1 2025:CGHC:611 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 106 of 2012 1. Chhattisgarh Netra Chikitsa Samiti, A Society registered under Chhattisgarh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, Office at - Telibandha Chowk, Raipur (CG): Represented by its: Secretary, Smt. Ranjana Mehra. 2. Smt. Ranjana Mehra, Aged about-58 years, Wd/o Late Shri Vijay Mehra, Member of Chhattisgarh Netra Chikitsa Samiti, Telibandha Chowk, Raipur (CG) ... Petitioners versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Department Industries, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) of Commerce D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Joint Secretary, Department Industries, of Commerce & D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 3. The Registrar, Firm & Societies, Anupam Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (CG) 4. The Collector, Raipur (CG) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Samantray, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sunil P. Kale, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06.01.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- the order dated 14.12.2011 (Annexure P/1) 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to hand over the management to the Petitioner's Society. 10.3 Any other order/orders, direction/directions or relief (s) thought just and fit in the circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on allegations of financial irregularities an Administrator was appointed in accordance with the provisions of Section 33(1)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short ‘the Adhiniyam, 1973’) for a period of one year. He would submit that an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner/ Committee on 28.3.2012, which is still operative. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the Administrator was appointed till further orders. He would further submit that since the stay is still operating in favour of the petitioner/ Committee, the petition has become infructuous by the efflux of time. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. Section 33 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 deals with Supersession of the governing body: “Section 33(c) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 states that the State Government may, by order in writing, remove the governing body and appoint a person or persons to manage the affairs of the society for a specified period not exceeding two years in the first instance.” 3 6. Sub-section (3) of Section 33 of the Act, 1973 states that the State Government, in its discretion, may extend that period from time to time, but it shall not exceed three years in aggregate. The impugned order was passed by the State Government on 14.12.2011 and according to the proviso appended to Section 33(3) of Act, 1973, the period of three years has already elapsed. Therefore, the impugned order has lost its efficacy and as a result, this petition has become infructuous. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi