S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by order dated 22.01.2014 passed by the Member Board of Revenue in Misc. Appeal No. 10 of 2013, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) THE petitioner namely, M/s. Maharshi Nikhilesh Sewa Sansthan is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is stated that the respondent No. 4 and other two members who were office -bearers of the Society purchased property of the Society in their individual names. When the matter was discussed by the governing body, the respondent No. 4 and other two members resigned from the Society by tendering resignation on 07.08.2006 and 31.08.2007. Their resignation was accepted on 16.09.2007 and in the General Body Meeting, new members were elected in place of respondent No. 4 and other two persons. The name of newly inducted members was entered in the official record of the I.G., Registration. Thereafter, Rajesh Kumar Verma submitted application dated 09.01.2010 accompanied with affidavit stating that there is no dispute in the Society. The said Rajesh Kumar Verma was not even member of the petitioner -Society. The President of the petitioner -Society filed a complaint on 13.04.2010, on the basis of which an enquiry was initiated and show -cause notice was issued to the said Rajesh Kumar Verma vide letter dated 17.05.2010. The affidavit filed by Rajesh Kumar Verma was found false in as much as, a dispute has arisen between the office bearers of the petitioner -Society and the respondent No. 4 and others. However, the said fact was concealed while submitting affidavit with application dated 09.01.2010. The I.G., Registration vide order dated 17.07.2012 cancelled the amendment registered on 12.03.2010. Aggrieved, the respondent No. 4 preferred Misc. Appeal No. 10 of 2013 which has been allowed by the Member Board of Revenue. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.
(3.) MR . Prashant Pallav, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was on the complaint of the President of the petitioner -Society that an enquiry was initiated and ultimately, vide order dated 22.01.2014, I.G., Registration cancelled the amendment approved on 15.03.2010 and thus, the petitioner was a necessary party in Misc. Appeal No. 10 of 2013. However, without impleading the petitioner a party in the appeal and without hearing the petitioner, impugned order dated 17.07.2012 has been passed which has seriously affected the rights of the petitioner. The appeal was preferred beyond statutory period of 30 days and the appeal was not accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act still, the appeal has been entertained and, finally allowed.;