Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner -Education Society has filed this writ petition for direction/mandamus for directing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., Registrar and District Registrar to act under Sections 22 and 23 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for short "the Act"). The grievance is that illegal meeting was called by the parallel body of the society on 13.6.2010. Representation was made for investigation under Sections 22/23 of the Act by the Petitioner on 20.6.2010. Representation made by other members of the society to the Registrar for investigation in the affairs of the society was filed on 21.7.2010. When no action was being taken, the present writ petition was filed with the prayer as noticed.
(2.) REPLY has been filed. A preliminary objection is raised to the effect that writ petition deserves to be dismissed for misrepresenting or concealing the material facts. It is pointed out that the Petitioner had not filed representations, Annexures P -1 to P -3 and so he has stated incorrect facts. In fact, a representation was made only on 21.7.2010 and same was entered in the office at diary No. 2106 dated 21.7.2010. The representations (Annexures P -2 and P -3) were delivered in the office on 21.7.2010 and the same were also entered at diary Nos. 2107 and 2108 on 21.7.2010. It is then disclosed that the answering Respondents issued notice to the President of the Society requiring him to submit documents with regard to the election process within two days. Copy of the notice was also forwarded to Shri Bhagwan Gupta under receipt, through whom the present petition has been filed. Copy of this notice is annexed with the reply. It is, thus, stated that the Petitioner is aware of this position that the society has been directed to furnish information as provided under Section 22 of the Societies Registration (Haryana Amendment) Act, 2007. When the society did not respond within time, the answering Respondent again sent a reminder on 30.7.2010. The society then submitted the documents on 2.8.2010. It is also disclosed that the general body meeting was called on 13.6.2010 according to the provisions of the constitution of the society and also supplied copy of the minutes. The answering Respondent, being not satisfied with the reply as no agenda with regard to election was placed in the general body meeting, came to conclude that the elections scheduled for 22.8.2010 were unconstitutional and ordered the society to conduct elections in accordance with constitution of the society. The society then filed an appeal before Respondent No. 2, who sought the comments of the answering Respondent. It is also stated that the amendment in the constitution of the society was found to have been made in accordance with the provisions of the constitution of the society and the same was approved by the answering Respondent.
(3.) IT is then disclosed that a contempt petition was filed against the answering Respondent before the court of Shri Mohit Aggarwal, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat, which was dismissed. Accordingly, it is stated that the action as prayed for in the writ petition has already been ensured by the answering Respondents. The counsel for the Petitioner, however, still feels that his complete representations (Annexures P -1 to P -3) have not been fully attended to. In case the Petitioner is still left with any grievance, he may file a representation before Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Apparently, the answering Respondent appears to have acted in accordance with the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Act. If anything still has not been done, it may be pointed out to the Respondents, who will then take action in accordance with law.;