Jai Singh Jhabua vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5420 MP

                                                                                  1
                                                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                                        AT INDORE
                                                                           WP No. 8526 of 2022
                                                          (JAI SINGH JHABUA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                                            Dated : 13-04-2022
                                                  Shri. Vivek Tankha, learned Sr.counsel with Shri Anshuman Shrivastava,

                                            learned counsel for petitioner.
                                                  Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned A.A.G. for respondent No.1,2 and 14.

Shri. A.K. Sethi, learned Sr.Counsel with Shri Gourav Chhabra, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

Shri V.K. Jain, learned Sr.Counsel with Ms.Vaishali Jain, learned counsel for

respondent No.4.

Shri Vijay Asudani, learned counsel for respondent No.10 and 11. In the instant petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge has been made to the order (undated) Annexure P/1 passed by the Registrar Firms and Societies, Bhopal in purported exercise of powers u/Ss.30 and 31 of M.P. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter shall be referred as "Adhiniyam") whereby the petitioner has been restrained from participating in the meetings and exercising voting rights.

Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is one of the members of

the Board of Governors who has been co-opted by the members of Board of Governors under "parent nominee" category. The respondent No.12 is father of the petitioner who was unanimously elected from 2(b)(1) category and he was also elected as President of the Board of Governors present in the meeting held on 14/2/2022. It is submitted that the aforesaid order is patently illegal as the same has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and by this ex-parte interim order, the respondent No.2 has restrained the petitioner from participating in the meeting and exercising his voting rights. It is submitted that no notice has been issued to the petitioner and without holding any enquiry as contemplated u/S.32 of the Adhiniyam, the ex-parte interim order in the nature of final order has been passed by the Registrar.

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN VARGHESE MATHEW Date: 2022.04.13 The provisions of Sec.30 and 31 of Adhiniyam reads as under:- 18:13:09 IST

"30. Powers to enforce attendance etc - The

Registrar shall have power summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses including the parties interested or any of them and to compel them to give evidence, and compel production of documents by the same means and as far as possible in the same manner as is provided in the case of civil court by the code of civil procedure 1908 (No. 5 of 1908).

31. Power of Registrar to call for Information - (1) Where on perusing any document which a society is required to submit to him under this Act, the Registrar is of the opinion that any information or explanation is necessary in order that such document may afford full particulars of the matter to which it purports to relate he may by written order call on the society submitting the documents to furnish in writing such information or explanation within such time as he may specify in the order.

(2) On receipt by the society of the order under sub- section (1) it shall be the duty of the society and of all persons who are officers of the society to furnish such information to the best of their power."

Counsel for State and counsel for respondents submitted that the impugned order is an interim order and further an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal is provided u/S.40 of the Adhiniyam to the State government. It is further submitted that the petitioner can appear before the authority and can apply for vacating of stay. The order is interim in nature and the authority has fixed the date for further hearing. It is also submitted that the impugned order has already been implemented, and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The counsel for respondents placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of M.C.Shrivastava and another Vs. State of MP and another 2002(2)MPLJ 607 to contend that the Registrar has authority to conduct enquiry in exercise of the jurisdiction u/S.32 to find out about the validity in respect of the members.

After having heard the learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the respondent No.2 has passed an order without Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN VARGHESE MATHEW Date: 2022.04.13 18:13:09 IST holding an enquiry u/S.32 of the Adhiniyam and by an ex-parte order restrained the petitioner from participating in the meeting and exercising his voting right. The

provisions of Sec.30 and 31 of Adhiniyam do not confer any power to the Registrar to pass interim order. The said order has been passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice.

In view of the aforesaid, issue notice to the remaining respondent No.5 to 9, 12,13 and 15 on payment of PF within seven working days by both modes returnable within four weeks failing which the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court.

As an interim measure, it is directed that the direction contained in the order Annexure P/1 passed by the Registrar restraining the petitioner from participating

in the meeting and exercising voting rights shall remain stayed.

List after four weeks.

c.c as per rules

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE

VM

Signature Not Verified VerifiedDigitally Digitally signed by SAN VARGHESE MATHEW Date: 2022.04.13 18:13:09 IST