MANOJIT BHUYAN, J.

1. Two questions of law have been referred by a Single Bench of this Court for a decision by a larger Bench. The matter is placed before this Full Bench, although the same could have been answered by a Division Bench of this Court. Be that as it may, the two questions are :

(a) Whether registration of a Society by the Registrar of Firms & Societies, Assam under section 3 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 cannot be cancelled once registered ?

(b) Whether the decision rendered in Sadou Asom Puthi Prakasak Aru Bikreta Sangtha and another vs. State of Assam and another, reported in (2006) 1 GLR 395 to the above effect lays down the correct position in law?

2. To understand the circumstances under which reference has been made, only as an academic exercise, we may take notice of the following basic facts:

(i) The writ petitioner i.e. Tapar Pathar Budhboria Saptahik Bazar Management Committee (in short the ‘Committee’) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 ( in short the ‘Act’) bearing Certificate of Registration (CoR) No. RS/Kam(R)/264/L/173 of 2017-2018, dated 6.11.2017, issued by the Registrar of Firms & Societies, Assam. This was in terms of Section 3 of the Act.

(ii) The respondent no.7 in the writ petition i.e. Atowar Rahman lodged complaint petition dated 1.12.2017 with the allegation that the CoR had been obtained by misrepresentation.

(iii) A hearing was held with participation of Atowar Rahman and the Secretary of the writ petitioner Committee. An order dated 25.1.2008 came to be issued by the Registrar of Firms & Societies, Assam, cancelling the registration, after hearing the parties in dispute and on consideration of the documents indicated in the said order.

(iv) The aforesaid order dated 25.1.2018 prompted institution of the related writ petition. Legal point, inter-alia, urged was that the Act does not empower the Registrar of Firms & Societies, Assam to cancel and/or to withdraw the registration certificate. Violation of the principles of natural justice in the process was also urged.

(v) While issuing notice of Motion in the writ petition on 19.3.2018, an interim order was passed by keeping in abeyance the operation of the impugned order dated 25.1.2018 until further order. While doing so, the Court took notice of the two-fold submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioner Committee – (i) that in the absence of any State amendment in the Act, no power vested on the Registrar to cancel the registration, (ii) that no power was also vested on the Registrar in view of the decision in Sadou Asom Puthi Prakasak Aru Bikreta Sangtha(supra).

(vi) On 2.5.2018 the respondent no.7 i.e. Atowar Rahman filed application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India with a prayer for vacating the aforesaid interim order dated 19.3.2018. The said application received consideration on 20.7.2018. A view at variance was expressed in respect of the case in Sadou Asom Puthi Prakasak Aru Bikreta Sangtha (supra) by the learned Single Judge with the following observations :

“On a perusal of the order dated 19.3.2018, it is seen that while passing the stay order, an earlier decision of this Court in Sadou Asom Puthi Prakasak Aru Bikreta Sangtha and another vs. State of Assam and another, reported in (2006) 1 GLR 395 was considered. On going through the said decision, it is seen that it was a case where certificate of registration was withdrawn by the Registrar which was interfered with by a Single Bench of this Court on two grounds. The first ground was that before withdrawing the registration no opportunity of showing cause was given to the petitioner. The second ground, which is relevant for the present case, was that the Societies Registration Act, 1980 does not contain any provision for cancellation of registration certificate. Learned Single Judge observed that while some states had brought in amendments in the said Act to provide for cancellation of registration, State of Ass