Rajinder Sachar, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29 -1 -73 of respondent the Registrar of Societies Jaipur by which he has withdrawn his earlier order dated 23rd of June, 1971 which had granted registration for the petitioner society known as Adarsh Bal Niketan Jhunjhunu, under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act). Sec. 3 of the Act provides for the certification by the Registrar of a society under the Act. This certificate was issued to the petitioner society by the respondent the Registrar as certificate 61 of 1971 dated 23 -6 -71. The petition has been filed through the Secretary Adarsh Bal Niketan Jhunjhunu with the grievance that the order dated 29th of January 1973, withdrawing its registration, has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the order is therefore void An objection is also taken that the Registrar has no power to review its earlier order granting certificate of registration to the petitioner.
(2.) The respondent Registrar in reply filed has not controverted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before the order of withdrawal of certificate was passed. He has sought to justify his order on the ground, by pointing out that one Jhunjhunu Pragati Singh Trust had requested him that the registered Society Adarsh Bal Niketan be asked to change its name and constitution as the name was already in existence at the time of the registration. It appears that an application dated 6th of May, 1972 was filed before the Registrar in which the Pragati Sangh Trust made a grievance that the Adarsh Bal Niketan school is run by be Trust for the lest 11 years and that Shri Banwarilal, the Secretary of the Society has wrongly got the registration in the name of Adarsh Bal Niketan. I also pointed out that there was a dispute going on between the said Shri Banwarilal and the trust for some time past and that the trust had also filed litigation in the Bombay High Court. The trust, which was allowed to intervene in the petition, has also given details about its litigation with Shri Banwarilal and has pointed out that the said Shri Banwarilal was a Headmaster of Adarsh Bal Niketan school run, financed and managed by the Pragati Singh since 1965 uptil 1971. It also objected that the said Shri Banwarilal in applying for the name of Adarsh Bal Niketan to be registered was motivated by object of exploiting the good name of the institution run by Jhunjhunu Pragati Sangh and secured all the concessions and advantages and other benefits flowing there from. As regards the issue of notice, the position taken is that though no formal notice was given to the petitioner to withdraw the registration but it did have knowledge of the fact as the true facts have been brought to the notice of the respondent by the Pragati Sangh challenging the registration of the society. Though in the petition grievance has been made to the action of the respondent on that point, namely, that there is no provision in the Act to review the earlier order granting registration and second that the order has been passed without giving a hearing to the petitioner. Mr. Mridul counsel for the petitioner has stated that he is not pressing the first point and that he only urges for the quashing of the order on the second point, namely, that no opportunity having been given to the petitioner before the order of cancellation was passed. When the matter came up for hearing on 8th of July, 1976, the counsel for the intervener Mr. Pareekh had objected that there was no affidavit filed by the petitioner to the effect that no opportunity of bearing was given to the petitioner. It appears that though this fact had been stated in the petition in para 6 "(iii) No affidavit accompanying the petition deposed to this para as true to the knowledge" In these circumstances I directed the petitioner to file a proper affidavit in this behalf and also to give an opportunity to the respondent to file a counter reply. In pursuance to that an affidavit has been filed by Shri Banwarilal on 12th of July, 1978 in which it has been stated that the order Ex. 2 purporting to withdraw the registration of the petitioner's society no notice whatsoever was given to the petitioner informing him that registration was proposed to be withdrawn and it may show cause why it should not be done. No reply has been filed by the respondent or the intervener. It therefore must be accepted that the Registrar before withdrawing the registration of the petitioner society did not give any notice or opportunity to the petitioner. The effort of Mr. Pareekh the counsel for the intervener to rely on the letter dated 27th June, 1972, filed as Ex. 1 along with his reply cannot be of any assistance to him. A reference to that letter would show that Shri Banwarilal on behalf of Adarsh Bal Niketan had written to the Registrar requesting him that he had come to know that some people with a view to harm them had complained against the society and that if there was any such complaint they may kindly be heard and decision may not be taken ex parte. I fail to see what help does Mr. Pareekh seek to get from this letter. On the contrary, this letter shows that the Registrar was informed prior to the order of cancellation dated 29th of January 1973 that the petitioner society was interested in the matter. Inspite of this no notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner to have a say in the matter. The order thus passed behind the back of the petitioner suffers from a serious infirmity as it has withdrawn the registration of the society but without giving any opportunity to it. This is opposed to rules or principles of natural justice and cannot be allowed stand. Mr. Pareekh, however, raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the writ petition was not maintainable. His argument was that the society's registration has been cancelled and, therefore, the society as such could not maintain the petition. Nor could Shri Banwarilal maintain the petition in his individual capacity and the suggestion being that all the members of the society should be joined to maintain the petition. He in that connection referred to me D.G.O.F. Employees' Assocn. Vs. Union of India : AIR 1969 Cal 149 In my view that case has no application. In that case an Employees' Association representing the Stenographers had filed a writ petition making a grievance about some injustice in the matter of promotion to the Stenographers. Objection which was upheld by the Calcutta High Court was that the Employees' Association was recognised by the Government for administrative purposes and that it was not a legal entity and, therefore, could not maintain a petition. In the present case, Adarsh Bal Niketan had been registered by the Registrar and its Secretary was Shri Banwarilal. If as the petitioner -society alleges that the order passed by the Registrar is a nullity because it had been passed without hearing the petitioner, it is apparent that the society has sufficient interest to maintain the petition. It would be penalising the society beyond any justification if an illegal order of respondent was made immune from being challenged on the ground that because of that very illegal order the society had ceased to exist. The society claims that the order of the registrar is void and is seeking relief against it and I cannot persuade myself to held that the society being represented by its Secretary Shri Banwarilal could not maintain the petition. The preliminary objection is therefore, disallowed. The result is that as no opportunity was given to the petitioner before the order was passed by the respondent, the same cannot be allowed to stand and I would, therefore, quash it. The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29th of January, 1973 is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.;