Authority issuing remand order to subordinate for fresh adjudication after hearing becomes functus officio and cannot review or recall it on later representation.

Judgment :

Subhash Upadhyay, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 20.12.2025 passed by respondent no.1 - Registrar, Firm Societies and Chits (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Registrar’), whereby the respondent no.1 has recalled his earlier order dated 26.11.2025 on the representation of respondent no.4 dated 12.12.2025 and has set aside the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by respondent no.2.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Doon Valley Public School is registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act and the respondent no.4 had included new members to the Society and thereafter an online meeting of the general body was also held on 29.11.2020, against the bye-laws of the Society.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that against the said action of respondent no.4 petitioner had made various complaint to the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Deputy Registrar’), on which, the Deputy Registrar passed the order dated 20.03.2025, however, the respondent no.4 filed an application before the Registrar on 18.06.2025 and the matter was kept pending.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner, being aggrieved by the inaction of respondent no.1, had preferred WPMS No.3209 of 2025 and, during the pendency of the said writ petition, the Deputy Registrar Mr. Alok Shah was directed to appear virtually before the Court and on 27.11.2025, he placed on record the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the Registrar. Operative portion of order dated 26.11.2025 passed by Registrar is as follows:-

6. Perusal of the said order reveals that the Deputy Registrar was directed to revisit his earlier order dated 20.03.2025 and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties he was directed to pass fresh orders within three months.

7. Said order was placed before the Coordinate Bench, wherein the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the order dated 26.11.2025, the relief claimed in the writ petition do not survive, and as such, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.

8. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, after the dismissal of the writ petition on 27.11.2025, respondent no.4 submitted an application before the Registrar on 12.12.2025 and acting on the said application, Registrar passed the impugned order dated 20.12.2025, which is impugned in the present writ petition.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order passed by the Registrar is illegal as the said authority had no power to review its earlier order dated 26.11.2025. Moreover, he submits that once the said order was placed before the Court and the Court taking cognizance of the said order, had dismissed the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, then the said authority ought to have brought the said order to the notice of the Court.

10. The Registrar was directed to appear virtually before the Court and in compliance of the order dated 08.01.2026, he appeared before the Court in pre-lunch session. The Registrar was heard and he submitted that the order dated 20.12.2025 shall be withdrawn by him. Pursuant to said submission, order dated 10.01.2026 is placed by the learned Standing Counsel. Same is taken on record.

11. Perusal of the said order dated 10.01.2026 reveals that the Registrar has