- (1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard Sri Shyamal Narain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at length and in detail. Sri H. R. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the responpent No. 1, has also been heard.
(2.) AN appeal under Section 12-D (2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, hereinafter called the Act, is pending before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur. In this appeal the petitioner figures as respondent. On 7th February, 1995, which was the date fixed for hearing the arguments and the arguments on behalf of the appellant therein had concluded, the petitioner made a prayer for adjournment. The prayer of the petitioner for adjournment was granted. However, while granting adjournment the appellate authority imposed upon the petitioner courts amounting to Rs. 50. It appears that on earlier occasion the petitioner had raised objection about the maintainability of the appeal also which has not been decided. In the circumstances narrated above, the petitioner has approached this court urging it to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India and prayed the following three reliefs: " (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order, dated 7-2-1995 passed by the respondent No. 1, imposing a cost of Rs. 50 on the petitioner in Appeal No. 13-D of 1993 pending under Section 12-D (2) of the Societies Registra tion Act, 1860 (Annexure No. 5)," " (ii) issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent No. 1 from proceeding with the Appeal No. 13 (D) of 1993, Prabandh Samiti, Janta Harijan Primary Vidyalaya v. Ram Dev Singh preferred under Section 12 (D) (2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. " " (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus direct ing that the aforesaid appeal be transferred from the Court of Respondent No. 1 to any other Competent Court or forum. " Grant of adjournment subject to payment of costs is not an unusual phenomenon. Costs are imposed to compensate the party affected by the adjournment. In imposing the costs, the appellate authority did not commit any error, muchless an error of law apparent on the face of record. No umbrage, therefore, can be taken to the imposition of costs by the impugned order, dated 7th February, 1995.
(3.) THE writ of prohibition is issued when it is demonstrated a ad proved that the concerned authority lacks jurisdiction to deal with the proceedings indisputably, the Commissioner of the Division, in whose jurisdiction the headquarter of the society lies, has been empowered by sub-section (2) of Section 12-D of the Act to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the Registrar exercising power under sub- section (1) of Section 12-D of the Act. It is not disputed that the headquarter of the society in respect of which the dispute is involved is situate within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Gorakhpur Division who is seized of the appeal of the respondent No. 4. Thus, in the opinion of the court the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division does not lack jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and decide the same. Writ of prohibition, therefore, cannot be issued. The prayer for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the transfer of the appeal from the file of the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division to the file of any other competent authority is based on the alleged apprehension of mala fides on the part of Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division. The apprehension is founded on two factors, namely, the imposition of costs upon the petitioner for granting adjournment prayed for by him and delay in, decision on the question of maintainability of appeal. None of these two factors can constitute sufficient ground to infer mala fide on the part of the Commissioner. As already pointed out, the imposition of costs for adjournment is not unusual. So far as the question of decision on the maintainability of appeal is concerned that question is to be decided by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur while deciding the appeal if it is raised during the course of argument on behalf of the petitioner.;