Prakash Shrivastava, J.:-

This order will also govern the disposal of W. P. Nos.7723/2012, 7727/2012, 7728/2012, 7729/2012, 7736/2012, 7742/2012, 7743/2012, 7744/2012, 7745/2012, 7746/2012, 7751/2012, 7754/2012, 7755/2012, 7756/2012, 7757/2012, 7769/2012, 7770/2012, 7771/2012, 7772/2012, 7969/2012 and 7970/2012, since it is stated by learned counsel for both the parties that all these writ petitions involve the same issue on the similar fact situation.

2. These writ petitions have been filed against the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 27-7-2012, by which the Assistant Registrar has held that the membership granted by the Petitioner M.P. Cricket Association (MPCA) to its new members between the period 2008-09 to 2011-12 was contrary to its registered bye-laws and was void. W. P. No. 7742/2012 is at the instance of MPCA whereas the other connected writ petitions are at the instance of aggrieved members of MPCA.

3. For convenience, facts have been noted from W. P. No. 7742/2012 filed by the MPCA.

4. The petitioner is a society registered under the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (Act No. 44 of 1973) (for short “the Act”). It had inducted certain members between the period 2008-09 to 2011-12. The respondent No. 3 Dr. Leeladhar Paliwal on 23-2-2012 had made a complaint to the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies (for short “Assistant Registrar”) objecting to the induction of 16 new members in the MPCA. The Registrar on 27-2-2012 had issued notice, which was replied by the MPCA. Thereafter, notice dated 5-5-2012 was again issued by the Assistant Registrar to MPCA which was replied on 15-5-2012 followed by another reply dated 5-6-2011. The Assistant Registrar, vide communication dated 11-6-2012, had sought certain information from MPCA which was replied on 21-6-2012 followed by another communication from the side of the MPCA dated 17-7-2012. The Assistant Registrar thereafter had passed the impugned order dated 27-7-2012 holding that the members were inducted between the year 2008-09 to 2011-12 in the MPCA contrary to its bye-laws and their membership, was void.

5. Shri A. K. Chitale, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-MPCA in W. P. No. 7742/2012 has submitted that the Registrar has illegally assumed the jurisdiction under section 32 of the Act, because neither the complaint was made as per the requirement of the section nor the Registrar had exercised suo motu power. He has submitted that when Registrar was given power to do certain thing in a certain manner, he was required to exercise the power in the manner prescribed. He has also submitted that while passing the impugned order, proper opportunity of hearing was not given and the petitioner was only required to submit certain information, and on that basis alone the impugned order has been passed. He has further submitted that the action of the respondents suffer from mala fides, since the entire action is at the instance of the Minister of Commerce Industries and Employment, under whom the Registrar of Societies is working and that the concerned Minister is a person interested in the MPCA.

6. Shri G. M. Chaphekar, learned senior counsel in W. P. No. 7723/2012 has referred to the documents on record and submitted that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the complaint made by Dr. Leeladhar Paliwal, therefore, it is an order passed in purported exercise of power under section 32(2) of the Act but the conditions mentioned therein are not satisfied. He has further submitted that the stand of the Assistant Registrar that the impugned order was passed in exercise of the suo motu power, is not correct because the contents of statutory order cannot be supplemented by subsequent pleading. He has also submitted that when two alternate modes are available, the authority/court can select only one and not both, therefore, having passed the order on complaint of Dr. Leeladhar Paliwal, the Registrar cannot take the stand that the order was passed