Bhale Ram Ranga and Others vs State of Haryana and Others

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—The petitioners have filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 15.7.2013 (Annexure P-7) passed by the District Registrar of Societies, Kurukshetra, whereby elections of the office-bearers and the executive members of respondent No. 5 Society have been set aside. The petitioners, in addition, have also challenged the constitutional vires of some provisions of the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). In paragraph 11 of the writ petition, the petitioners have made an averment that there is no other statutory remedy of appeal or revision available to them except to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition. This averment made by the petitioners is not only casual, but also contrary to the provisions of the Act. Section 79 of the Act provides the remedy of appeal as well as revision, which reads as under:

(1) An appeal against any orders passed by the District Registrar shall lie with the Registrar and the appeal against the orders passed by the Registrar shall lie with the Registrar General. The orders passed by the Registrar General in any such appeal shall be final and no further appeal shall be competent against his orders.

(2) Where an order originates from the Registrar General, an appeal against such order shall lie before the Government.

(3) Any appeal shall be filed within a period of sixty days of the date of issue of the impugned orders. The appellate authority may entertain an appeal beyond this period up to a maximum of another sixty days on sufficient grounds for condonation of delay being shown.

(4) Every appeal shall be accompanied with the fee as prescribed.

(5) The District Registrar, Registrar or the Registrar General may suo motu or on an application received in this behalf from any party that any order has been passed which is based on some erroneous facts or carries some patent error or suffers from some inadvertent mistakes, may review its order within ninety days of its passing with the prior permission of the next higher authority.

Sub-section (1) of Section 79 of the Act clearly stipulates that an appeal against any orders passed by the District Registrar shall lie with the Registrar and this remedy has not been availed by the petitioners in this case. Rather, a wrong averment has been made in the writ petition. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since vires of the Act has been challenged, therefore, the said remedy cannot be said to be an efficacious remedy.

We do not agree with the aforesaid contention. The petitioners have to first avail the statutory remedy of appeal and then they should approach this court and during that course, they can challenge the vires of the Act. But the instant petition has been filed by making the aforesaid wrong averment. Thus, we do not want to entertain this petition. Dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy, with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.