1 2025:CGHC:59869 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6390 of 2025 1. Ramawatar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Begraj Agrawal Aged About 70 Years R/o A-03, Anupam Nagar, Raipur, C.G. , Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Commerce And Industries Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Registrar Firms And Societies Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. President Modern Medical Institute Society, Having Its Registered Office At- Dhamtari Road, Lalpur, Raipur, Pin Code 492001, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Chairman Enquiry Committee, Modern Medical Institute Society, Having Its Registered Office At- Dhamtari Road, Lalpur, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Pin Code 492001 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Prafulla N Bharat, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Addl. Advocate General SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2025.12.12 17:11:03 +0530 2 SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 09/12/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. To Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, directing to Quash the untenable action of Respondent No. 3 (MMI) in constituting an "Internal Enquiry Committee" (Respondent No. 4) on the strength of the purported Resolutions dated 12.08.2025 (Agenda 6(iv)) and 18.08.2025 (Agenda 7(i)) and subsequent proceedings initiated by the Internal Enquiry Committee, including notices dated 25.10.2025 and 15.11.2025, as wholly without jurisdiction, made in abuse of process, and conducted on a subject-matter pending adjudication before the statutory authority. 10.2 To issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing Respondent No. 03 to quash the purported resolution dated 18.08.2025, insofar as it concerns the present Petitioner, as the said resolution has been issued under the signature and authority "Working Secretary," post which is non-existent and unrecognized under the bye-laws of the Society. Any action, direction, or decision issued by a person holding such an unauthorized and legally invalid position is void ab initio, without jurisdiction, and incapable of imposing any legal obligation or adverse consequence upon the Petitioner. 10.3 To Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or any other writs, declare all actions taken by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 based on the meeting dated 12.08.2025 against the petitioner as nun, void, and non-est, being sub judice before the Registrar and violative 10.4.To pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the 3 facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submits that Modern Medical Institute Society (for short ‘the society’) is a society registered under Chhattisgarh Societies Registration Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act of 1973’). It has its own bye-laws and rules which govern its functioning and regulate rights and obligations of its members. In the elections held on 27.3.2024, Virendra Goel was elected as President of the society and petitioner was elected as Secretary on 15.4.2024. Despite arbitrary functioning of the President of the society, petitioner continued to act and discharge his duties as Secretary with due diligence. According to consistent directives of Chairman/President, two notices were issued by petitioner in the capacity of Secretary on 2.8.2025 for convening meeting of executive committee on 12.8.2025 and of General Body on 18.8.2025. Meeting pursuant to notice dated 2.8.2025 was adjourned vide notice dated 11.8.2025. Respondent No.2 had appointed Working Secretary and convened meeting on 12.8.2025, passed the resolution, Annexure P-1, wherein it is mentioned that President informed the Members that invoking powers vested upon him by the General Meeting Resolution dated 27.3.2024, had decided to remove the petitioner from the post of Secretary with immediate effect and to appoint one Ravi Agrawal as 4 new working Secretary. This action on the part of President is per se illegal and arbitrary. He submits that in the scheme of bye-laws or the Act of 1973 there is no provision to appoint Working Secretary and therefore, resolution so far as it relates to removal of petitioner from the post of Secretary and appointing working Secretary is not sustainable. He also contended that notice to appear before the Inquiry Committee is also bad in law. 3. Learned counsel for respondent State raises an objection with regard to maintainability of writ petition on the ground that grievance of petitioner is against the society registered under the Act of 1973, which cannot be said to be State or its instrumentality as envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, writ petition will not lie. Referring to Section 22 of the Act of 1973, he submits that under the scheme of the Act of 1973 if any person is aggrieved with the action of the society then he remedy for that person is to file suit against the society and therefore, the petitioner is having efficacious alternate remedy available under the Act of 1973 of filing suit. For this reason also, writ petition is not maintainable. He next contended that Annexure P-13 placed on record by petitioner is the order sheet dated 13.10.2025 recorded in the proceeding pending before the Registrar, Firms and Societies, Chhattisgarh and 5 therefore, petitioner will not be permitted to file parallel proceedings for same cause of action. 4. At this stage learned Senior Counsel for petitioner would submit that it is not in dispute that petitioner has filed proceeding before the Registrar, Firms and Societies, however, the Registrar has recorded in order sheet, Annexure P-13, that no proceeding will lie against the resolution as it is not an order of any authority. 5. When posed question to learned Senior Counsel for petitioner with respect to pendency of proceedings before the Registrar, Firms and Societies, he fairly submits that according to his instruction, the proceeding is still pending consideration and on 4.11.2025 petitioner sought adjournment and now the case is fixed in the month of January 2026. 6. Considered submissions of learned counsel for respective parties. 7. Indisputably, grievance of petitioner is against the action taken by respondent No.3-President of the society, which is registered under the Act of 1973. The society has its own bye-laws, its entire functioning is being carried out on the basis of those by-laws and management of the society is looked after by the elected office bearers of the society. There is no delegate or nominee of the State or any statutory authority participating in day-to-day activities of the society. 6 Hence, respondent No.3, a Society registered under the Act of 1973, cannot be treated as the ‘State’ or its instrumentality within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and others, (2002) 5 SCC 111, while dealing with issue whether Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) to an ‘authority’ so as to fall within the meaning of expression ‘other authorities’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, observed that:- “99…..It has no statutory flavour- neither it owes its birth to a statute nor is there any other statute conferring it with such powers as would enable it being branded an authority. The indicia of power is absent. It does not discharge such functions as are governmental or closely associated therewith or being fundamental to the life of the people.” 9. Alternate remedy of filing suit against societies by aggrieved person is provided under Section 22 of the Act of 1973. 10. That apart, Section 32 of the Act of 1973 also provides for inquiry and settlement of dispute. From Annexure P-13 and submission of learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, it is clear 7 that petitioner has already invoke provision under Section 32 of the Act of 1973 and filed the proceeding before the Registrar, which is pending consideration, as is reflecting from Annexure P-13, and according to submission of learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, the matter is fixed for hearing before the Registrar in the month of January 2026. 11. Thus, considering the provisions under the Act of 1973 as also the proceeding pending before the Registrar vide Annexure P-13, in the opinion of this Court, writ petition is not maintainable. 12. For the forgoing, writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 13. Registry is directed to return original certified copies of documents filed along with writ petition after retaining photocopy of the same. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-