JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. I.A. No.11656 of 2025 1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 22 days in preferring the instant appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Considering the sufficient cause as has been referred in the interlocutory application, the delay of 22 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Accordingly, I.A. No.11656 of 2025 stands allowed. L.P.A. No.648 of 2025 Prayer 5. The instant appeal under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 25.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.6620 of 2024, by which, the learned writ court has refused to interfere with the order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the respondent no.3 by dismissing the writ petition, however, directing the respondent 3. to refer the election dispute so raised by the petitioner to the Principal Court of original civil jurisdiction, where the petitioner’s society is situated. Factual Matrix 6. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the memo of appeal, required to be enumerated, which read as under: - 7. It is the case of the appellant-writ petitioner that the Society was originally registered in State of Bihar in the year 1973 and after coming into existence of Jharkhand State, it has been re-registered on the same name and same by-laws of the Society registered in Bihar along with the same executive body and members from the office of Respondent no.3. The writ petitioner Society, after its registration, has elected its executive body on November, 2007 for a term of 5 years as per by-laws, i.e., up to November 2012. The same executive body has continued for a further term of 5 years, i.e., Nov. 2012 to Nov. 2017 unanimously. The death of certain office bearer during this term has necessitated the replacement which has been done accordingly as per by-laws from the existing members of the Society, that too unanimously. 8. The same executive body has continued for a further term of 5 years, i.e., Nov. 2012 to Nov. 2017 unanimously. The death of certain office bearer during this term has necessitated the replacement which has been done accordingly as per by-laws from the existing members of the Society, that too unanimously. 8. It is the further case that the petitioner-Society is engaged in running Schools in the name of Indian School of Learning and has branches spread in far flung areas and for managing the School effectively and handling the day to day affairs of the School, the executive body of the Society has established local managing committee for such Schools and Bank Accounts were handed by such committee as per instruction and guidance of the Executive body. 9. During the intervening period the Society has to close one of its schools running in the premises of Indian School of Mines Dhanbad after expiry of the lease period. This School branch has, during its running has got furniture, Books and other School items and the school branch's Bank Account has deposit of about Rs.75 lakhs and after closer of the branch all these were to be handed over to the Executive body of the Society, but, the Secretary of the local Managing Committee of the School, who was also the Vice President of the Society Executive body, was not interested in doing so, has assembled a meeting, dated 20/03/2016, meeting of group of the local persons including the Respondent no.6 and in connivance with another Executive members of the Society M.M. Arora Elected a new Executive body of the Society, and applied for registration of this body and change in office address before the Respondent no.3 claiming that the petitioner Society is not working after registration since, 2007-2008. 10. The tracking report printed out from the Web site of Application Tracking for Society firm registration clearly shows how the concerned respondent has allowed the amendment of the office address and registration of Executive body elected on 20/3/2016. This report shows that no objection of the existing members who have been removed in the Executive body was required but respondents have not issued notice to such members nor any notice to its registered office of the society was send nor notice to the general public was published in the Newspapers. This report shows that no objection of the existing members who have been removed in the Executive body was required but respondents have not issued notice to such members nor any notice to its registered office of the society was send nor notice to the general public was published in the Newspapers. The concerned respondents have, for some extraneous consideration, misused their official power in the garb of writ petition filed in this Court. 11. Thereafter, when the petitioner got information of the same, immediately made a complaint before the office of the Respondent no.3 on 14/06/2016 along with all the relevant documents praying for cancellation of amendment in the Societies registered on 06/06/2016. 12. The respondent no.3 issued letter no.738 dated 11/07/2016 requesting the respondent no.4 to conduct an enquiry on the complaint made by the writ petitioner. 13. The enquiry conducted by the officials of Respondent no.4 clearly mentioned that private Respondent no.6 has sworn false Affidavits for obtaining the amendment dated 06/06/2016 and he was never found to be a member of Academic Quest Society, since 2007 to 2016. 14. In spite of having definite finding in the enquiry report regarding the fraud and fabrication of false documents through false Affidavit for obtaining the amendment dated 06/06/2016 in members list and Office address, no action has been taken neither the amendment was cancelled nor any proceeding or action initiated against the persons including Respondent no.6 involved in this fraudulent acts and creating false documents by the Respondent no.3 purposely in connivance with the respondent no.6. 15. Thereafter, the Respondent no.6 has preferred a writ petition being W.P. C. No. 1917/2017 for concluding the enquiry pending against the petitioner which has been disposed of by the terms of the order dated 15/11/2019 in which concerned respondents has been directed to conclude the enquiry. 16. The concerned respondent after conclusion of the enquiry against the respondent no.6 in which it has been clearly stated regarding the fraudulent acts and fabrication of false documents and the stipulation that though the General Body meeting or Election was not held only Executive body meeting were held and office bearers were nominated unanimously. 16. The concerned respondent after conclusion of the enquiry against the respondent no.6 in which it has been clearly stated regarding the fraudulent acts and fabrication of false documents and the stipulation that though the General Body meeting or Election was not held only Executive body meeting were held and office bearers were nominated unanimously. The petitioner has provided all the documents regarding the Society to be enquiry committee and has informed to the Enquiry officer as well as to the office of the concerned respondent that Society has got very limited numbers of members and all members are part of its Executive body. But the concerned respondents have not taken any action and not decided the complaint of the petitioner as they were fully aware that they have to cancel the amendment dated 06/06/2016 under the provisions of section 20 and 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. 17. The writ petitioner continuously approached and appeared before the concerned respondents for hearing of his complaint and submitted all the relevant documents. 18. Lastly, on 20/06/2024 an order was passed which has been communicated vide letter no. 916 dated 14/08/24 in which amendments allowed on the basis of the false and fabricated documents has not been cancelled and respondents have granted sanctity to the Executive body constituted in violation of the registered by-laws that too by the non-members of the Society without issuing any notice to the Existing members whose names were registered at the time of the registration of Society in the year 2007-08 without any kind of notice served to its registered office. 19. The respondent no.3 has patronized and legalized the illegal actions of the respondent no.6 and while passing the above order totally ignored the registered by-laws of the Society, the findings of enquiry report, and documents showing continues activities of the Society since 2007-08 to till date and ignoring the fact that non- members of the Society have been made office bearers by the amendment dated 06/06/2016. The concerned respondent has for some vested reasons has chosen to exercise his Quasi-Judicial power in favour of the persons including respondent no.6 who are found to be involved in furnishing false Affidavit, falsehood, misrepresentation for obtaining the amendment dated 06/06/2016 and rejected the complaint of the petitioner. The concerned respondent has for some vested reasons has chosen to exercise his Quasi-Judicial power in favour of the persons including respondent no.6 who are found to be involved in furnishing false Affidavit, falsehood, misrepresentation for obtaining the amendment dated 06/06/2016 and rejected the complaint of the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid, writ petition being W.P.(C) No.6620 of 2024 was filed, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, hence, the instant appeal. 20. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner has made a complaint regarding internal affairs of the society in question, the writ petitioner herein, by alleging the several irregularities primarily pertaining to continuation of the members without election after death of the duly elected member of the Society. It has also been complained that the respondent no.6 herein claiming himself to be the secretary of the Society but the others who have not been selected as per the system carved out in the by-laws of the society, have taken over the entire administrative and Managerial control of the society. 21. It appears from the material available on record, particularly, Annexure-8, one writ petition was filed by the Society through its Secretary, Kamleshwar Prasad Singh, being W.P.(C) No.1917 of 2017 claiming therein a direction upon the respondents not to interfere in the day-to-day affairs of the petitioner’s Society and to conclude the enquiry which is pending against the Society. 22. The said writ petition was disposed of on 15.05.2019 with a direction to the Inspector General, Registration, Govt. of Jharkhand to complete the said enquiry within the period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 23. The Inspector General, Registration has passed an order on 20.06.2024 by taking into consideration the rival submission of the party aggrieved and the writ petitioner also, who has claimed himself to be the Secretary of the Society. The said enquiry was concluded with the following orders, as has been referred in the order dated 20.06.2024, for ready reference, the relevant part of the order is being referred as under: - 24. The said order has been challenged by the present writ petitioner in writ petition being W.P.(C) No.6620 of 2024, claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Society. 25. The said order has been challenged by the present writ petitioner in writ petition being W.P.(C) No.6620 of 2024, claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Society. 25. The respondent no.6, namely, Kamleshwar Prasad Singh, the party through whom, the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1917 of 2017 was filed, as would be evident from Annexure-8 has also been noticed and in pursuant thereto, he has appeared and contested the case by taking the plea that the body, which is being represented by him in the capacity of Secretary, is the genuinely elected body. 26. This Court, on consideration of the rival submissions of the parties and particularly considering the nature of dispute in between the two faction of the Society, has refused to interfere with the impugned decision by directing the respondent no.3 to refer the election dispute so raised by the writ petitioner to the Principal Court of original civil jurisdiction where the petitioner-society is situated, which is the subject matter of the present appeal. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant 27. Mr. Mahavir Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned judgment: (i) It has been contended that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the claim which was made by the Kamleshwar Prasad Singh claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Society who has got such status on the basis of the fraud committed basically by submitting the fraudulent document before the concerned authority. The aforesaid aspect of the matter ought to have been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge in order to go into the roots of the issue but having not done so, the proper appreciation of the factual aspect has not been given by the learned Single Judge and as such, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law. (ii) It has further been contended that the said Kamleshwar Prasad Singh, respondent no.6 in the instant appeal, although was the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1917 of 2017, but in the said writ petition, the order was passed in absentia of the present petitioner due to the vested reason and unilaterally, the said order was passed by the learned Single Judge. (iii) It has been submitted that if the Secretary of the Society, namely, Jitendra Kumar Singh would have been impleaded as party, then all the facts would have been brought to the notice of this Court and in such circumstances, there would not have been any order directing the Inspector General, Registration to conduct the enquiry and conclude it. 28. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment impugned, therefore, needs interference. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-State 29. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has taken the following grounds in defending the impugned judgment: - (i) Even if the argument of the appellant, will be taken into consideration in entirety, then, the said argument itself clarifies that it is a case of dispute for the purpose of claiming the command upon the Society, since, one Kamleshwar Prasad Singh, respondent no.6 to the writ petition is claiming to be the genuinely elected Secretary and as such, having full command and control over the Society. While on the other, the appellant herein is also claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Society and as such, the learned Single Judge, on consideration of the aforesaid disputed question of fact regarding the rival claim of election as Secretary said to be genuine claim by both the parties, is only to be adjudicated by the competent court of civil jurisdiction and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects of the matter and putting reliance upon the various provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 if has refused to interfere with the impugned Judgment passed by the Inspector General, Registration, the same cannot be said suffer from an error. (iii) It has been contended so far as the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the present appellant had not been impleaded as party in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1917 of 2017, even accepting the same, no prejudice will be said to be caused, since, the Inspector General, Registration has already noticed the present petitioner and in pursuant thereto, he has appeared and defended his case. The Inspector General, Registration, after taking into consideration the rival submission of the parties including the writ petitioner of W.P.(C) No.1917 of 2017, as also, the claim which has been raised by the writ petitioner/appellant herein, has considered all aspects of the matter and thereafter, certain direction has been given, but, the said direction has not accepted by the present writ petitioner and that is the reason, he has challenged the said order by filing the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.6620 of 2024. (iv) It has been contended that if the Inspector General, Registration has initiated the proceeding on the basis of the complaint made by the present appellant and if certain directions have been given, there was no need, as has been shown by the writ petitioner to challenge the said order claiming himself to be the party aggrieved. 30. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, particularly, on the ground that two persons were claiming to have hold upon the Society, the same being the dispute, private in nature, therefore, the learned Single Judge if on consideration of the aforesaid fact, has dismissed the writ petition by directing the respondent no.3 to refer the dispute for its adjudication before the competent court of civil jurisdiction, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. Analysis 31. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the averment made in the memo of appeal as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. 32. The issue which requires consideration in the present appeal is that: “as to whether considering the factual aspect as involved in the present case, in a case of dispute in between the two factions claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Society, the said disputed can be adjudicated by the learned writ court.” 33. This Court, in order to consider the aforesaid issue, deems it fit and proper to refer some undisputed fact, i.e., prior to filing of the writ petition on behalf of the appellant, claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Society running in the name of Academic Quest being W.P.(C) No.6620 of 2024. 34. One another writ petition was preferred by one Kamleshwar Prasad Singh claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Society, i.e., the Academic Quest, being W.P.(C) No.1917 of 2017. 35. 34. One another writ petition was preferred by one Kamleshwar Prasad Singh claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Society, i.e., the Academic Quest, being W.P.(C) No.1917 of 2017. 35. The dispute raised in the said writ petition was that prohibitory order has been sought for prohibiting the respondents not to interfere with the proceedings of day-to-day affairs of the petitioner/Society and to conclude the inquiry, against the petitioner which is pending before the respondent-authority. The writ petition was disposed of directing the I.G Registration, Jharkhand, Ranchi, respondent no.3, to conclude the enquiry within the period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 36. The enquiry was concluded and final decision was taken in terms of the direction passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1917 of 2017 as on 20.06.2024(Annexure-9) to the paper book. 37. The Inspector General Registration, Government of Jharkhand has also issued notice to the petitioner, namely, Jitendra Kumar Singh, who has filed the writ petition, claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Society. 38. Due appearance was made and the Inspector General Registration has considered the same and enquiry was conducted as available at Annexure-7 and based upon that enquiry and on consideration of the complaint and defence, the directions was passed as recorded under Annexure-8 to the writ petition passed by the Inspector General Registration. 39. It has been found by the Inspector General Registration that there is internal dispute amongst the members, reason behind is that, there was no timely election and no annual report. The Society is also running some of the schools. 40. The Inspector General Registration has found the charge of not running the Society as per law, found to be proved. 41. The Inspector General Registration, based upon the aforesaid consideration, while disposing of the complaint, has passed the following directions, i.e., (i) All the reports from the date of constitution of the Society till date are to be submitted through online portal. (ii) The Society since has not followed the statutory provision in time and as such, a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been inflicted as a penalty. (ii) The Society since has not followed the statutory provision in time and as such, a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been inflicted as a penalty. (iii) The dispute pertaining to election is not to be adjudicated by the Inspector General, Registration, rather, the same is to be decided by the competent court of civil jurisdiction and as such, the parties are at liberty to move before the competent court of civil jurisdiction. (iv) The FIR which was instituted being Case No.374/2016 on behest of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in the light of letter no.620/go dated 12.05.2017 will be considered after the final decision of competent court of civil jurisdiction. (v) The Society has been directed to comply with the direction as contained in direction no.( ) and ( ) of the Inspector General ? ? Registration, failing which, steps will be taken for cancellation of the registration of the Society. (vi) In case of any future complaint, if has been reported to the Inspector General Registration showing the functioning of the Society contrary to the statutory provision, then, the registration of the Society will be cancelled. (vii) The strict caution has been given to the Society to ensure compliance of the statutory provision in functioning of the Society in future. 42. The Society, being represented by the present writ petitioner, namely, Jitendra Kumar Singh considering himself to be the party aggrieved with the said order, has preferred writ petition being W.P.(C) No.6620 of 2024, which is the subject matter of the present appeal, questioning the said order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the Inspector General Registration, respondent no.3 herein, said to be passed without taking into consideration the factual aspect and solely relied upon the contention raised on behalf of the body, which has illegally been constituted on 06.06.2016. 43. The Writ Court has considered the rival submission of the parties, including the respondent no.6, who was the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1917 of 2017. 44. 43. The Writ Court has considered the rival submission of the parties, including the respondent no.6, who was the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1917 of 2017. 44. Learned Writ Court has relied upon the provision as contained under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1860’) for the purpose of showing the power conferred to the Inspector General Registration to cancel the registration of any Society registered under the Act, 1860 after making due enquiry regarding the facts that its office has ceased to be in the State of Bihar by reason of the reorganization of States or change of the office from the State of Bihar by reason of the reorganization of States or change of the office from the State of Bihar to another State, or whose activities are subversive to the objects of the Society, meaning thereby, the order passed by the Inspector General Registration since was challenged and as such, the learned Writ Court has thought it proper first to consider the conferment of power which has been conferred under the provision of Section 23 of the Act, 1860 without proceeding further. 45. The learned Writ Court has further referred the provision of Rule 12 Bihar (now Jharkhand) Societies Registration Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1965’) for the purpose of showing the scope of enquiry which is to be conducted by the Inspector General Registration and if the Inspector General Registration has come to the conclusion with the activities if found to be subversive to the object, it is well available to the Inspector General Registration to initiate the proceeding to cancel such registration. 46. The learned Writ Court has also referred the provision of Section 13 of the Act, 1860 which confers power of dissolution of Societies and adjustment of their affairs. 47. The learned Writ Court, therefore, has come out with the conclusive finding based upon the consideration of the provision, as available under Sections 13 and 23 of the Act, 1860 and Rule 12 of the Rules, 1965 for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the Inspector General Registration has got competency to look into the issues in order to see the functioning of the society not to allow to function subversive to the object of the Society. 48. 48. The ground which has been raised on behalf of the learned counsel, who is representing the present appellant, the Secretary of the Society that the body which is being run by him in the capacity of the Secretary of the Society is the genuinely elected body and the body which is being claimed to be run by Kamleshwar Prasad Singh, the respondent no.6 is not the genuine body said to be elected genuinely by following the rules. 49. The Inspector General Registration has made a specific observation in the order dated 20.06.2024 that the Inspector General Registration is only competent to look into the issue of mismanagement or alleged irregularities which is alleged to be committed in the Society and for that, the Inspector General Registration while considering the inquiry report, the complaint and the defence has found the irregularities available in the Society and that is the reason, certain directions have been passed so that the Society may run as per law for the purpose of achieving its object. 50. The Inspector General Registration has further commanded that in case of non-observance of the statutory provision action will be taken for cancellation of registration of Society. 51. The writ petitioner, namely, Jitendra Prasad Singh representing the Society has approached to this Court challenging the said order dated 20.06.2024, in entirety. 52. The question of genuine elected body is the core of the issue before the learned Writ Court. 53. The learned Writ Court, in the aforesaid premise, taking into consideration the rival claim of two parties, i.e., (i) Jitendra Kumar Singh claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Society and another, Kamleshwar Prasad Singh, the respondent no.6, claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Society and in that view of the matter, the learned Writ Court has come to the conclusive finding that the issue of genuinely elected body cannot be considered under the Writ jurisdiction and what has been observed by the Inspector General Registration that such dispute can only be adjudicated by the Principal Court of original civil jurisdiction. 54. 54. We are conscious that the Writ proceeding is the summary proceeding and the adjudication can be made under the Writ jurisdiction in a case of undisputed fact by issuance of either Writ of Mandamus or even by showing interference by the decision taken by the Administrative Authority by issuance of Writ of Certiorari and in addition thereto, the Writ of Prohibition, Writ of Quo Warranto or Writ of Habeas Corpus. 55. However, it is not a case where the question is to be considered by issuance of either the Writ of Prohibition or Writ of Quo Warranto or Writ of Habeas Corpus, rather, it is the case of issuance of Writ of Mandamus with the issuance of Writ of Certiorari. 56. The learned Writ Court, according to our considered view, is correct in taking the view that when two rival factions are claiming to be the genuinely elected Secretary then, in such a disputed question of fact where the requirement is to lead evidence on behalf of the rival parties, is not to be adjudicated in the summary proceeding like the Writ jurisdiction in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 57. The same view has been taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nagri Pracharini Sabha & Anr. Vrs. Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi & Ors., 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 36 particularly at paragraphs-2 and 5, wherein, it has been held as under: “2. A litigant having a grievance of a civil nature has, independently of any statute, a right to institute a suit in the civil court unless its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. The position is well settled that exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil court is not be readily inferred and such exclusion must be either express or implied. 5. We pointed out to Mr. Mukhoty that the relief against election of office bearers must have become infructuous with the passage of time as the election is annual. It is for the trial court now to dispose of the suit taking into consideration the changes in the situations that may be brought before it. We dismiss the appeal and direct the trial court to expedite the disposal of the suit. No costs.” 58. It is for the trial court now to dispose of the suit taking into consideration the changes in the situations that may be brought before it. We dismiss the appeal and direct the trial court to expedite the disposal of the suit. No costs.” 58. This Court, considering the factual aspect as referred hereinabove and taking into consideration the finding so recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, is of the view that impugned judgment passed by the learned Writ Court requires no interference. 59. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed. 60. In consequent to dismissal of this appeal, pending Interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.