The court ruled that the failure of a society to produce necessary records should not disadvantage members claiming valid induction, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation in membership disputes.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)

Present batch of petitions is being decided by a common judgment as the controversy involved in this batch of petitions is same and arises from the same cause of action.

2. For the facility of reference, the facts are being extracted from CWP-10227-2015, titled as Hari Kishan Gupta v. State Of Haryana And Ors..

3. Challenge in the said petition is to the order dated 23.04.2015 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.2-the Registrar General of Firms and Societies, Haryana as well as to the order dated 29.12.2014 passed by the respondent No.3-State Registrar of Firms and Societies, Haryana whereby the order dated 22.07.2013 passed by respondent No.4-District Registrar of Firms and Societies, Bahadurgarh. Civil Secretariat, Jhajjar, Haryana, has been set aside, wherein a decision was taken as regards membership of Maharaja Aggarsain Trust-respondent No.5, which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act (as it was then in the year 1980), and is governed by the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012 (for short referred to as 'HRRS Act, 2012').

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that respondent no.6 Ashok Gupta, made a complaint dated 15.02.2011 (Annexure P-1) to M.L.A Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, for getting elections of the society conducted since elections were last held in the year 2008 and terms of the governing body had come to an end and a further request was made for appointment of a competent officer as Returning Officer. As per the complaint submitted, there were originally only a total of 225 members out of which 50 members had already expired. On the said Complaint made by respondent No.6, the District Registrar, Jhajjar issued a show cause notice dated 16.02.2011 to the office bearers of the Society whereupon the following objections were filed by the Society:-

(i) That a Civil Suit had been filed by one Vinod Kumar on similar grounds and that the same was pending before the Civil Judge;

(ii) That present complaint has been filed by eight persons out of which Raj Kumar Gupta and Sushil Goyal are not members of the Society;

(iii) That signature of Jai Parkash son of Ghamandi Lal is forged and does not tally with his signature;

(iv) That Shri. Vinod Kumar is a tenant of the Society in shops and has not paid rent and he is defaulter of rent of about one and half years; and

(v) That Ashok Gupta participated in the proceedings of election held in the year 2004, so he is estopped from raising any question regarding the validity of voters list of 2004.

5. That vide order dated 18.08.2011 passed by the District Registrar, Jhajjar, the resolution dated 28.06.2009 granting membership to 121 members and the resolution dated 29.05.2011 granting membership to 39 members was also set aside.

6. Aggrieved against the same, CWP-17350-2011, CWP-610- 2012 and CWP-611-2012 were filed before this Court. During the pendency of these writ petitions, elections to the Management of respondent No.5- Maharaja Aggarsain Trust were held on 18.03.2012, but said elections were subject to the further orders and final outcome of the writ petitions, as per the order dated 15.03.2012.

7. Vide its order dated 17.05.2013, this Court quashed the order dated 18.08.2011 and remitted the matter to the District Registrar of Societies to decide the same within 60 days. Till the final order of the District Registrar, the Managing Committee elected pursuant to the elections held on 18.03.2012 was permitted to run the affairs of the society.

8. The above said order dated 17.05.2013 passed in the above writ petitions was subject matter of challenge in LPA-1088- 2013, LPA- 1089-2013 and LPA-1090-2013 filed by Ashok Gupta. Vide order dated 31.05.2013, the order dated 17.05.2013 was partially modified and the District Registrar was directed to decide the controversy within 60 days and to not give effect to his order for a period of 02 weeks thereafter to enable the