that a dispute has arisen between the parties and Title Suit No.268 of 2007 is pending in the court of Munsif at Ranchi, the said Rajesh Kumar Verma submitted an application for amendment in the bylaws, governing body etc. A perusal of complaint dated 13.04.2010 would indicate that the petitioner alongwith the said complaint produced plaint of Title Suit No.268 of 2007 and copy of resignation letters of Ranbir Singh, Rajesh Kumar Verma and Satyendra Prajapati. However, the alleged amendment carried out by I.G. Registration on 05.11.2007 at the instance of the petitioner has not been brought on record. Order dated 17.07.2012 by I.G. Registration also refers to Registration 5 No.149 of 200405 of “Maharshi Nikhilesh Sewa Sansthan”. In the said order, there is no reference of the alleged amendment dated 05.11.2007. Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 mandates that the name, address, occupation etc. of the committee or other governing body shall be filed annually with the I.G. Registration. Section 4A further provides that all changes during the year must be submitted to the I.G. Registration within 15 days. The petitioner has failed to bring on record the amendment allegedly approved by I.G. Registration in the year, 2007 or 2008. No material has been produced by the petitioner which would indicate compliance of Sections 4 and 4A of the Act. Section 13 provides that in the event of any dispute, the same shall be referred to the Court of Principal District Judge exercising original civil jurisdiction. Order dated 15.03.2010 whereby, amendment was approved by I.G. Registration has been recalled on the ground that the said Rajesh Kumar Verma submitted a false affidavit stating that there is no dispute in the Society whereas, Ranbir Singh, Rajesh Kumar Verma and Satyendra Prajapati had already tendered resignation from the Society. Order dated 17.07.2012 notices that both rival claimants are running two parallel Society from two different places. The power conferred on I.G. Registration under Section 23 of the Act and Rule 13 of the Bihar Societies Registration Rules, 1965 are confined to making enquiries or investigations as to form an opinion whether the Society has engaged itself in activities, which are subversive of the objects of the Society. Such enquiry or investigation can be carried out by I.G. Registration to arrive at a primafacie satisfaction whether registration of the Society shall be cancelled or not. The Act does not provide a power in I.G. Registration to adjudicate dispute in the Society or the dispute amongst the members of the Society. Provisions under Sections 4 and 4A of the Act do not authorise I.G. Registration to cancel registration or 6 amendment on the ground of dispute in the Society. No doubt, in a case where two rival parties submit application for amendment simultaneously, I.G. Registration may refuse to enter such details in Form 'E' or Form 'F' or he may refuse to approve amendment in the bylaws or the Constitution of the Society. The contention of the petitioner that it was a necessary party before the appellate authority, is liable to be rejected. The contention that this Court in W.P.(C) No.1887 of 2010 directed I.G. Registration to complete the enquiry, expeditiously would not confer jurisdiction on him to entertain the complaint filed by the petitioner, which in substance was not a complaint disclosing subversive activities by the Society rather, it was a complaint objecting to amendment dated 15.03.2010. The contention that the appeal was preferred beyond the limitation period of 30 days still, the appeal was entertained and though application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed by the State for impleading the petitioner was pending, appeal was entertained erroneously, is also liable to be rejected. The appeal was preferred after this Court disposed of W.P.(C) No.6070 of 2012 vide order dated 19.03.2013. The said writ petition was filed challenging order dated 17.07.2012 however, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach appropriate authority/appellate forum within two weeks. The Societies Registration Act provides appeal against the order passed by I.G. Registration before the appellate authority. In fact, the complaint made by the petitioner to I.G. Registration vide objection dated 13.04.2010 was liable to be rejected. As noticed above in cases where a dispute has arisen among the governing body or the members of the Society, the same can be adjudicated by filing a civil suit only. The facts disclosed in the proceeding before the I.G. Registration would unerringly disclose that there is serious dispute to resignation by respondent no.4 and others. The respondent no.4 contended that Jyoti Swarup claiming himself 7 President of petitionerSociety was expelled from the Society. There are other allegations and counter allegations and misusing the fund of the Society. Considering the serious disputed questions of fact involved in the writ petition, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the petitioner may have other remedy, as available in law. 8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Manish/N.A.F.R.