The power of superseding the governing body of state-aided societies lies with the State Government and not with the Registrar, as per the Madhya Pradesh Societies Registration Adhiniyam, 1973.

( 1 ) : Being aggrieved by the order dated 6-5-2002, passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 684/2002, appellants have filed this appeal under clause 10 of Letters Patent.

( 2 ) FACTS shorn of details and necessary for disposal of this appeal are that shramdham Uchchhatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya sanchalan Samiti, Kaymore (hereinafter referred to as "society No. 1"), Prabandh samiti, Shramadham Madhyamik Vidyalaya, amheta (hereinafter referred to as "society no. 2"); and Bapu Bal Mandir Prabandh samiti, Kaymore (hereinafter referred to as "society No. 3") filed a writ petition before this Court alleging that they are societies independently registered under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Societies Registration Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "1973 Adhiniyam" ). Society No. 1 runs Shramdham Uchchatar Madhyamik vidyalaya, Kaymore, Society No. 2 runs shramdham Middle School and Shramdham high School, Amheta; and Society No. 3 runs bapu Bal Mandir, Kaymore. Except Shramdham high School, Amheta remaining three schools received 100 percent grant in aid from the State Government. All the three societies have their separate Constitution. All the three societies are functioning independently, managing their respective schools in accordance with the directions issued by the State Government from time to time and managing the affairs of societies in accordance with their respective Constitution.

( 3 ) IT is also the case of the appellants that there is a society known as "shramdham Sewa sansthan", at Kaymore (hereinafter referred to as "society No. 4" ). The respondent No. 4 Ram Avtar Tiwari projected himself as President of this Society against duly elected President of the Society, namely govind Prasad Pandey. The Registrar, Firms and Societies did not accept the election of ram Avtar Tiwari but also did not record the election of Govind Prasad Pandey. The said Shri Pandey preferred an appeal before the Registrar, Firms and Societies who allowed the same but the State Government, on an appeal preferred by Ram Avtar Tiwari without recording any positive finding in his favour as regards his status as President of the Society remanded the matter before the assistant Registrar, to hold an enquiry under section 32 of the 1973 Adhiniyam. This order of State Government was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 4076/ 2001. According to the appellants, the dispute between Ram Avtar Tiwari and Govind prasad Pandey is in relation to Society No. 4, which is a separate legal entity.

( 4 ) ON 24-1-2002, District Education Officer, respondent No. 3 directed that the society Nos. 1, 2 and 3 shall be managed by the committee constituted by Ram Avtar tiwari said to be the President of Society no. 4. This order of respondent No. 4 was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition no. 684/2002 on the ground that the Society Nos. 1, 2 and 3, each being a separate entity, cannot be directed to be controlled and managed by committee constituted by president of Society No. 1. It was alleged that the said direction has been issued with mala fide intention so as to accord undue favour to respondent No. 4 who has no authority over the petitioners-societies.

( 5 ) THE petition was combated by the respondents. In the return filed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 the stand has been taken that the election and constitution of Society no. 4 was challenged before the competent authority under the 1973 Adhiniyam. In appeal as per order dated 8-8-2001 the State government allowed the Managing Committee constituted by respondent No. 4, to run society No. 4 till the decision of election dispute under Section 32 of 1973 Adhiniyam. It was further contended that two parallel governing bodies exist in relation to Society no. 4. The District Education Officer has exercised the power under Section 31-A of 1973 Adhiniyam. The order is interim in nature and no interference is called for. It was also contended by respondent Nos. 1,