[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Manipur High Court
State Of Manipur vs Manipur Olympic Association on 30 January, 2026
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Digitally signed by
KHOIROM KHOIROM
BIPINCHAN BIPINCHANDRA
SINGH
DRA SINGH Date: 2026.02.02 Item Nos. 2 - 3
20:04:22 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
W.A. No. 2 of 2026
1. State of Manipur, represented by the Commissioner (Co-
operation), Government of Manipur, New Secretariat Building,
North Block, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur -
795001.
2. The Registrar of Societies, Manipur having its office at
Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, District : Imphal West,
Lamphelpat, Manipur - 795001.
... Appellants
- Versus -
1. Manipur Olympic Association, a Registered Association being
No. 2740 of 1979, affiliated to the Indian Khuman Lampak Sports
Complex, Imphal, through its Secretary General, Longjam
Jayantakumar Singh, aged about 61 years, S/o (Late) Longjam
Tombichou Singh, a resident of Tera Loukrampam Leikai Awang,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
2. Sunil Elangbam, President, Manipur Olympic Association,
aged about 65 years, S/o (Late) Elangbam Deben Singh, a resident
of Keishamthong Elangbam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur - 795001.
... Principal Respondents
3. Shri Soibam Indrakumar, aged about 65 years, S/o Soibam
Rajmani, a resident of Sagolband Tera Lukhram Leirak, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
... Proforma Respondent
With
1. State of Manipur, represented by the Commissioner (Co-
operation), Government of Manipur, New Secretariat Building,
North Block, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur -
795001.
P a g e 1 | 23
2. The Registrar of Societies, Manipur having its office at
Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, District : Imphal West,
Lamphelpat, Manipur - 795001.
... Applicants/Appellants
- Versus -
1. Manipur Olympic Association, a Registered Association being
No. 2740 of 1979, affiliated to the Indian Khuman Lampak Sports
Complex, Imphal, through its Secretary General, Longjam
Jayantakumar Singh, aged about 61 years, S/o (Late) Longjam
Tombichou Singh, a resident of Tera Loukrampam Leikai Awang,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
2. Sunil Elangbam, President, Manipur Olympic Association,
aged about 65 years, S/o (Late) Elangbam Deben Singh, a resident
of Keishamthong Elangbam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur - 795001.
... Principal Respondents
3. Shri Soibam Indrakumar, aged about 65 years, S/o Soibam
Rajmani, a resident of Sagolband Tera Lukhram Leirak, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
... Proforma Respondent
B E F O R E
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the appellants : Mr. M. Rarry, Sr. Advocate instructed by
Ms. Nikita, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. N. Ibotombi, Sr. Advocate instructed
by Mr. Leo, Advocate
Mr. N. Jotendro, Sr. Advocate instructed
by Md. Syed Murtaza Ahmed, Advocate
Date of hearing : 30.01.2026
Date of order/judgment : 30.01.2026
P a g e 2 | 23
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(O R A L)
[M. Sundar, CJ]
[1] This order will dispose of captioned writ appeal and captioned
miscellaneous case thereat.
[2] Election of office bearers and executive council, 'Manipur
Olympic Association' ('MOA' for the sake of brevity) on 12.01.2024 is
nucleus of the captioned matter and an order dated 19.01.2024 bearing
reference No. 231 Q-Coop/Case/W.P.(C) No. 1 of 2024 made by the second
appellant (Registrar of Societies, Manipur) pertaining to election of office
bearers and executive council of MOA is the epicenter of the lis.
[3] At the outset, it is deemed appropriate to write that the
captioned 'writ appeal' ('WA' for the sake of brevity) and 'miscellaneous
case' ('MC' for the sake of brevity) thereat are in the admission Board, this
Court after hearing learned State counsel for appellants, on being
convinced prima facie case qua admission has been made out, issued notice
to the respondents, counsel present in Court accepted notice for all three
respondents, both sides agreed and consented to have the main WA heard
out in the admission board today itself, based on such consent, the WA
[along with MC thereat] were heard out and this order is being made.
[4] Factual matrix in a nutshell is that MOA is a society within the
meaning of 'Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989 (Manipur Act No. 1 of
1990)' which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'MSR Act' for the sake of
brevity; that MOA was originally registered under the 'Societies Registration
P a g e 3 | 23
Act, 1860 (21 of 1860)' and subsequently on coming into force of MSR Act,
by operation of sub-Section (2) of Section 32 is deemed to have been
registered under MSR Act; that it is to be noted that MSR Act received the
assent of the President on 07.03.1990, it was published in Government of
Manipur Gazette on 17.03.1990 and it kicked in (came into force) on
01.07.1990 vide notification dated 26.07.1990 which was published in
Government of Manipur Gazette on 31.07.1990; that it is to be noted that
MSR Act is a conditional legislation and State Government vide a notification
in the official Gazette (on 31.07.1990) had appointed 01.07.1990 as the
date on which MSR Act will come into force; that it is owing to this trajectory
that we have written(for completion of facts) that 'MSR Act' kicked in (came
into force) on and from 01.07.1990; that MOA has been registered with
what is styled 'Memorandum of Association, Rules and Regulations' (which
shall be collectively referred to as 'Bye-Laws' solely for the sake of
convenience and clarity); that the Bye-Laws of MOA as placed before this
Court shows that there are as many as 37 (thirty seven) members and all
members are in turn societies; that the member societies which go by the
nomenclature 'Association' pertain to various games i.e. Archery,
Badminton, Basketball etc., and in the case on hand, we are concerned with
one of the members namely, Manipur Judo Association; that it is to be
noted that the '3rd respondent' ('R-3' for the sake of brevity and to be noted,
similar abbreviations will be used in this order for other respondents) is
General Secretary of 'Manipur Judo Association' ('MJA' for the sake of
brevity); that the office bearers and executive council members of MOA
P a g e 4 | 23
were elected qua earlier term on 19.08.2018 for a period of 4 (four) years
and the four year term elapsed on 18.08.2022; that thereafter, a notice
(post 18.08.2022) dated 14.10.2023 was issued by the 'council' of MOA
convening AGM (Annual General Body Meeting) and for election of office
bearers/executive council members on 25.11.2023 but the same could not
be held on 25.11.2023 owing to 37th Goa National Games which were held
between 25.10.2023 and 09.11.2023; that thereafter, another notice dated
23.12.2023 was issued by R-2 (to be noted that R-2 is a named individual
but this Court is informed without any disputation that R-2 was Secretary
General of MOA for the period between 19.08.2018 and 18.08.2022); that
23.12.2023 notice convened AGM and notified election on 14.01.20224;
that it is to be noted that prior to this 23.12.2023 notice of R-2, MJA sent
a representation to the Registrar of Societies (2nd appellant) dated
07.08.2023 inter alia seeking holding of elections, that MJA followed this
up with a writ petition seeking mandamus qua this representation dated
17.08.2023 and this writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 641 of 2023 was
disposed of by this Court on 14.09.2023 directing the second appellant to
dispose of the representation; that the second appellant (interestingly and
intriguingly) disposed of the representation on 23.10.2023 directing
elections to be held; that thereafter, MJA sent a representation dated
26.12.2023 seeking appointment of ad-hoc committee for conducting
elections followed by one more representation dated 29.12.2023 stating
that holding of elections by a council whose term had elapsed is improper;
that MJA followed this up with a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. of 1 of 2024
P a g e 5 | 23
and the same came to be disposed of by a Hon'ble Single Bench of this
Court in and by order dated 11.01.2024 directing second appellant to
consider the two representations (26.12.2023 and 29.12.2023
representations) on its own merits and in terms of applicable
Act/Rules/Bye-Laws and dispose of the same by issuing a speaking order;
that it is pursuant to this order, the second appellant made the afore-
referred 19.01.2024 order which has been described in the earlier part of
this order as 'epicenter of the lis'; that in and vide 19.01.2024 order, second
appellant cancelled the 23.12.2023 notice of R-2 and directed election of
office bearers and executive council by issuing a slew of directions including
appointment of Returning Officer by Directorate of Youth Affairs and Sports,
notification in 2 (two) leading daily newspapers etc.; that, this 19.01.2024
order of second appellant was assailed by MOA and R-2 before us by way
of a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 68 of 2024; that this W.P.(C) No. 68 of
2024 was disposed of by a Hon'ble Single Bench vide judgment & order
dated 08.07.2025 ('impugned order' for the sake of convenience); that
Single Bench allowed the writ petition inter alia quashing the 19.01.2024
order of second appellant primarily on the ground that the second appellant
does not have powers to make such an order; that aggrieved by the
impugned order, State is on appeal vide captioned W.A.; that post issue of
notice, acceptance of notice by respondents, main W.A. (along with MC
thereat) was heard out as already alluded to supra.
[5] In the hearing today, Mr. M. Rarry, learned senior advocate
for appellants instructed by Ms. Nikita, learned State counsel for appellants;
P a g e 6 | 23
Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior advocate instructed by Mr. Leo, learned
counsel who accepted notice for R-1 & R-2 and Mr. N. Jotindra, learned
senior advocate instructed by Md. Syed Murtaza Ahmed, learned counsel
who accepted notice for R-3 are before this Court.
[6] As already alluded to supra, main WA (along with MC thereat)
was taken up with consent of all senior counsel and counsel and the matter
was heard out fully.
[7] At the outset, it is made clear that this Court wanted to know
from the learned senior counsel for State as to the provision of law under
which the second appellant had made 19.01.2024 order. Learned senior
counsel submitted that it is an order made under Section 22 of MSR Act
read with Rule 30 of the 'Manipur Societies Registration Rules, 2004' ('MSR
Rules' for the sake of brevity and convenience). To be noted, Section 22 is
a substantive provision and Rule 30 provides for the procedure for exercise
of powers by second appellant under Section 22.
[8] Learned senior counsel contended that it cannot be gainsaid
that second appellant does not have power to make 19.01.2024 order and
in any case, the exercise of power was pursuant to judicial order dated
11.01.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 1 of 2024. It was emphatically contended by the
learned senior counsel appearing for learned State counsel that election
cannot be conducted by council of MOA post 18.08.2022 as the 4(four)
years period for which the council was elected had elapsed. It was also
pointed out that under the Bye-Laws of MOA, election rules have been
made and the same has been approved by the executive council of MOA
P a g e 7 | 23
on 25.06.2018 in this election rules, 'council' has been defined vide 2(ii)
and that does not include for former council or a council whose term had
elapsed. Learned senior counsel for State also made reference to a Division
Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court being order dated 31.05.2017
made in the case of 'Vinod Kumar Varshney vs. Barauli Vidyalaya
Samiti and baraoli bidyalaya samiti & Anr.' Learned senior counsel
very fairly submitted that this Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High
Court refers to a Full Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court but the same
is being placed before this Court only qua persuasive value. This 'Vinod
Kumar Varshney vs. Barauli Vidyalaya Samiti and baraoli
bidyalaya samiti & Anr.' judgment was pressed into service to buttress
the proposition that the moment Registrar of Societies steps in, a council
of societies is denuded of its powers to convene an AGM. To be noted,
notwithstanding myriad grounds in the memorandum of grounds of appeal,
this is the sum and substance of contention of the learned senior counsel
for State.
[9] Learned senior counsel for R-1 & R-2 contended that Section
22 of MSR Act read with Rule 30 of MSR Rules makes it clear that the
second appellant should appoint an officer for conducting an inquiry, the
officer on conclusion of inquiry should give a report to second appellant
(Registrar), the Registrar in turn should send the report with his/her
comments to the State Government and thereafter, after perusal of the
comments of the Registrar, the State Government 'may' give direction as it
may think fit to the society concerned for removal of defects and
P a g e 8 | 23
irregularities within such time as may be specified and in default, the State
Government may direct the Registrar to move a Court for dissolution of the
society. Adumbration of the procedure vide Rule 30 of MSR Rules was also
adverted to say that the same has been given a goby. Learned senior
counsel for R-1 & R-2 adverting to the 19.01.2024 order pointed out that
the Registrar, i.e. second appellant, has cancelled only the 23.12.2023
notice issued by the R-2 and has not set aside the election. This is the crux
and gravamen of the submissions of learned senior counsel for R-1 & 2.
[10] Learned senior counsel for R-3 supported the 19.01.2024
order and submitted that R-3 has petitioned the second appellant inter alia
under Section 22 and pointed out that afore-referred representation dated
26.12.2023 makes a specific reference to Section 22 of MSR Act. This is the
short the submission of learned senior counsel for R-3.
[11] This Court carefully considered the rival contentions, facts
and circumstances of the case, nature of the societies, functions of the
societies and also noticed that MOA and societies which are its members
primarily function in the domain of promoting sports in the State of
Manipur.
[12] This Court now proceeds to set out its discussion and
dispositive reasoning on the points and counter points that fell for
consideration, summation of which has been captured in the form of rival
submission supra.
P a g e 9 | 23
[13] At the outset, this Court deems it appropriate to extract and
reproduce Section 22 of MSR Act and Rule 30 of MSR Rules, we do so and
the same read as follows:
Section 22 of MSR Act :
'22. Investigation of affairs of a society:-
(1) Where on information received, the Registrar is of
the opinion that there are circumstances suggesting
that the business of a society is being conducted
with intent to defraud its creditors, members or any
other person, or that the society is guilty of
mismanaging its affairs or of any fraudulent or
unlawful act, he may order an inquiry into the
matter of the information received and appoint an
officer under him to inspect and inquire as directed.
(2) It shall be the duty of every office bearer of the
society when so required by the officer ordered to
inquire; to produce any books and papers of or
relating to the society which are in his custody and
otherwise, to give to the officer all assistance in
connection with the investigation or inspection,
which he is reasonably able to give.
(3) The officer may call upon and examine on oath any
office-bearer of the society in relation to the affairs
of the society and it shall be the duty of every office-
bearer when so called upon to appear before such
officer for such examination.
(4) On the conclusion of the investigation of inspection,
as the case may be, the officer shall make a report
to the Registrar on the matters of which he was
directed to report.
(5) The Registrar shall send the report with his
comments thereon to State Government. On perusal
of such report and comments of the Registrar, the
State Government may give such directions as it
may think fit to the society for the removal of any
defects or irregularities within such time as, may be
specified and on the society making any default in
taking action according to such direction, the State
Government may direct the Registrar to move the
court for dissolution of the society.'
Rule 30 of MSR Rules :
'30. Procedure and principles for fire conduct of enquiry
and inspection under Section 22:
P a g e 10 | 23
(1) An order authorizing enquiry shall among, other things,
contain the following -
(a) The name of the person authorized to conduct the enquiry
(b) The specific point or points on which the enquiry is to be
made
(c) The name of the society whose affairs are to be enquired
(d) The period within the enquiry is to be completed and
report to be submitted to the Registrar of Societies
(e) Cost of enquiry
(f) Any other matter relating to the enquiry
(2) The enquiry may be done in any procedure as the Enquiry
Officer thinks fit.
(3) If the enquiry cannot be completed within the specified time
in the order the person conducting the enquiry shall submit
an interim report to the Registrar of Societies stating the
reasons for failure to complete the enquiry report in time. If
the Registrar of Societies is satisfied with the reason, he may
extend the time or withdraw the enquiry and authorize
another person to conduct the enquiry.
(4) If the Registrar of Societies is of the opinion that re-enquiry
is necessary, he may cause such re-enquiry. However, the
reason for rejecting the first should be explicitly mentioned in
the order for the enquiry.
(5) The cost of enquiry fixed by the Registrar of Societies, if any,
shall be paid the societies out of its fund.'
[14] A careful perusal of Section 22 brings to light that second
appellant can conduct inspection and inquiry by appointing an officer when
there are circumstances suggesting (a) business of a society is being
conducted with intent to defraud its (i) creditors, (ii) members or (iii) any
other persons and (b) a society is guilty of (i) mismanagement of its affairs,
(ii) any fraudulent or (iii) unlawful act. Though obvious we make it clear
that the power of the Registrar is when the Registrar is of the opinion that
there are 'circumstances suggesting' the 6 (six) situations which have been
encapsulated in Section 22, an adumbration of which has been set out in
the earlier point of this paragraph.
P a g e 11 | 23
[15] In the case on hand, in the light of 26.12.2023 and
29.12.2023 representations from MJA, this Court is of the considered view
that circumstances suggesting mismanagement of affairs of MOA qua
conduct of elections (all elected unopposed and that too vide conduct of
elections by a council whose term had elapsed) and therefore 2nd appellant
Registrar cannot be found fault with for forming a opinion
that there are circumstances suggesting mismanagement of MOA
particularly unless 2nd appellant was examining the
representations/complaints/information of MJA pursuant to/in the light of
judicial order dated 11.01.2024 about which there is allusion supra
warranting an investigation into the affairs of MOA under Section 22 exists.
Therefore, the contention that second appellant (Registrar of Societies,
Manipur) does not have power to investigate into the affairs of MOA does
not find favour with this Court but the problem presents itself very
differently for the appellants. The reason is, the exercise of power by
second appellant (Registrar of Societies, Manipur) under Section 22 of MSR
Act read with Rule 30 of MSR Rules is neither in accordance with the
substantive provision namely, Section 22 nor in conformity with the
procedure prescribed vide Rule 30 of MSR Rules. This Court has already
extracted and reproduced both these provisions elsewhere supra in instant
order. In the case on hand, the second appellant has not appointed an
officer for inquiry into alleged mismanagement of affairs i.e. conducting
election by a council after elapsing of its terms and the intriguing
phenomenon of all office bearers and executive council being elected
P a g e 12 | 23
unopposed. The report of the officer cannot culminate straightaway in an
order of election by 2nd appellant as Registrar should have sent the report
of the officer together with his/her comments to the State Government as
already alluded to supra. The State Government thereafter can call upon
MOA, if it finds that there are (defects and irregularities) to remove the
same within a time to be specified and only in the event of the same not
happening, the second appellant (Registrar) can be directed by the first
appellant (Government of Manipur) to approach a Court for dissolution of
society.
[16] Before proceeding further, this Court deems it appropriate to
record what unfurled in the hearing with regard to report of Registrar to
Government. This Court wanted to know from the learned senior counsel
for State as to whether any report was sent by the Registrar to the State
Government. In response to this query, learned senior counsel submitted
on instructions that State is a party to the proceedings, it is aware of the
proceedings of the Registrar and therefore, the question of sending a
separate report does not arise. It was also submitted that State
Government has given approval for filing of the instant appeal.
[17] Reverting to the discussion/dispositive reasoning, this Court
is of the considered view that 'Vinod Kumar Varshney vs. Barauli
Vidyalaya Samiti and baraoli bidyalaya samiti & Anr.' do not come
to the aid of appellants of this is not a case of convening AGM post
commencement of Section 22 drill. Therefore, without expressing any
P a g e 13 | 23
opinion one way or the other on the ratio, this Court examined the case at
hand on its own merits.
[18] After careful examination of various provisions and in the light
of submissions of all the learned senior counsel before this Court, this Court
is of the view that the following points emerge:
(i) Second appellant (Registrar of Societies, Manipur)
certainly has powers to investigate the affairs of a society
(MOA in this case) under Section 22 of MSR Act when he/she,
on information is of opinion that circumstances suggesting
that a society is guilty of mismanagement of affairs has come
to light. In the case at hand, conduct of election by council
whose tenure had elapsed resulting in election of all office
bearers and all members of executive council being elected
unopposed viewed in the light of allegations of MJA (one of
the members of MOA) that it is a make believe affair is
certainly a circumstance which will prima facie qualify as
information leading to opinion qua mismanagement of affairs
of MOA. We hasten to add that we are not expressing any
opinion that there is any mismanagement of affairs and we
also equally hasten to have make it clear that we are not going
to write that there is no mismanagement of affairs. The
reason is the order which we propose to make about infra and
we are only saying that 'opinion' of 2nd appellant qua Section
22 of MSR Act cannot be found fault with;
P a g e 14 | 23
(ii) The exercise of power by second appellant (Registrar
of Societies, Manipur) under Section 22 of MSR Act read with
Rule 30 of MSR Rules is clearly not in conformity either with
the substantive provision viz., Section 22 or in tune with
procedural requirement qua Rule 30 of MSR Rules. When a
member of a society i.e. MJA in this case, invokes Section 22
and approaches the Registrar by way of a representation (by
way of complaint/information more particularly 26.12.2023
representation) qua election of office bearers and executive
council, the same cannot be a given a go by more particularly
when there is a judicial order which mandamuses the second
appellant to look into the complaint and pass a speaking
order;
(iii) The sequitur which flows from the previous points is
that the finding returned by the Hon'ble Single Bench that the
second appellant (Registrar of Societies, Manipur) does not
have powers deserves to be set aside in this intra Court
appeal, though we are interfering with 19.01.2024 order on
grounds of non-conformity with Section 22 and Rule 30 of
MSR Act and MSR Rules respectively;
(iv) The 19.01.2024 order of the second appellant
(Registrar of Societies, Manipur) deserves to be interfered
with and set aside as it is not in conformity either with the
P a g e 15 | 23
substantive provision (Section 22 of MSR Act) or the
procedural requirement adumbrated in Rule 30 of MSR Rules;
(v) The complaint of MJA (a member of MOA) necessarily
pertains to election held scheduled to held on 14.01.2024 but
concluded on 12.01.2024 saying there is no contest on close
of nomination. However, until the Registrar (second
appellant) exercises powers in accordance with Section 22
read with Rule 30 gives a report to the State Government and
the State Government, if convinced, also calls MOA to
rectify/remove defects/irregularities, if any, in election
scheduled to held on 14.01.2024 concluded on 12.01.2024
cannot be dislodged as outcome of Section 22 legal drill has
to be awaited.
[19] As regards the argument of learned senior counsel for State
that State Government is aware of the proceedings of Registrar inter alia as
the State Government has given consent for filing instant intra Court appeal,
this Court is of the considered view that this is no argument as Section 22
of MSR Act is clear as daylight that Registrar of Societies (2nd appellant)
should send a report (with comments) to the State Government and the
State Government should (if convinced) direct MOA to remove irregularities
and make a course correction. Therefore, even on an extreme demurer,
mere knowledge of State Government about the proceedings before
Registrar culminating in the 19.01.2024 order can hardly be construed as
P a g e 16 | 23
compliance with the basic requirement of Section 22 much less rigour of
Section 22 of MSR Act.
In this regard, it is also deemed appropriate to write that it
has not been contended that Registrar followed the procedure adumbrated
in Rule 30 of MSR Rules for exercising powers under Section 22 and any
event there is no material to suggest that the Registrar followed the
procedure codified and prescribed vide subordinate legislation i.e. Rule 30
of MSR Rules.
In this regard, this Court deems it appropriate to write that
the Registrar not adhering to the procedure / manner prescribed is a clear
infraction of the celebrated Taylor vs. Taylor principle. Taylor vs. Taylor
is reported in (1875) 1 Ch D 426, 431. Celebrated Taylor vs. Taylor
principle is that if manner of doing a particular Act is prescribed by a statute,
the act must be done in that manner or not at all. To be noted, this oft
quoted Taylor vs. Taylor principle has been repeatedly reiterated by our
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a long line of authorities starting from State of
Uttar Pradesh Vs. Singhara Singh & Ors. reported in 1963 SCC
OnLine SC 23, Ramchandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. vs.
Govind Joti Chavare & Ors. reported in (1973) 1 SCC 559, Babu
Verghese & Ors. vs. Bar Council of Kerala & Ors. reported in (1999)
3 SCC 422 and Noor Mohammed vs. Khurram Pasha reported in
(2022) 9 SCC 23. In view of Taylor vs. Taylor principle being so well
entrenched in our jurisprudence, this Court deems it appropriate to not to
burden this order with the details of long line of authorities set out herein.
P a g e 17 | 23
Suffice to write that this line of authorities reiterate Taylor vs. Taylor
principle. This means that in the case at hand when the Registrar exercised
power under Section 22, it ought to have been done in prescribed manner
or not done at all but the latter option is unavailable as 2 nd appellant was
mandamused to act on MJA representation by a judicial order albeit in
accordance with Act and Rules.
[20] Ergo, sequitur is, the following order is made.
(a) The finding in the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench
(Single Bench Order dated 08.07.2025 made in W.P.(C) No.
68 of 2024) that the second appellant (Registrar of Societies,
Manipur) does not have powers is set aside partly and clarified
that while second appellant does not have powers to make
orders akin to 19.01.2024 order under Section 22 of MSR Act,
it certainly has powers to inspect/inquire into affairs of MOA
if he is of the opinion that circumstances set out therein exist
but the 19.01.2024 order bearing reference No. 231-Q-
Coop/Case/W.P.(C) No. 1 of 2024 (Annexure - R/3), is set
aside by this Court on the ground of non-conformity with
Section 22 of MSR Act and Rule 30 of MSR Rules;
(b) While holding that the second appellant (Registrar of
Societies Manipur) has powers under Section 22 to
investigate, inspect and inquire into the affairs of the society
on information qua circumstances suggesting
mismanagement of affairs of MOA , we set aside the order
P a g e 18 | 23
dated 19.01.2024 bearing reference No. 231-Q-
Coop/Case/W.P.(C) No. 1 of 2024 (Annexure - R/3) of the
second appellant (Registrar of Societies Manipur) on the
ground that it is not in conformity with Section 22 and it has
not adhered to the procedural requirement qua Rule 30 of
MSR Rules;
(c) The second appellant (Registrar of Societies, Manipur)
is directed to examine the complaints of MJA being complaints
dated 26.12.2023 and 29.12.2023 by strictly following Section
22 of MSR Act and by adhering to Rule 30 of MSR Rules which
provides for the procedure for exercise of powers under
Section 22 of MSR Act. This de-novo exercise shall be
commenced within a fortnight from today i.e. on or before
13.02.2026 and shall be concluded within 6 (six) weeks
therefrom i.e. on or before 27.03.2026;
(d) As regards the afore-mentioned timelines, we make it
clear that it is for the purpose of second appellant (Registrar
of Societies, Manipur) to make a report and send it to the
State Government. Post receipt of report of the second
appellant (Registrar of Societies Manipur) being sent to the
Government of Manipur, the State Government will act in
accordance with sub-Section (5) of Section 22. If the report
warrants issue of direction and if the State Government thinks
it fit to give directions vide sub-Section (5) of Section 22, this
P a g e 19 | 23
drill by the State Government (first appellant before us) shall
be completed within 4 (four) weeks post 27.03.2026 i.e. on
or before 24.04.2026;
(e) As this Court has fixed timelines for second appellant
(Registrar of Societies, Manipur) for the drill under Section 22,
it is deemed appropriate to write that all the parties
concerned shall extend utmost cooperation to the second
appellant in the drill to ensue vide Section 22 of MSR Act;
(f) Though obvious, for the purpose of specificity, it is
clarified that until the decision of State Government and
logical conclusion qua State Government, management of the
affairs of MOA will be pursuant to 14.01.2024 election
(concluded on 12.01.2024) as to whether these elections are
a case of mismanagement of affairs of MOA is subject matter
of the de-novo drill. This direction is given also owing to the
reason that it may not be conducive to leave the
administration of MOA in the abstract. This necessarily means
that the office bearers and executive council, who are now in
office pursuant to 14.01.2024 elections (concluded on
12.01.2024), shall continue to function but the decision taken
will be subject to the outcome of the drill which is to ensue;
(g) As regards the de-novo drill that is to ensue pursuant
to this order, we make it clear that all questions are left open,
the second appellant shall proceed with the drill untrammelled
P a g e 20 | 23
by any observation/s made in this order as such observation/s
have been made for the limited purpose of disposal of the
captioned WA and the captioned MC thereat;
(h) A communication from the Returning Officer qua MOA
pertaining to the election suggests that the election was
scheduled for 14.01.2024 but it was completed on 12.01.2024
as there was no contest. Therefore, for the sake of purpose
specificity and clarity, this Court deems it appropriate to
extract and reproduce the list of office bearers/executive
council members vide notification dated 13.01.2024 as placed
before this Court and the same is as follows:
'OFFICE OF THE RETURNNG OFFICER
THE MANIPUR OLYMPIC ASSOCATION ELECTION, 2024
NOTIFICATION
Imphal the 13th January, 2024
No. 6/MOA/RO/2024 : List of Elected/Returned Candidates in
connection with the Election - 2024 of Executive Council of MOA is
hereby notified for general information thereof.
List of Elected/Returned Candidates
For Election of the post of President, MOA
Name of the Name of the Association
Elected/Returned
Candidate
Sunil Elangbam Manipur Weightlifting Association
For Election of the post of Senior Vice-President, MOA
Name of the Name of the Association
Elected/Returned
Candidate
K. Baruni Singh Manipur Amateur Kho-Kho
Association
P a g e 21 | 23
For Election of the Post of Vice - President, MOA
Name of Elected/Returned Name of the Association
Candidate
GA. Sanatomba Sharma Manipur Archery Association
M. Ratankumar singh All Manipur Football Association
M. Rachandra Singh Manipur Golf Association
Bobby Waikhom All Manipur Taekwondo
Association
T. Dushanta Singh Manipur Yatching Association
M. Chourjit Singh All Manipur Mukna Association
For Election of the post of Secretary General, MOA
Name of the Name of the Association
Elected/Returned Candidate
Longjam Jayantakumar Manipur Netball Association
Singh
For Election of the post of Joint Secretary, MOA
Name of the Name of the Association
Elected/Returned Candidate
N. Ibungochoubi Manipur Equestrian Association
L. Shantakeshor Singh Manipur Netball Association
Thounaojam Jayanta Singh Manipur Table Tennis Association
Angom Johnson Singh Manipur Bowling Association
For Election of the post of Treasurer, MOA
Name of Name of the Association
Elected/Returned
Candidate
Kirankumar Thangjam Manipur Amateur Karate-Do
Association
For Election of the post of Executive Member, MOA
Name of the Elected / Name of the Association
Returned Candidate
Ito Tongbram Athletics Association of Manipur
H. Sanjeev Sharma Manipur Badminton Association
Takhellambam Brajabidhu Manipur Basketball Association
Singh
Yanglem Bony Singh All Manipur Gymnastic
Association
M. Madhusudon Singh Manipur Amateur Kho-Kho
Association
Ningthoukhongjam Manipur Rifles Association
Rajendro Singh
P a g e 22 | 23
Thongam Samananda Manipur Squash Rackets
Association
H. Shashanka Shekhar Manipur Tennis Association
Sharma
Ngangbam Inaocha Singh All Manipur Volleyball Association
Elangbam Sobha Singh Manipur Kang Association
Sd/-
(Chongtham Momon Singh)
Returning Officer
The Manipur Olympic Association
Election, 2024'
[21] In the light of narrative, discussion and dispositive reasoning
thus far, captioned writ appeal is partly allowed with observations and
directions with the timelines as above. Consequently, the captioned
miscellaneous case therein is disposed of as closed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Bipin
P a g e 23 | 23
