Administrative inquiry orders lacking specific allegations and defined timeframes are liable to be quashed for vagueness.

Petitioner No. 1 is a society registered under the Chhattisgarh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, which has operated Petitioner No. 2 (DP Vipra College) since 1971

Following a complaint by Respondents 4 and 5 alleging financial irregularities and employment disputes—specifically the non-payment of dues to a professor and the illegal removal of a Grade-III employee—the Registrar (Respondent No. 2) issued an order on 23.02.2026

This order directed an inquiry into the "functioning, formation and financial condition" of the institution under Section 32(1) of the 1973 Act

Subsequently, a notice dated 27.02.2026 was issued requiring the production of 27 categories of documents, including bank statements for the "entire period" of the college's operation

The petitioners challenged the order and notice as vague and jurisdictionally flawed

Whether the impugned order for inquiry and the subsequent notice for production of documents were legally sustainable in light of allegations regarding their vagueness and lack of specificity.

The Court considered Sections 27, 28, and 32 of the Chhattisgarh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, which empower the Registrar to demand information and conduct inquiries into the affairs of a registered society

It applied the administrative law principle that orders initiating inquiries must be specific and reasoned to satisfy the requirements of natural justice and enable an effective response from the aggrieved party

The Court observed that both the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) and the list of demanded documents (Annexure-P/2) were "completely vague and unspecific"

The Court noted that the order failed to identify any particular issue of mismanagement or specify a relevant time period for the alleged irregularities

Furthermore, the Court found the demand for bank statements dating back to 1971 to be unjustified, as the underlying complaint contained no allegations of financial misconduct spanning that entire duration

The Court reasoned that the lack of specificity made it impossible to determine what facts or illegalities were actually being enquired into, thereby hindering a fair adjudication process

The Court granted Respondent No. 2 the liberty to pass a fresh, reasoned, and speaking order that clearly specifies the points of inquiry, the alleged acts of irregularity, and the relevant time periods involved

The petition was disposed of accordingly