IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 04.07.2025 Shaffali Nagal and others …Petitioners Versus The Registrar General of Societies and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate Mr. Rahul Chadha, Advocate and Ms. Deepti Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. AG, Haryana.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, informs this Court, that inadvertently the complete copy of the impugned order has not been annexed, with the instant petition, and therefore, he files the copy of the impugned order dated 13.05.2025, today in the Court. The same is taken on record as Annexure P-22, subject to just exceptions. The Registry is directed to tag the same at apt place in the case file.

2. Through the instant writ petition, cast under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the order dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure P-22), whereby, the appeal preferred by one of the respondent namely Suresh Kumar, has been accepted by the State Registrar of Societies, Haryana, and remanded the lis, to the District Registrar concerned, with a direction to decide the matter afresh. Thereafter, the District Registrar, Gurugram, has passed the order dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure P-27), through which the authorities concerned has made a reference to the State Registrar concerned, under Section 40 of the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012, for setting aside the elections. This has caused the grievance to the petitioners, and propelled them to file the instant petition.

3. In an attempt to challenge the order, as passed by the District Registrar concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners has made the hereinafter extracted submissions :-

“1. Petition under Section 40 of HRRS Act entertained and dismissed on 25.11.2024 by District Registrar was filed by the persons, who have no concern with the Association.

They are not even the Members of the Association.

2. Since they are not the Members of the Association, they could not have filed an appeal against the order dated

25.11.2024.

3. 23.05.2025, Elections were formally approved and notified by District Registrar.

4. 27.05.2025, The State Registrar put into transmission an order dated 13.05.2025 accepting the appeal against the order dated 25.11.2024 and returned findings in the teeth of Section 40 of HRRS Act, 2012.

5. Though election disputes are maintainable only before State Registrar, he relegated the parties to District Registrar for fresh consideration.

6. On 20.06.2025, notwithstanding the facts that elections were actually approved on 23.05.2025 by DR, on the directions of State Registrar, he held that elections were illegal.

i. The reasoning given by him is beyond the scope of Section 40 and contrary to the stand taken before this Hon'ble Court in the 1" round of litigation.

ii. Needlessly, he referred to earlier elections 24.09.2021 and passed certain observations that the said elections were illegal, whereas, the State had filed an affidavit on record to State that elections were approved.

7. In law, the District Registrar, Firms and Societies, Gurugram has no jurisdiction under Section 40 of HRRS Act, 2012 to declare the elections to the Governing Body of the Petitioners as invalid and appoint Administrator. At the most, he could have made a reference to the State Registrar.

8. The elections were held under the supervision of the Court Commissioner and no illegality has been pointed out till date within the scope of Section 40 of HRRS Act, 2012.

9. Recently, on 30.06.2025, on an application given by Haryana Olympic Association (again no concern with Haryana Football Association), The State Registrar gave permission to District Registrar to review his order dated 20.06.2025 and the Administrator appointed by the District Registrar has been replaced by an Adhoc Committee comprising of persons, who have no concern