The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation to consider the reply of the petitioner and the requirement to act judicially in issuing appropriate directions to the society under Section 32(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam.

JUDGMENT

    This  is second visit of the petitioners to this Court. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered society under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (in short the Adhiniyam). The registration certificate of petitioner No. 1 is filed as Annexure P/2. It is stated that earlier election of the society took place on 31.7.2011 and the next elections are due on completion of three years from the said date as per the bye-laws. The petitioner No. 1 was served with a show-cause notice by respondent No. 2 dated 30.6.2012 (Annexure P/13). The petitioner No. 1 submitted its reply to the same but the said authority issued communication Annexure P/25 and stated that petitioner No. 1 did not file its reply. At this stage, petitioner No. 1 filed W.P. No. 6995/12 before this Court. This Court disposed of the said petition on 27.9.2012. On perusal of the material, it was found by this Court that petitioner No. 1's reply was very much received by the Assistant Registrar, and therefore, his finding that reply has not been received runs contrary to the record. On the basis of aforesaid, it was found that there is violation of principles of natural justice and the making process was not proper. Consequently the order, Annexure P/1 therein, was set aside and direction was issued to the parties to appear before the said authority on an appointed date and the Assistant Registrar was directed to proceed further in accordance with law.

2. Shri Harish Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that after the order of this Court dated 27.9.2012 although certain dates of hearing were fixed by the Assistant Registrar, but he ultimately passed the order Annexure P/1 dated 24.1.2013 wherein there is no consideration of the reply submitted by petitioner No. 1. This communication (Annexure P/1) is called in question on following counts:-

(i) The petitioner No. 1's reply has not been considered and dealt with and in absence thereof, the impugned order is vitiated.

(ii) in the enquiry report, certain allegations were found proved against the petitioner/society. In the impugned communication, Annexure P/1, Assistant Registrar has opined in addition to the said finding of the enquiry officer and travelled beyond the finding of the enquiry officer for which no opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioner No. 1.

(iii) As per heading of Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, enquiry can be conducted only when the ingredients of Section 32(2) are satisfied i.e. the application is preferred by more than 1/3rd members or by majority of members of the governing body and such application is supported by an affidavit. It is stated that the heading of Section 32 of the Adhiniyam makes it clear that it deals with 'enquiry and settlement'.

(iv) The principles of natural justice and fair play in action are grossly violated in issuing Annexure P/1. There is no consideration of the defence of petitioner No. 1 and direction so issued by Annexure P/1 causes prejudice to the petitioner/society because there is a direction to conduct election much before completion of normal tenure of the society.

(v) As per the bye-laws (clause 3 (ii)), there is no requirement for homeopathy practitioner to get his name registered, and therefore, the Assistant Registrar has erred in law in relying on M.P. Gazette (extraordinary) dated 14th May, 2009 which deals with requirement of renewal of membership. In other words, Shri Dixit submits that bye-laws which were made in the year 1953 makes it crystal clear that any medical practitioner can become member and there is no need to get his name registered, and therefore, the said Gazette notification is wrongly applied by respondent No. 2.

3. Shri Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contentions, relied on 2003 (2) M.P.L.J. 377 (Shramadham Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Sanchalan Samiti and others Vs. State of M.P. and others) and Mangilal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2004 SC 1280 (Mangilal Vs