The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exercise of power under section 32(1) of the Adhiniyam must be within the scope and limits of the powers described under the Adhiniyam, and the exercise of power beyond the enabling provision amounts to the exercise of power without jurisdiction.

This petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order, Annexiire P-1, dated 22-12-2011 passed by respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3, Asstt. Registrar, Firms and Societies, has invoked section 32(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short, the "Adhiniyam") and appointed himself as enquiry officer under section 32(3) of the Adhiniyam. This order is called in question by the society in the present petition.

2. Although there is a chequered history of litigation between the parties, relevant facts necessary for lawful adjudication of this matter are as under :-

(i) The petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of the Adhiniyam. The registration certificate is Annexure P-2. Respondent No. 4 preferred a representation dated 27-4-2011 (Annexure P/8 of W. P. No. 7144/2011) before the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 did not take, any action on the said representation. Then, respondent No. 4 filed W. P. No. 7144/2011. Jai Narayan Chokse vs. State of M. P. and others before this Court. The said petition was disposed of on 25-11-2011 by this Court. This Court directed the petitioner to resubmit his representation dated 27-4-2011 before respondent No. 3 herein, and, in turn, the said authority was directed to consider and decide in accordance with law expcditiously. This Court made it clear that no view on merits is expressed.

(ii) In turn, respondent No. 3 has passed impugned dated 22-12-2011. The said order reads as under :-

XXX XXX XXX

I deem it proper to dispose of this petition with following directions :-

(i) Petitioner shall resubmit his representation (Anncxure P/8) dated 27-4-2011 before respondent No. 3 along with the certified copy of this order.

(ii) In turn, the said authority shall consider and decide it in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. The outcome of the said representation shall be communicated to the petitioner.

XXX XXX XXX

(iii) It is apt to mention that Review Petition No. 331/2011 is filed by the present petitioner before this Court for seeking review of the order passed in W. P. No. 7144/2011 dated 25-11-2011. The main contention of the review petitioners was that they were not impleaded as party respondent in W. P. No. 7144/2011 and in the representation Annexure P-8 which was directed to be decided by this Court in W. P. No. 7144/2011 incorrect averments were made and it amounts to suppression of material facts. To elaborate, the case of present petitioners in the review petition is that Annexure P/8 dated 27-4-2011 contains a pleading in para 10 that the State Government by order dated 7-11-2009 has accepted that there exists a membership dispute. It is stated that the said order of State Government dated 7-11-2009 was already set aside by this Court in W. P. No. 6019/2011 and, therefore, by giving incorrect impression Jai Narayan Choksey succeeded in getting an order from this Court in W. P. No. 7144/2011.

(iv) Although this Court in para 5 of the order passed in Review Petition No. 331/2011 opined that the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7144/2011 has made an effort to misrepresent his case and did not disclose about the judgment of this Court, whereby the order of the State Government dated 7-11-2009 was quashed, ultimately, the interference was not made because the order dated 22-12-2011 was already challenged in the present petition (W. P. No. 96/2012). Accordingly, the review petition was disposed of with the liberty to the parties to assail the order dated 22-12-2011 in the present petition.

(v) Writ Appeal No. 74/2012 was filed by the present petitioner against the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation in W. P. No. 7144/2011 and Review Petition No. 331/2011. The Division Bench did not interfere in those orders.

3. Shri R. N. Singh, learned senior counsel with Shri Vinod Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel, submits that factual backdrop of the matter shows that the respondent No.