The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'State aided society' under the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 and its amendment in 1998, and its implications on the State Government's power to supersede the governing body of a society.

A. K. PATNAIK, C. J. :- This is a reference made to the Full Bench by an order dated 27-10-2006 passed by the Division Bench in W. A. No. 138/2006.

2. The facts leading to the reference are that the respondent is a Society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short 'the Act'). By an order dated 30-10-2003, the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 33 of the Act superseded the governing body of the respondent society and appointed an administrator of the Society for a period of one year or till the conduct of the election whichever was earlier. The respondent society challenged the order dated 30-10-2003 of the State Government in W.P. No. 478/2004 before this Court contending that the respondent society has not been paid any grant-in-aid since 2001 and the respondent society cannot be superseded under Section 33 of the Act which provided that only a State aided society can be superseded. The appellants in their return filed in the writ petition, on the other hand, stated that a block grant was paid to the respondent society by the State Government and a grant of Rs. 3,38,977/- for the year 2001-2002 was deposited in a joint account of the respondent society but has not been disbursed for payment because of non-fulfilment of eligible criteria by the respondent society. The appellants contended that the respondent society was therefore a State aided society as defined in Section 3(f) of the Act and the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 33 of the Act can supersede the respondent society. The learned single Judge hearing the writ petition did not accept the contention of the appellant and held that the order passed by the State Government superseding the respondent society was illegal inasmuch as the respondent society was not a State aided society and by order dated 19-10-2005 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of supersession. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal under Section

2(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 before the Division Bench.

2A. When the appeal was heard on 27-10-2006 by the Division Bench, an unreported decision of the Division Bench dated 16-4-1979 in Adarsha Shiksha Samiti v. State of Madhya Pradesh as well as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Adarsha Vidya Mandir v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1982 MPLJ 762 were cited by Mr. P. S. Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the appellant in which a view had been taken that a Society which was receiving aid in the past but was not receiving aid in the present did not come within the definition of "State aided society" for taking action under Section 33(1) of the Act. Before the Division Bench, Mrs. Ami Prabal, learned Deputy Advocate General, on the other hand, very strongly contended that the definition of "State aided society" was wide enough to include not only a society which receives aid, grant or loan but also a Society which has received aid, grant or loan or has received land or building or both on concessional rates and other facilities from the Central Government or State Government or any Statutory Body and therefore the two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Adarsha Shiksha Samiti v. State of State of Madhya Pradesh and Adarsha Vidya Mandir v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) require reconsideration by a Full Bench. The Division Bench found force in the aforesaid submission of Mrs. Prabal and accordingly referred the following question of law to the Full Bench :

"Whether the 'State aided society' would mean a Society which receives or received aid, grant or loan in the current year or would also mean a Society which has received aid, grant or loan in any previous year the purpose of action under Section 33(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973?"

3. Before we consider the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid question o