MARGDARSHAN SANSTHAN (AGRICULTURE COLLEGE AMBIKAPUR ) vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH,

Digitally
signed by
YOGESH
TIWARI
Date:
2026.10.26
18:36:08
+0530
YOGESH
TIWARI
1

CGHC010076322021 2026:CGHC:45028
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1596 of 2021
Margdarshan Sansthan (Agriculture College Ambikapur ) Through -
Secretary, Premendra Pratap Singh, Aged About 42 Years, S/o Shri
Mahendra Pratap Singh, Ring Road, Chopra Para, Ambikapur, District -
Surguja Chhattisgarh.
--- Petitioner
Versus
1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of
Firms And Societies, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar,
New Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, New Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
3 - The Collector, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
4 - The Registrar, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalay, Krishak Nagar,
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
5 - The Registrar, Department Of Firms And Societies, New
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
6 - The Assistant Registrar, Department Of Firms And Societies, Office
At Composite Building, Collectorate Premises, Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
7 - The Regional Manager, State Bank Of India, Regional Office,
Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

2
8 - The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, City Branch - Ambikapur,
District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
9 - Manvendra Pratap Singh (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court
Order Dated 30-09-2026
--- Respondents
WPC No. 4874 of 2021
Margdarshan Sansthan A Society Registered Under The Societies
Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, Through- Its Secretary, Premendra
Pratap Singh S/o Shri Mahendra Pratap Singh Aged About 44 Years,
R/o Ring Road, Choprapara, Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.)
--- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of
Commerce And Industries, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur
(C.G.)
2 - Registrar Firms And Societies, Indravati Bhawan, Block-I, 3rd Floor,
Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Assistant Registrar Firms And Societies, Composite Building, IInd
Floor, Surguja (C.G.)
4 – Inspector, Firms And Societies, Bilaspur Division, Composite
Building, Bilaspur (C.G.)
5 – Auditor, Firms And Societies, Composite Building, IInd Floor,
Surguja (C.G.)
6 - Shri Manvendra Pratap Singh (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble
Court Order Dated 30-09-2026
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner
(In WPC No.1596/2021)
: Mr. A.N. Bhakta and Mr. Vivek Bhakta,
Advocates
For Petitioner
(In WPC No.4874/2021)
: Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate

3
For State : Mr. Anway Tiwari, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.4
(In WPC No.1596/2021)
: Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate
For Respondents No.7 & 8
(In WPC No.1596/2021)
: Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate
For Intervenor : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
Order on Board
26.10.2026
1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in both
these writ petitions, they are clubbed together and are being
decided by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, Writ Petition (C) No. 1596 of 2021 is
taken as the lead case.
3. By filing the present writ petitions, the petitioner, namely,
Margdarshan Sansthan, Ambikapur, has called in question the
order dated 25.02.2021 (Annexure P/1), whereby its Current
Account No. 35033300020 maintained with the State Bank of
India, City Branch, Ambikapur, was placed under “Hold”, and the
order dated 18.11.2021 passed by the Registrar in Appeal Case
No. 426/2021, titled Margdarshan Sansthan v. Assistant Registrar
and another , whereby the appeal was partly allowed by setting
aside the order dated 15.06.2020 passed by the Assistant
Registrar, while directing an inquiry through a three-member

4
committee and entrusting the trustees/founder members with the
day-to-day affairs of the society until resolution of the dispute.
4. The reliefs sought by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1596 of 2021
are reproduced hereinbelow:-
“10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call for the entire records of the
case from the authorities concerned for its
kind perusal.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to set-aside the order dated
25.02.2021 (Annexure P-1), issued by the
Respondent No.08 i.e. the Branch Manager,
SBI, City Branch, Ambikapur Distt. Surguja
(C.G.) and on behalf of petitioner institution,
the Secretary (Mr. Premendra Pratap Singh)
as well as Principal (Mr. Sushil Srivastav) be
permitted to operate the Current Agriculture
Account No. 35033300020 (Maintained at SBI
City Branch, Ambikapur), in the interest of
justice.
10.3 That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly
be pleased to direct the concerned
Respondents to compensate the petitioner
institution, as the Hon'ble Court think just and
proper, in the interest of justice.
10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble High
Court deems fit and proper be also awarded. ”
5. The reliefs sought by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4874 of 2021
are reproduced hereinbelow:-

5
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased issue writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions quashing the impugned
order dated 18.11.2021 (Annexure P/1)
passed in Appeal Case No. 426/2021
between "Margdarshan Sansthan Vs.
Assistant Registrar & another" holding that
same is without authority of law and appellate
court has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing
the order impugned.
10.2 Any other relief which may deems fit
may also be awarded along with cost of the
petition.”
6. The facts of the cases, in brief, are that the petitioner,
Margdarshan Sansthan, Ambikapur, is a society registered under
the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, bearing
Registration No. 373 dated 14.10.1992. The institution is engaged
in imparting agricultural education and has been affiliated with
Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, since 2002. The
petitioner-institution has been carrying on its educational activities
since its registration. It is further pleaded that respondent No. 9
(since deceased) was earlier functioning as the Secretary of the
petitioner-institution and tendered his resignation on 24.11.2016,
which was accepted by the institution on 26.11.2016. Thereafter,
in an emergency meeting held on 27.11.2016, Mr. Premendra
Pratap Singh was unanimously appointed as the Secretary of the
petitioner-society, along with the other office-bearers, including
the President. The said appointment was subsequently approved

6
by respondent No. 6 vide order dated 04.12.2017. The petitioner
further submits that, for ensuring transparency in the functioning
of the institution, a resolution dated 10.12.2017 was passed
providing for the operation of the bank account through the joint
signatures of the Principal, Mr. Sushil Kumar Srivastav, and the
Secretary, Mr. Premendra Pratap Singh.
7. The grievance of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1596 of 2021 is
that, without issuing any notice to the petitioner-institution or its
office-bearers, the current account maintained with the State Bank
of India, City Branch, Ambikapur, was placed under “Hold” vide
order dated 25.02.2021. It is contended that the action has
adversely affected the functioning of the institution, as the tuition
fees deposited by the students could not be withdrawn or utilised
for meeting essential expenses, including the provision of food,
water, electricity and other basic facilities. The salaries of the
teaching and non-teaching staff were also affected. Despite
representations dated 20.02.2021 and 25.02.2021, followed by a
legal notice dated 01.03.2021, the account was not made
operational.
8. In W.P.(C) No. 4874 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 18.11.2021 passed by the Registrar in Appeal Case
No. 426/2021, titled Margdarshan Sansthan v. Assistant Registrar
and another . By the said order, the appeal was partly allowed by
setting aside the order dated 15.06.2020 passed by the Assistant

7
Registrar. However, the appellate authority directed an inquiry into
the affairs of the society through a three-member committee
comprising, inter alia, the Assistant Registrar and directed the
committee to submit its report within three months, if possible. In
the meantime, the trustees/founder members were directed to
look after the day-to-day affairs of the society until the dispute was
resolved.
9. Mr. A.N. Bhakta, learned counsel, along with Mr. Vivek Bhakta,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1596
of 2021, submits that the action of placing the current account of
the petitioner-institution under “Hold” is arbitrary, illegal and
without authority of law. He submits that the appointment of Mr.
Premendra Pratap Singh as Secretary had already been
approved by the competent authority vide order dated 04.12.2017,
and the subsequent resolution dated 10.12.2017 provided for the
operation of the account through the joint signatures of the
Secretary and the Principal. Despite the subsistence of the
approved arrangement, the bank account was placed under
“Hold” without issuing any notice or affording any opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner-institution or its office-bearers. Such
action, according to learned counsel, is violative of Articles 14 and
21 of the Constitution of India.
10. Learned counsel further submits that the action impugned has
seriously prejudiced the functioning of the educational institution

8
and has adversely affected the interests of the students as well as
the teaching and non-teaching staff. He submits that the tuition
fees deposited in the account could not be utilised for meeting the
day-to-day expenses of the institution, including the payment of
salaries and the provision of essential facilities to the students.
Despite representations submitted by the President of the
institution and the issuance of a legal notice, no effective action
was taken to restore the operation of the account. Learned
counsel, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside
and appropriate directions be issued to enable the authorised
office-bearers to operate the account in accordance with the
resolution passed by the institution.
11. Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
in W.P.(C) No. 4874 of 2021, submits that the order dated
18.11.2021 passed by the Registrar in Appeal Case No. 426/2021
is contrary to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Societies
Registration Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of
1973”) and is liable to be set aside. He submits that, while
deciding the appeal and setting aside the order dated 15.06.2020
passed by the Assistant Registrar, the Registrar exceeded the
scope of appellate jurisdiction by constituting a three-member
committee to conduct a fresh inquiry and by directing the
trustees/founder members to take charge of the day-to-day affairs
of the society pending resolution of the dispute. According to
learned counsel, such directions have the effect of interfering with

9
the functioning of the duly constituted governing body, whose
composition and appointment had already been approved by the
competent authority vide order dated 04.12.2017.
12. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order is
contrary to Sections 32 and 40 of the Act of 1973. He contends
that Section 32 prescribes the manner in which an inquiry into the
affairs of a society may be conducted, either by the Registrar
himself or by a person authorised by him, and does not
contemplate the constitution of a three-member committee in the
manner directed by the appellate authority. It is further submitted
that the Assistant Registrar, who had passed the order dated
15.06.2020 and whose order was set aside in appeal, was
subsequently made a member of the committee constituted to
conduct the inquiry, thereby giving rise to a reasonable
apprehension of bias. Learned counsel also contends that the
Registrar could not have initiated proceedings on his own motion
while exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 40 of the Act
of 1973, particularly when the statutory requirements for initiating
proceedings under Section 32 had not been satisfied. On these
grounds, learned counsel prays for quashing the impugned order
dated 18.11.2021.
13. Per contra, Mr. Anway Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for
the State, opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for
the petitioner and submits that the principal dispute involved in the

10
present matter is between the petitioner-institution and
respondent No. 9, as both claim to hold the office of Secretary of
Margdarshan Sansthan, Ambikapur. He submits that, owing to the
rival claims regarding the management and authorised office-
bearers of the society, the current account of the institution was
placed under “Hold” vide order dated 25.02.2021, pending
resolution of the dispute by the competent authority. Learned
State counsel further submits that the petitioner has not sought
any specific and substantive relief against the State respondents,
nor has any specific allegation of illegality or arbitrary action been
levelled against them. According to him, the controversy
essentially concerns the internal affairs and management of the
petitioner-society, particularly the rival claims to the post of
Secretary, and the State respondents have no direct role in the
said dispute.
14. Learned Panel Lawyer further submits that respondent No. 9,
being a separate legal entity and one of the persons claiming the
office of Secretary, is capable of defending his own interests in the
matter. He contends that the issues raised in the writ petition can
be effectively addressed by the parties directly involved in the
dispute concerning the management of the society and the
operation of its bank account. In the absence of any specific and
effective relief sought against the answering respondents, the writ
petition, insofar as it relates to the State respondents, deserves to

11
be dismissed. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition
against the State respondents.
15. Mr. D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.
4, namely, the Registrar, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya,
Krishak Nagar, Raipur, submits that the controversy raised in the
present writ petition does not concern any dispute relating to the
role or functioning of the University. He submits that the petitioner
has referred to the affiliation of the institution with Indira Gandhi
Krishi Vishwavidyalaya and the matters relating to agricultural
education; however, the principal dispute in the present case
concerns the rival claims of the petitioner and respondent No. 9 to
the office of Secretary of Margdarshan Sansthan, Ambikapur.
According to learned counsel, the said dispute is essentially
between the petitioner-institution and respondent No. 9 and does
not involve any substantive issue requiring adjudication against
respondent No. 4.
16. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 further submits that no
specific or effective relief has been sought against the University
and no adverse allegation has been levelled against it in relation
to the impugned action of placing the bank account under “Hold”.
He submits that the order dated 25.02.2021 was issued by the
Branch Manager, State Bank of India, in the backdrop of the
dispute concerning the management of the society and the
authority to operate its bank account. In such circumstances, the

12
University has no direct role in resolving the inter se dispute
between the rival claimants to the office of Secretary. He,
therefore, submits that the writ petition, insofar as it relates to
respondent No. 4, deserves to be dismissed.
17. Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.
7 and 8, namely, the State Bank of India, submits that the current
account bearing No. 35033300020 is maintained in the name of
Margdarshan Sansthan, Ambikapur, and that a dispute arose
when the petitioner and respondent No. 9 asserted rival claims to
the office of Secretary of the society and, consequently, to the
authority to operate the said account. He submits that the
Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies, Surguja, vide
communication dated 09.04.2019, had informed the bank
regarding the alleged creation of a parallel managing society and
the possibility of funds being withdrawn through unauthorised
means. In view of the said communication and the subsisting
dispute regarding the identity of the authorised office-bearers, the
bank, vide communication dated 25.02.2021, placed the account
under “Hold” until the dispute was resolved by the competent
authority. Learned counsel submits that the bank took the said
action in order to safeguard the funds of the institution and to
ensure that the money deposited in the account was not
withdrawn or misappropriated by any unauthorised person.

13
18. Learned counsel for respondents No. 7 and 8 further submits that
the bank is merely the custodian of the funds deposited in the
account and cannot independently adjudicate the rival claims
concerning the management of the society or determine which of
the competing claimants is legally entitled to operate the account.
He points out that the petitioner had also challenged the order
passed by the Assistant Registrar before the Registrar, Firms and
Societies, in Appeal Case No. 426/2021, and that the appellate
authority, vide order dated 18.11.2021, partly allowed the appeal
and constituted a three-member committee to inquire into the
dispute, while directing that the trustees/founder members would
look after the day-to-day affairs of the society until the dispute was
resolved. He further submits that the said appellate order has also
been challenged in the connected writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 4874
of 2021, and both matters are pending consideration before this
Court. The bank, therefore, undertakes to permit operation of the
account in accordance with the directions issued by this Court
regarding the person or persons authorised to operate the same.
19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
20. Upon perusal of the record in W.P.(C) No. 1596 of 2021, it
appears that the principal grievance of the petitioner-institution is
with regard to the order dated 25.02.2021, whereby its current
account bearing No. 35033300020, maintained with the State

14
Bank of India, City Branch, Ambikapur, was placed under “Hold”
on account of the dispute concerning the management of the
society and the rival claims regarding the office of Secretary. The
petitioner contends that the appointment of Mr. Premendra Pratap
Singh as Secretary had already been approved by the competent
authority vide order dated 04.12.2017 and that, pursuant to the
resolution dated 10.12.2017, the bank account was to be
operated jointly by the Secretary and the Principal of the
institution. On the other hand, the bank has justified its action on
the ground that, in view of the rival claims regarding the
management of the society and the authority to operate the
account, it was necessary to safeguard the funds of the institution
until the dispute was resolved by the competent authority. Thus,
the controversy concerning the operation of the bank account is
intrinsically connected with the determination of the persons
lawfully entitled to manage the affairs of the petitioner-society.
21. Further, upon perusal of the record in W.P.(C) No. 4874 of 2021, it
transpires that the petitioner has challenged the order dated
18.11.2021 passed by the Registrar in Appeal Case No.
426/2021, whereby the appeal was partly allowed by setting aside
the order dated 15.06.2020 passed by the Assistant Registrar,
while directing an inquiry into the affairs of the society through a
three-member committee. The appellate authority also directed
that, until the dispute was resolved, the trustees/founder members
would look after the day-to-day affairs of the society. The

15
petitioner has questioned the authority of the Registrar to issue
such directions, particularly with reference to Sections 32 and 40
of the Act of 1973. The dispute, therefore, essentially concerns
the legality of the directions issued by the Registrar and, more
importantly, the determination of the persons entitled to manage
and administer the affairs of the society in accordance with its
bye-laws and the applicable statutory provisions.
22. Having considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of
the parties and the material available on record, this Court finds
that the controversy involved in both the writ petitions cannot be
effectively resolved without determination of the dispute
concerning the management and administration of the petitioner-
society by the competent authority. The operation of the bank
account is consequential to such determination, as the bank
cannot be expected to decide the rival claims regarding the
authority to manage the society or operate its account. At the
same time, the continued freezing of the account has the potential
to affect the day-to-day functioning of the educational institution,
including the payment of salaries and the provision of essential
facilities to the students. Therefore, it would be appropriate to
direct the competent authority to bring the dispute to its logical
conclusion within a stipulated period, after affording due
opportunity of hearing to all concerned persons.

16
23. Accordingly, considering the nature of the dispute involved in the
present matters, the concerned Registrar, Firms and Societies,
shall ascertain whether the inquiry contemplated under the order
dated 18.11.2021 has been completed. If the inquiry has not yet
been completed, the concerned authority shall ensure that the
same is completed expeditiously, in accordance with law. Upon
completion of the inquiry, and after considering the inquiry report,
the existing members of the society, the relevant records, the bye-
laws of the society and the claims of all persons concerned, the
Registrar shall take an appropriate decision as to which persons
are legally entitled to manage and administer the affairs of the
society. The Registrar shall also determine, in accordance with
the applicable statutory provisions and the bye-laws of the society,
whether the existing members are entitled to continue managing
the society or whether any other persons are legally entitled to
undertake its management. Such determination shall be made by
a reasoned order, after affording an adequate opportunity of
hearing to all concerned parties, including the intervenor, whose
claim arises from the subsequent appointment as Secretary of the
society. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period
of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
24. Upon resolution of the dispute by the competent authority, the
current account of the petitioner-institution, which has been
placed under “Hold” by the State Bank of India, shall be permitted
to be operated by the person or persons found legally entitled

17
thereto, in accordance with law and the decision taken by the
competent authority. The bank shall act in conformity with such
decision and the applicable legal requirements.
25. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the rival claims concerning the management of the
society or the entitlement of any particular person to hold the
office of Secretary. The competent authority shall independently
consider the matter and take a decision strictly in accordance with
law, uninfluenced by any observations made herein.
26. With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the writ
petitions, being W.P.(C) Nos. 1596 of 2021 and 4874 of 2021,
stand disposed of .
27. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed
of.
28. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Yogesh