1. - In view of the controversy that has been advanced before us, we intend to dispose of the appeal finally at this stage.

2. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, the Counsel for the appellant made the following submissions in assailing the order of the Single Judge dated 22.09.2006:

(i) That the order of the Single Judge is non-speaking order. In this connection, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2006 Indlaw SC 533 ;

(ii) That it was incumbent upon the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur to hear the appellant before the order dated 09.06.2005 came to be passed. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy, (2005) II LLJ 461 SC : (2005) 6 SCC 321

(iii) That the order dated 09.06.2005 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur is not in conformity with Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Rules, 2004 inasmuch as no specific points on which the enquiry is to be made have been formulated.

(iv) That the complaints on a fair reading would show that they relate to the controversy concerning the management activity/election of the appellant association and such controversy has to be resolved through Conciliation and Arbitration as required under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Act, 2005.

3. Re: contention (i); the perusal of the order of the Single Judge dated 22.09.2006 shows that he was of the view that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies had power under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 to initiate inquiry on the complaints received by the Registrar. Though the order is not elaborate but at the same time the order cannot be said to be non-speaking. It is not that every brief order becomes non-speaking order. The reason in the order is reflected inasmuch as the Single Judge was satisfied that the Registrar possessed the power to initiate the inquiry under Section 23.

4. In the case of Narinder Singh (supra) relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant, it was held thus:

"A bare reading of the High Courts order shows that it did not mention that no other point except that relating to Rule 3.8 of the Manual was pressed into service. Had it been so, the grievance of the appellants would have been without any basis. But the High Court did not even refer to the various stands taken by the appellants. It was open to the High Court to discard the plea but to restrict consideration to one point and not to others was certainly not a permissible course. It may be, as contended by learned Counsel for the State, without any substance. But that should have been clearly indicated in the impugned order.

5. If certain points argued on behalf of the petitioner (appellant herein) were not considered by the Single Judge, the course open to the petitioner was to apply to the Single Judge for review of the order for non consideration of certain points which were pressed before him. This course was not adopted. In any case there is lot of difference between a non-speaking order and an order where certain points were pressed and not considered. In the present fact situation, we find that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh has no application. We, accordingly, overrule the first contention of the Counsel for the appellant.

6. Re: contention (ii); The Counsel for the appellant urged that it was incumbent upon the Registrar, Cooperative Societies to hear the appellant before he passed the order dated 09.06.2005 as according to him the said order entails civil consequences.

7. Section 22 of the Act provides for ground for disqualification. It reads thus:

"22. Grounds for Disqualification.-(1) A Sports Association shall be liable to action on any of the following grounds:

(a) if the Sports Association fails to maintain accounts and submit the same under Section 19 or fail