1 2025:CGHC:48966 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5077 of 2025 1 - Shri Shyam Mitra Mandal Society, Office At Mission Road, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) Through The Present President Manoj Agrawal S/o Mohan Lal Agrawal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Patharripara, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.) Pin- 495677 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Trade And Industries, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Pin 492101 2 - Registrar Firms And Societies Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh, Pin- 4792101 3 - Assistant Registrar Firms And Societies Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Pin- 495001 ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Curtis Collins, Advocate For State : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 24/09/2025 1. With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally. 2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following relief:- 10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 3 commit the representation filed by the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition 2 may also please be granted to the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 29.07.2025, an order passed by the Assistant Registrar, declared that the compliance done by the petitioner society is in admissible and the obligation under Section 27 of the Chhattisgarh Society Registration Act, 1973 done by the petitioner society is unacceptable and the same order was passed against the contesting member i.e. Gopal Agrawal. He further submits that on 04.08.2025, the Assistant Registrar without any jurisdiction has passed the order stating “partial modification” and directed the petitioner and the contesting member to comply with the provision of Section 27 of the Chhattisgarh Society Registration Act “it is well settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later state. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. Therefore the petitioner has filed representation/application dated 11.09.2025 before the Additional Registrar before the respondent No. 3 and prays for a direction to decide the same. 4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that in view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner seeking direction to respondent-authorities to consider the pending representation he is having no objection to the limited prayer and pending representation/application dated 11.09.2025 will be considered in accordance with law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 3 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case instead of keeping this petition pending, I find it appropriate to dispose of the same at this stage directing the respondent No. 3 to consider/decide the representation/application of the petitioner dated 11.09.2025 in accordance with law/ rules/ regulations as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti