M. L. Bhat, J. - (1.) RESPONDENT No. 2 is said to have cancelled the registration certificate of the petitioner Society by its order dated 31-1-90. This order is impugned in this writ petition. The petitioners seem to have filed an appeal before respondent No. 1 against the order of respondent No. 2. The said appeal was dismissed on 7-4-80. The order of respondent No. 1 dated 7-4-90 on appeal is also impugned in this writ petition. The facts which emerge from the pleadings of the parties are as under!-
(2.) THE petitioners submit that the Society was registered with Registration No. 712 of 1939 dated 26-9-1989 for a term of five years upto 28-9-94 for propagating, protecting and enhancing the Indian culture. Yogabhyas and to run educational Institutions etc. THE respondent No. 3 is said to have filed an application for cancellation of the aforesaid registration of the petitioner Society under section 12-D of the Societies Registration Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. THE petitioners are said to have filed their reply to the application of respondent No. 3 dated 5-10-89. THE reply was filed on 23-11-89 denying the allegation levelled by respondent No. 3 against the petitioner Society. Respondent No. 3 was directed to file rejoinder affidavit to the petitioners' reply. THEreafter, respondent No. 2 cancelled the registration. THE cancellation of the registration is termed by the petitioners as unjust, illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction THE petitioner's appeal was dismissed on 7-4-90 by respondent No. 1. Respondent N. 2 is said to have decided on the following questions which was beyond his Jurisdiction. (1) Whether petitioner No. 2 was authorised to obtain registration certification in respect of Sheo Shakti Mandir Samlty, Sibbanpura ? (2) Whether any prior dispute was pending in respect of Sheo Shakti Mardir ? (3) Who was the person managing the affairs of the property of the temple prior to the registration under the Societies Registration Act ? It is contended by the petitioners that under section 12-D of the Societies Registration Act the Registrar has no power to decide the aforesaid questions. If any dispute bad arisen about the aforesaid questions, that was to be referred under section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. Respondent No. 3 is said to have never challenged the election of the petitioners' managing committee. Respondent No. 2's findings that respondent No. 3 was owner in possession of the property prior to the registration of the Society Is said to be incorrect, illegal and without jurisdiction. Such a finding is beyond the scope of the provisions of section 12-D of the Act. The respondent No. 2 has wrongly observed that on the date of registration of the Society, i e. 29-9-89, the dispute was pending in the Civil Court. It is stated that the civil suit was filed on 19-10-89, that is after the registration of the Society was completed. The petitioner's temple is said to be situated in Khasra plot No. 525 of village Bonjha, District Ghaziabad. Respondent No. 3 has not claimed any interest, title or possession over the said plot. An ad-interim injunction is said to have been granted by the Civil Judge on 25-10-89, restraining respondent No, 3 from transferring the property in dispute and from letting out any shop attached with the temple. Against the order of the Civil Judge an appeal was filed in the High Court which was dismissed on 14-3-90 and thereafter restored to its original number. The interim order issued in the appeal was also restored. It is contended that between 14-3-90 to 22-5-90 there was no interim order which could be taken by the Commissioner into consideration on 7-4-90 for deciding the appeal. It is stated that there is neither any allegation nor any evidence that any fraud was committed by the petitioners in obtaining the registration certificate end provisions of section I2-D of Registration Act could not be attracted The impugned orders suffer from manifest error of law. It is submitted that registration of the Society was affected under section 3 of the Act That provision did not require to mention that any dispute in respect of property of the Society was going on. The registration was perfectly valid. Section 12-D (1) (o) is attracted only when the facts which ought to have been mentioned in section 3, have been concealed or misrepresented The petitioners submit that they] had never concealed any fact or misrepresented any fact at the time of registration of the Society. The question regarding the title of the property is also beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3 has never challenged the election of the office bearers of the committee of management. Therefore, respondent No. 2 could not deal with the matter. Respondent No 2 was bound to refer the matter to the prescribed Authority under section 25 of the Act.
(3.) IN his counter-affidavit, respondent No. 3 has stated that the temple IN question is maintained by him and he is looking-after its management. Shops and rooms around the temple are the property of respondent No. 3. There is another temple near the disputed property which is known as phuleshwar Nath Temple in plot Nos 517 to 520 with attached land around it. This temple is being looked after by one Narain Singh Original Sarbarakar of the temple Baba Hari Ram is said to have been murdered for which respondent No. 3 and some others were tried in the sessions court and were acquitted by the said Court. Petitioner No. 2 is said to have obtained registration of the Society on false and fraudulent ground. The interim order obtained by the petitioner No. 2 in the Civil suit is said to have been stayed by the High Court. The petitioner is said to have falsely stated that the disputed property was situated in plot No 525. The impugned order of respondent No. 2 is said to be valid The order passed by respondent No. 1 on appeal Is also said to be perfectly legal. Respondent No. 3 has placed on record site plan as also certified copy of the judgment of Sessions Court, whereby respondent No. 3 was acquitted of the murder charge. The petitioner have filed rejoinder-affidavit also. The assertaion made in the counter-affidavit are denied. Respondent No 3's contention that the temple was managed and owned by him is vehemently denied.;