VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 23.02.2016 (hereafter “the impugned order”) passed by the Registrar of Societies (hereafter the Registrar”), whereby the Registrar has declared the amendments made by the petitioner society to its Rules and Regulations, which were approved/certified on 22.09.2003, 18.05.2004 and 16.03.2007, as void ab initio and nonest. The impugned order was passed on a complaint made by respondent no.3 and it is further alleged that the same was passed without affording the petitioner any opportunity to be heard.

2. The petitioner claims that the Registrar has no power to declare any amendments to its Rules and Regulations as void or nonest and thus, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and authority of law.

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the aforesaid controversy are as under:-

3.1 The petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereafter “the Act”). The petitioner was initially registered on 31.05.1984 under the name of Maheshwari Mandal (Uttar Shettra) (Delhi); however, with effect from 24.09.2003, its name was changed to Maheshwari Mandal (Delhi). This was duly registered and the Registrar issued a fresh certificate of registration dated 24.09.2003.

3.2 According to the petitioner, the petitioner Society amended its Rules and Regulations after due approval from its members. The amended Rules and Regulations were also forwarded for approval to the Registrar under the cover of an application dated 09.02.2004 and the same were registered. It is stated that, similarly, the petitioner further amended its Rules and Regulations in 2006, which were also duly registered by the Registrar.

3.3 The impugned order indicates that, in all, three applications were filed: first, being application dated 28.06.2003 for change in the name of the petitioner Society; second, application dated 09.02.2004; and third, application dated 20.11.2006. These applications were approved and certified by the Registrar on 22.09.2003, 18.05.2004 and 16.03.2007 respectively.

3.4 Respondent no.3 - who was earlier a member of the petitioner society - filed a complaint before the Registrar, inter alia, claiming that due notices of the meetings claimed to have been held, for approval of amendments to the Rules and Regulations had not been served to the concerned members and, therefore, the alleged resolutions passed in those meetings could not be given effect to.

3.5 Respondent no.3 also filed a suit - being Suit No. 257/2015 - before the Court of Senior Civil Judge. Apart from impugning his expulsion from the petitioner society, respondent no. 3 also claimed that the provisions of Section 12 and 12-A of the Act had been violated. He claimed that due procedure for amending the Rules and Regulations of the Society had not been followed. It is relevant to state that the Registrar was arrayed as defendant no.2 in the said suit.

3.6 In his plaint, respondent no.3 (plaintiff therein) mentioned that he had filed complaints before the Registrar and made a grievance of the same not being considered. The reliefs claimed by respondent no. 3 in the aforementioned suit are set out below:-

“a. Declare the constitution of the disciplinary committee and the expulsion/termination of the membership of the plaintiff on 20.07.2015 as illegal and direct the defendant No.1 society to allow the plaintiff to participate in the proceedings of the defendant No.1 society; and

b. Declare the amendments dated 18.08.2002, 02.11.2003, 09.04.2006 etc. carried out in the Memorandum and Articles of Association and Rules & Regulations of the defendant No.1 society by the Governing body of the defendant No.1 society and subsequently approved by the defendant No.2 on 22.09.2003, 18.05.2004 and 16.03.2007 as illegal, null and void & direct the defendant No.2 to delete the said amendments from the Memorandum and Articles of Association and rules