M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal by the writ petitioner -appellant is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.9.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petition with the consent of the parties.
(2.) THE appellant filed writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 1670 of 2006 for quashing two communications dated 11.3.2006 and 13.3.2006 issued by the Executive Magistrate, Jamshedpur relating to the dispute with regard to control and management of the appellant -School, namely, Vig English School, Chhota Govindpur, Jamshedpur. The appellant -School was established and run by the Vig Educational Cultural Society which was registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860. The School was duly affiliated with the Council for Indian School Certificate Examination (I.C. S.E.) and presently about 2000 students are reading from Class Nursery to Standard -XII. It appears that the above named Society was established under the Chairmanship of respondent No. 7 - Smt. Satyawati Vig, widow of N.N. Vig and it continued to be shown as such in the record of the Registration of the Society.
(3.) THE dispute arose after creation of the State of Jharkhand when the Inspector General (Registration) notified that all such Societies registered in the undivided State of Bihar and whose offices fall within the newly created State of Jharkhand are required to obtain their registration from the State of Jharkhand. The writ petition was filed by Mr. Wendell Fredrick Alberts as Secretary of the School claiming himself to be the duly elected Secretary of the Society in the fresh election of the office bearers of the Society on 4.12.2005. On the other hand, Smt. Satyawati Vig (respondent No. 7) claimed to be the President of the Society from its very inception. Both the groups applied to the Inspector General (Registration) for grant of fresh registration of the Society. Appellant 's case was that on 6.3.2003 allegation was made that respondent No. 7 had taken huge amount from the School. Because dispute arose between the parties, some orders were passed by the Executive Magistrate. The appellant challenged those orders.;