Adherence to prescribed time frames for raising disputes and the inability to condone delays under the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies (Amendment) Act, 2015.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

This petition is filed by the Residents Welfare Association and its President in order to challenge the order dated 1.6.2016 passed by the State Registrar, Firms and Societies, Haryana and order dated 24.8.2016 passed by the Registrar General, Firms and Societies, Haryana and order dated 5.12.2016 by the District Registrar, Firms and Societies, Gurgaon.

2. The election of the Governing Body of the Society was held on 12.4.2015. After the election, the list of the Governing body was submitted to the District Registrar on 17.4.2015. Respondent No.5 along with three other members of the collegium made a complaint to the District Registrar on 21.4.2015 alleging that the elections were not held in terms of the provisions of Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies (Amendment) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Bye laws. They also sent a reminder on 4.5.2015 in respect of their earlier application. However, the District Registrar advised them to file a petition before the State Registrar against the alleged irregularities during the election. Thereafter, the so called appeal/election petition was moved on 20.9.2015 before the State Registrar by 28 members of the collegium. The said appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded by the State Registrar to the District Registrar vide his order dated 1.6.2016. Now, it was the turn of the petitioner to file appeal against the said order dated 1.6.2016 before the Registrar General. The appeal was however, dismissed vide order dated 24.8.2016 and thereafter the District Registrar issued notice dated 5.12.2016 for the purpose of holding re-election.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has raised two issues in this case. Firstly, the application/petition filed by the respondents was beyond the period of limitation as it was filed after a period of 30 days from the date of declaration of the result. Secondly, the application was not filed by the members of the total members of the collegium, rather it was filed by four members of the collegium, though the collegium comprises of 89 elected members, therefore it should have been filed by 23 members. It is also submitted that the complaint was not maintainable before the District Registrar which was filed on 21.4.2016.

4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the complaint has been filed before the State Registrar as directed by the District Registrar on 15.7.2015 and the time consumed before the District Registrar was to be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation for filing the petition/appeal before the State Registrar. It is further submitted by the respondents that the application filed before the State Registrar is by 28 members, therefore, it is by the of the members of the collegium and is in compliance of Section 40 of the Act.

5. In reply, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the period of limitation of 30 days is provided in the statute, without there being any provision of condonation of delay, it cannot be extended even if it is assumed that the complaint dated 21.4.2016 was wrongly filed before the District Registrar and the actual appeal/election petition was filed on 20.9.2015. It is also submitted that the first complaint dated 21.4.2016 which was filed by four members of the collegium whereas it should have been filed by the members of the collegium. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against respondent No.4 are completely erroneous and contrary to the provisions of Section 40.

6. He has also referred to Section 33 (5) of the Act to contend that the District Registrar, after the list of elected members of the Governing body submitted to it, has to take a decision regarding approval of the election otherwise, in case, if he do not take any decision, then it should be deemed to have been approved.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

8. In order to apprec