Registrar directed to decide representation within 30 days without adjudicating its merits.

The petitioner, Treasurer of the District Chemist and Druggist Association, Janjgir-Champa, challenged a letter dated 14 June 2026 allegedly removing him from the elected post pursuant to a no-confidence motion, and a subsequent letter dated 30 July 2026 directing him to return the Association’s property, funds and documents.

He also submitted a representation dated 27 July 2026 before the Registrar, Firms and Societies, Chhattisgarh, disputing the action taken against him and seeking appropriate intervention.

During the hearing, the petitioner limited his request to a direction requiring the Registrar to consider and decide that representation in accordance with law.

The State raised no objection to such a direction.

Whether the Registrar, Firms and Societies, Chhattisgarh should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 27 July 2026 in accordance with law.

Whether the High Court should adjudicate the validity of the alleged no-confidence motion, the petitioner’s removal as Treasurer, and the consequential communications at this stage.

The Court applied the procedural principle that a competent statutory authority must consider and decide a pending representation in accordance with law within a reasonable, court-prescribed period.

The Court expressly clarified that a direction to consider the representation does not amount to adjudication of the underlying dispute or an expression of opinion on its merits.

Although the petition initially sought quashing of the communications concerning the petitioner’s removal and return of the Association’s property and documents, counsel confined the relief to consideration of the pending representation by the Registrar.

Since the State had no objection, the Court considered it appropriate to direct the Registrar to examine the representation and pass an order in accordance with law.

The Court deliberately refrained from examining the legality of the no-confidence motion, compliance with the Association’s constitution or bylaws, or the petitioner’s removal, thereby preserving those questions for consideration by the competent authority.

The Court expressly stated that it had neither entered into nor considered the merits of any aspect of the dispute.