Shri Murayi (Mourya) Samaj Indore Shri Murayi Samaj Dharmshala Through President Jaydeep vs Registrar, Firms And Societies Department Of Commerce And Industries

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24482
1 WP-17458-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
st
ON THE 1 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 17458 of 2025
SHRI MURAYI (MOURYA) SAMAJ INDORE SHRI MURAYI SAMAJ
DHARMSHALA THROUGH PRESIDENT JAYDEEP
Versus
REGISTRAR, FIRMS AND SOCIETIES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kamal Nayan Airen, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Arpan Jain, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Tanishq Patel, Advocate for the respondent(s).
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs :-
Relief Prayed for :
(A) It is, therefore, humbly prayed this Writ Petition may kindly be
allowed, and the order dated 07/05/25 (P/5) passed by the Respondent No.
2 be quashed.
(B) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case against the Respondents and in favour of the
Petitioners be granted.
2. The facts in brief is that the petitioner is challenging the order dated
07.05.2025 by which the Assistant Registrar has passed an order for enquiry U/s
32 of Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973( in short... "the
Adhiniyam") on his own motion mentioning about the order passed by this
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:09:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24482
2 WP-17458-2025
Hon’ble Court in a writ petition whereas the order was reviewed and no

opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner society and hence the
impugned order be quashed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, by drawing the
attention of this Court, that in an earlier round of litigation on 29.04.2024, in W.P.
No.11458/2024, this Court passed the following order :-
"The petitioners are aggrieved by Election of Office Bearer of respondent
No.4/Society which is registered under the M.P. Society Registrikaran
Adhiniyam.
2. If the petitioners are having any grievance then the petitioners are having
remedy under Section 64 (2) (V) of the Adhiniyana by raising dispute before
the Registrar, therefore let proper duly constituted Election Petition be filed
before the Registrar then only Registrar can entertain the dispute.
3. With the aforesaid liberty,Writ Petition is disposed of."
4. Learned counsel further submits that the aforesaid order dated
29.04.2024 was challenged by way of a writ appeal, bearing W.A. No.2550/2024.
This appeal was disposed of vide order dated 25.10.2024 by the Division Bench of
this Hon'ble High Court, directing the petitioner to avail themselves of the remedy
of review, if so advised, for the purpose of amendment. Thereafter, he submits
that the petitioner appeared before respondent no. 2, filed its Vakalatnama and
preferred a review petition bearing R.P. No.1382/2024. Initially, notices were
issued in the said review petition, subsequently, it was disposed of vide order
dated 03.04.2025 by passing the following order:-
"1. The present review petition is filed by respondent No.4 in the writ
petition seeking review of the order dated 29.4.2024 passed in W.P.
No.11458/2024.
2. Shri Airen, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent
No.4 is a Society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:09:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24482
3 WP-17458-2025
Adhiniyam, 1973, in which there is a provision of enquiry under Section 32 by

the Registrar. The writ petition has been disposed of by mentioning the wrong
Section 64(2) (V) of the Adhiniyam and because of this mistake the Registrar
has entertained the election petition filed by the writ petitioner.
3. The aforesaid mistake is apparent on the face of the record.
4. Shri Jain, learned counsel for the respondents is not disputing it.
5. In view of the above, the review petition is disposed of by directing that in
order dated 29.4.2024 passed in W.P. No.11458/2024, "Section 64(2)(V)" be
read as "Section 32" and the word 'Election Petition' be replaced by the word
"dispute".
6. A copy of this order be placed in the record of WP No.11458/2024 and
both the orders be read conjointly."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Respondent
No.2/Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies, Indore passed the impugned order
dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure-P/5) without properly considering the order passed
by this Hon'ble Court in the review application, as well as subsequent orders. It is
submitted that respondent No. 2 exercised powers under Section 32(3) of the
Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, without following the
prescribed statutory procedure. Furthermore, the impugned order is non-speaking,
patently erroneous, and fails to consider that the order passed in W.P.
No.11458/2024 was subsequently reviewed vide order dated 03.04.2025. This
material fact was completely overlooked while passing the impugned order.
Learned counsel further submits that Respondent No. 2 failed to appreciate that an
Inquiry Officer under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam cannot be appointed
unilaterally without first ascertaining whether the statutory criteria and
jurisdictional prerequisites under the said section are satisfied. He
further submitted that since the elections of the petitioner-society were duly and
lawfully conducted, the impugned order is unsustainable and deserves to be set
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:09:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24482
4 WP-17458-2025
aside. He has further submitted that the impugned order appears to have been

passed in a slipshod manner and, if allowed to stand, it will amount to a failure of
justice. Therefore, he prays to allow this petition, relying on the judgment of the
Coordinate Bench in W.P. No. 21819/2015 dated 28.03.2017, specifically
referencing the last two paragraphs of the said judgment. He has also referred to
Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, submitting that the impugned order requires
interference as it is untenable in the eyes of law.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State, as well as the
learned counsel for the private respondents, has strongly opposed the same by
submitting that the authority has rightly exercised its power by referring to Section
32 of the Adhiniyam. He has further submitted that respondent no. 2 has the power
to suo motu exercise and initiate the enquiry. Looking into the grievance involved
in the present matter, it cannot be said that the respondent authority has
transgressed its limit in passing such an order or has failed to understand the order
passed by this Hon'ble High Court in review application. He further submitted that
while disposing of the review petition, the learned Single Judge has clarified the
order dated 29.04.2024 passed in W.P. No. 11458/2024 by directing that in place
of "Section 64(2)(V)" it be read as "Section 32," and the word 'Election Petition'
be replaced by the word "dispute." Consequently, there is a wide scope for the
authority to consider the cases of both the petitioners and the respondents under
the provisions of Section 32. Therefore, the authority rightly exercised its
jurisdiction under Section 32 by initiating suo motu proceedings.
7. Counsel for the private respondents, in support of his contentions,
placed reliance upon the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court
in W.P. No.11109/2021 dated 01.11.2022 more particularly by referring to para -
10 of the judgment. He further relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:09:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24482
5 WP-17458-2025
No.23026/2026 dated 03.07.2026 with particular reference to paragraph 8, to

contend that the impugned order suffers from no illegality or
infirmity. Moreover, referring to the reply filed by the private respondents,
learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy
available under Section 40 of the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran
Adhiniyam, 1973. He, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition on
the ground of the availability of such an alternative remedy as well.
8. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and perused the
record. The petitioner has primarily challenged the impugned order on the ground
that respondent No.2 failed to follow the mandatory procedure prior to initiating
proceedings under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam. It is also relevant to refer to the
order passed in the review application, which explicitly references Section 32 and
the underlying dispute. A bare reading of the tenor of the impugned order clearly
indicates that while exercising powers under Section 32(3) of the Adhiniyam, and
upon a holistic consideration of Section 32(1) thereof, proceedings are required to
be initiated regarding the subject matter.
9. The counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.21819/2015 relies upon the
judgment dated 28.03.2017, the relevant paragraphs of which are reproduced
below:-
"In the case at hand, evidently, the Assistant Registrar was dwelling on an
application purportedly under sub-section (2) of Section 32 and though the
impugned order records that application has been signed by 121 members,
however, no affidavit, as required under sub-section (2) in support of the
application is shown to have been filed by these 121 members as would entail
the tenability of the application. Even respondent No.4 fail to commend at any
cogent material to establish that the application filed by him accompanied
affidavits of 121 signatories.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:09:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24482
6 WP-17458-2025
In view whereof, the impugned order cannot be given the stamp of approval.

Consequently, while setting aside the impugned order, the matter is remitted to
the Assistant Registrar to take on record the information sent under Section 27
of Adhiniyam, 1973.
Petition is disposed of finally in above terms. No costs."
10. The counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment dated
03.07.2026, passed in W.P. No.23026/2026, wherein paragraph - 8 of the order is
relevant which reads as under :-
8. At this stage, paras 7 and 8 of the judgment passed in Swakshtagrahi
Sangh (supra) are reproduced hereunder below:

7. The Division Bench of this court in the matter of Prabhat Vs.
Barkatulla University, has held that a writ petition for
enforcement of the rights of its members, as distinguished from
the rights of the Association as a body, can be filed by the
Association acting through its office bearers or members,
whether the Association is registered or unregistered,
incorporated or not, only when the Association can satisfy the
Court that if an adverse decision is given in that petition, all the
members of that Association or “Body of Individuals” will be
bound by the decision. It has also been held that if the same
principle is not followed, immediately after adverse decision,
any other members of the said Association may come before
the Court in an independent writ petition saying that he has not
been heard and he had not authorized such Association or office
bearer or member to represent him in the litigation.
8. Therefore, to bind the members by the decision in a litigation
brought before the Court on behalf of such members by any
Association, it is necessary - 5 - that such Association must
clearly resolve that who authorized the Association to file such
litigation. The resolution should also mention that the members
will abide any decision rendered in such litigation. In the
present case, a perusal of the resolution clearly shows that the
same does not fulfill the stipulated requirement. Hence, the
learned Single Judge has not committed any error while
rejecting the writ petition.

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC reads as under:-

The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on
being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a
time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:09:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24482
7 WP-17458-2025
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is
returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on
being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper
within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be
barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule
9:
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of
the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not
be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is
satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an
exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying
the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time
fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would
cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.


11. Paragraph 10 of the order dated 01.11.2022 passed in W.P. No.
11109/2021, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, is reproduced
herewith:-
10. However, the plain reading of Section 32 does not indicate so. It only
indicates that the Registrar on his own motion or on an application may
initiate an enquiry. Therefore, the suo motu power granted to the Registrar
is bereft of any finding or material or any other action prior to exercising of
powers under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, 1973. It is apt to indicate that
in various enactments, the powers are vested only after certain material is
collected or on the satisfaction of the concerned authority that action could
be initiated. However, so far as Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 is
concerned, no such requirement is postulated. The requirement of having
any material or any other reason before initiation of the proceedings is
absent under Section 32. Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 only postulates
a suo motu power to the Registrar. This is probably intended in order to
hold an enquiry with regard to the constitution, working and financial
conditions of a Society. Ostensibly, the same may have been initiated in
view of the fact that an F.I.R. has only been lodged against the petitioner
Society. Therefore, the Registrar may have thought it appropriate to initiate
such an enquiry. Therefore, we find that the collection of any material is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:09:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24482
8 WP-17458-2025
not necessary before any enquiry is initiated.

12. For ready reference, Section 32 as well as Section 40 of the Madhya
Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (in short, 'the Adhiniyam') are
also required to be reproduced, 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 or by a
person authorised by him, by order in writing, hold an enquiry into the
constitution, working and financial conditions of a society.
(2) An enquiry of the nature referred to in sub-section 91) shall be held on the
application [together with an affidavit in support of its contents]-
(a) a majority of the members of the governing body of the society; or
(b) not less than one-third of the total number of members of the society.
(3) The registrar or the person authorised by him under sub-section (1) shall for
the purpose of an enquiry under this section have the following powers, namely
:-
(a) he shall at all times have free access to the books, accounts, documents,
securities, cash and other properties belonging to, or in the custody of the
society and may summon any person in possession, or responsible for the
custody of any such books, accounts, documents, securities, cash or other
properties to produce the same, if they relate to the head office of the society at
any place at the head-quarter thereof and if they relate to any branch of the
society, at any place in the town wherein such branch thereof is located or in his
own office;
(b) he may summon any person whom he has reason to believe has knowledge
of any of the affairs of the society to appear before him at any place at the head-
guarters of the society or the society or any branch thereof or in his own office
and may examine such person on oath; and
(c) (i) he may nowvithstanding any regulation or byelaw specifying the period
of notice for a generally meeting of the society, require the officers of society to
call a general meeting of the society at such time at the head office of the
society or at any place at the head quarter of the society and do determine such
matters as may be directed by him and where the officers of the society refuse
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:09:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24482
9 WP-17458-2025
or fail to call such a meeting, he shall have power to call it himself.

(ii) any meeting called under sub-clause (1) shall have all the powers of a
general meeting called under the regulations or byelaws of the society and its
proceedings shall be regulated by such byelaws.
[(4) When an enquiry is made under this section the Registrar shall
communicate the result of the euquiry to the society and may issue appropriate
directions to the society, which shall be binding on all parties concerned.]
40. Appeal - (1) [ An appeal shall lie -
(a) if the order is made by the Registrar appointed under sub-section (1) of
Section 4 either in original case or in appeal under clause (b) to the State
Government.
(b) if the order is made by the sub-ordinate officers appointed under sub-section
(2) of Section 4 or any other person to the Registrar appointed under sub-section
(1) of Section 4.]
(2) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within two months from the
date of communication of the order:
Provided that the appellate authority may admit an appeal after the expiry of
such period if the appellant satisfied the appellant authority that he had
sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period.
13. In view of the above facts and circumstances and considering the
earlier orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in the writ petition as well as the
review petition, I am of the opinion that the order passed by respondent No. 2 is
entirely in consonance with the law. Respondent No. 2 possesses the requisite
power to initiate a suo motu inquiry in the matter. Therefore, the contentions
raised by the petitioner that necessary requirement under the law is required to be
followed, is found misconceived. Moreover, during the course of the enquiry, the
petitioner will have an adequate opportunity to present his case in an appropriate
manner by contesting all relevant aspects of the matter. Therefore, it cannot be
said that any prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. Moreover, the contentions
raised by the respondents regarding the availability of an alternative efficacious
remedy under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam sounded very attractive and appears
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:09:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24482
10 WP-17458-2025
highly persuasive. However, since this matter has been pending before this Court

for more than one and a half years, I am of the view that the petition lacks merit
even when evaluated on its merits. No case has been made out for this Court to
exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction, as no arbitrariness, illegality, impropriety,
or violation of the principles of natural justice is found in the action taken by
respondent No.2/authority. Therefore, no interference is called for under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
pn

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:09:15