- (1.) ABHINAVA Upadhya, J. Heard Sri A. R. Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amar Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 5.
(2.) THE writ petition challenges the order dated 27th July 2006 passed by the Deputy Director, Fisheries (Cooperative) by means of which the registration of the petitioner society has been cancelled. THE petitioner's society was registered on 22nd May 2006 under the orders of the Deputy Registrar. The opposite party No. 5 filed a writ petition No. 3661 (MB) of 2006 challenging the order of registration passed in favour of the petitioner and the order dated 3. 5. 2006 by means of which the opposite party no. 5 was informed that since the proceedings for registration are already going on, therefore, he may become a member of new Society but his Society can not be registered. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 19. 6. 2006 saying that the controversy involved disputed question of fact, but granted indulgence to the petitioner namely; the present opposite party no. 5 to file representation, which may be considered after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, by the Deputy Director Fisheries. In pursuance of the aforesaid liberty while deciding representation, the matter was considered by the Deputy Director and he has, this time found that the order of registration was obtained by misleading and giving incorrect facts and thus set aside the order aforesaid. Initially the petitioner raised the question of jurisdiction of the Deputy Director to decide the matter but in view of the fact that the jurisdiction was conferred upon the Deputy Director by the Court, this plea has been given up. In regard to the plea of opportunity also there is no serious challenge as the petitioner was afforded due opportunity by the Deputy Director.
(3.) ON merits, it has been vehemently urged by the petitioner that the very basis of consideration of the dispute by the Deputy Director is non-existent as the Deputy Director proceeded on assumption that the application of opposite party no. 5 for registration was actually filed or moved on 20. 2. 2006 but because of the collusion with the Chief Executive Officer, it has been shown to have been received on 3. 3. 2006. With this assumption that the opposite party no. 5 actually has filed an application for registration of his Society on 20. 2. 2006, but the Chief Executive Officer has deliberately mentioned the date as 3. 3. 2006, the order of cancellation of registration of the petitioner society has been passed by the Deputy Director, Fisheries The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 5 has, for defending the order, strongly urged that the aforesaid fact is not the main reason for cancellation of the registration of the petitioner society but in fact the petitioner society was not properly formed on the date when it is said that the application was moved as the Secretary Tafseer Ahmad was formally appointed as Secretary of the Society only on 2. 3. 2006.;