The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Registrar's powers under section 32(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 and the absence of external interference in the initiation of proceedings.

ORDER RAVI MALIMATH, C. J. : – The case of the petitioner- Society is that it claims to be a registered Society under the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short “the Adhiniyam, 1973”). That it is running many educational institutions as well as hospitals in the State of Madhya Pradesh It conducts various charitable activities.

2. That various disputes arose between the members of the petitioner- Society. That one Smt. Laveena Kerketta, preferred a complaint on 10-3-2021 to the Hon’ble Minister, State of Madhya Pradesh Various allegations were made about the irregularities being conducted by the petitioner-Society. The Hon’ble Minister by his communication vide Annexure P/3 to the Principal Secretary, State of Madhya Pradesh brought to the notice that there was an F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner-Society for offences punishable under sections 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code which was registered on 16-2-2021. Hence, while forwarding the copy of the letter, the Principal Secretary was asked to look into the matter and do the needful. As a consequence whereof, vide communication Annexure P/4 dated 23-3-2021, the O.S.D. to the Hon’ble Minister wrote a letter to the Registrar of the Society asking him to intimate as to what happened to the letter of the Minister dated 15-3-2021 vide Annexure P/3.

3. Thereafter, the Registrar issued an order vide Annexure P/5 dated 2-6-2021 in exercise of the powers contained under section 31(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1973. Thereafter the enquiry commenced. A communication was addressed by the Inquiry Officer to the petitioner-Society vide Annexure P/7 dated 10-6-2021 calling for various documents required for the purposes of the enquiry. Questioning the same, the instant writ petition is filed.

4. Vide an ex parte interim order dated 30-6-2021 passed by this Court, the learned Single Judge stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 2-6-2021. Thereafter the respondents have put an appearance and filed an application for vacating stay amongst other applications.

5. Shri R. N. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for counsel for petitioner-Society submits that the impugned order initiating an enquiry against the petitioner-Society is beyond the authorization of law. That the Registrar had no power to pass the impugned order. That apparently, as could be seen from the facts narrated by the petitioner-Society, the entire action of the respondent/Registrar in issuing the order under section 32 of the Adhiniyam, 1997 is only at the behest of the concerned Minister. Therefore, it is the Minister alone who is interested in these proceedings. That because of the action of the Minister the Registrar has gone about initiating the enquiry but for himself the Registrar would not have initiated any proceedings against the petitioner-Society.

6. The same is disputed by Shri Manoj Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for appellants in connected Writ Appeal No. 320 of 2022. He submits that the exercise of powers by the Registrar under section 32 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 is well within the four corners of law. That the Registrar having prima facie found various illegalities and irregularities in the functioning of the petitioner-Society, has decided to hold an enquiry. Other than holding an enquiry, no adverse order as such has been passed by him. Therefore, it is only after an enquiry is completed that the truth of the matter will come out. The only intention of the petitioner-Society is to stall the enquiry against them which is inappropriate. Hence, he pleads that the petition be dismissed.

7. Heard learned counsels.

8. The bone of contention of the petitioner-Society is that the Registrar exceeded his powers as vested in him under section 32(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1997. Section 32 (1) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 reads as follows : –

“32. Enquiry and settlement of disputes. – (1) The Registrar may, on his own motion or on an application made under sub-section (2) either by himself o