1

CGHC010076322021 2026:CGHC:45028

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 1596 of 2021

Margdarshan Sansthan (Agriculture College Ambikapur ) Through -

Secretary, Premendra Pratap Singh, Aged About 42 Years, S/o Shri

Mahendra Pratap Singh, Ring Road, Chopra Para, Ambikapur, District -

Surguja Chhattisgarh.

--- Petitioner

Versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of

Firms And Societies, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar,

New Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2 - The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, New Mantralaya,

Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur

Chhattisgarh.

3 - The Collector, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

4 - The Registrar, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalay, Krishak Nagar,

Raipur Chhattisgarh.

5 - The Registrar, Department Of Firms And Societies, New

Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur

Chhattisgarh.

6 - The Assistant Registrar, Department Of Firms And Societies, Office

At Composite Building, Collectorate Premises, Bilaspur, District

Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

7 - The Regional Manager, State Bank Of India, Regional Office,

Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

2

8 - The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, City Branch - Ambikapur,

District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

9 - Manvendra Pratap Singh (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court

Order Dated 30-09-2026

--- Respondents

WPC No. 4874 of 2021

Margdarshan Sansthan A Society Registered Under The Societies

Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, Through- Its Secretary, Premendra

Pratap Singh S/o Shri Mahendra Pratap Singh Aged About 44 Years,

R/o Ring Road, Choprapara, Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.)

---Petitioner

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of

Commerce And Industries, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur

(C.G.)

2 - Registrar Firms And Societies, Indravati Bhawan, Block-I, 3rd Floor,

Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.)

3 - Assistant Registrar Firms And Societies, Composite Building, IInd

Floor, Surguja (C.G.)

4 – Inspector, Firms And Societies, Bilaspur Division, Composite

Building, Bilaspur (C.G.)

5 – Auditor, Firms And Societies, Composite Building, IInd Floor,

Surguja (C.G.)

6 - Shri Manvendra Pratap Singh (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble

Court Order Dated 30-09-2026

... Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner

(In WPC No.1596/2021)

:Mr. A.N. Bhakta and Mr. Vivek Bhakta,

Advocates

For Petitioner

(In WPC No.4874/2021)

:Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate

3

For State :Mr. Anway Tiwari, Panel Lawyer

For Respondent No.4

(In WPC No.1596/2021)

:Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate

For Respondents No.7 & 8

(In WPC No.1596/2021)

:Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate

For Intervenor :Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

Order on Board

26.10.2026

1.Since common questions of fact and law are involved in both

these writ petitions, they are clubbed together and are being

decided by this common order.

2.For the sake of convenience, Writ Petition (C) No. 1596 of 2021 is

taken as the lead case.

3.By filing the present writ petitions, the petitioner, namely,

Margdarshan Sansthan, Ambikapur, has called in question the

order dated 25.02.2021 (Annexure P/1), whereby its Current

Account No. 35033300020 maintained with the State Bank of

India, City Branch, Ambikapur, was placed under “Hold”, and the

order dated 18.11.2021 passed by the Registrar in Appeal Case

No. 426/2021, titled Margdarshan Sansthan v. Assistant Registrar

and another, whereby the appeal was partly allowed by setting

aside the order dated 15.06.2020 passed by the Assistant

Registrar, while directing an inquiry through a three-member

4

committee and entrusting the trustees/founder members with the

day-to-day affairs of the society until resolution of the dispute.

4.The reliefs sought by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1596 of 2021

are reproduced hereinbelow:-

“10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to call for the entire records of the

case from the authorities concerned for its

kind perusal.

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to set-aside the order dated

25.02.2021 (Annexure P-1), issued by the

Respondent No.08 i.e. the Branch Manager,

SBI, City Branch, Ambikapur Distt. Surguja

(C.G.) and on behalf of petitioner institution,

the Secretary (Mr. Premendra Pratap Singh)

as well as Principal (Mr. Sushil Srivastav) be

permitted to operate the Current Agriculture

Account No. 35033300020 (Maintained at SBI

City Branch, Ambikapur), in the interest of

justice.

10.3 That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly

be pleased to direct the concerned

Respondents to compensate the petitioner

institution, as the Hon'ble Court think just and

proper, in the interest of justice.

10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble High

Court deems fit and proper be also awarded.”

5.The reliefs sought by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4874 of 2021

are reproduced hereinbelow:-

5

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased issue writ/writs, order/orders,

direction/directions quashing the impugned

order dated 18.11.2021 (Annexure P/1)

passed in Appeal Case No. 426/2021

between "Margdarshan Sansthan Vs.

Assistant Registrar & another" holding that

same is without authority of law and appellate

court has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing

the order impugned.

10.2 Any other relief which may deems fit

may also be awarded along with cost of the

petition.”

6.The facts of the cases, in brief, are that the petitioner,

Margdarshan Sansthan, Ambikapur, is a society registered under

the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, bearing

Registration No. 373 dated 14.10.1992. The institution is engaged

in imparting agricultural education and has been affiliated with

Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, since 2002. The

petitioner-institution has been carrying on its educational activities

since its registration. It is further pleaded that respondent No. 9

(since deceased) was earlier functioning as the Secretary of the

petitioner-institution and tendered his resignation on 24.11.2016,

which was accepted by the institution on 26.11.2016. Thereafter,

in an emergency meeting held on 27.11.2016, Mr. Premendra

Pratap Singh was unanimously appointed as the Secretary of the

petitioner-society, along with the other office-bearers, including

the President. The said appointment was subsequently approved

6

by respondent No. 6 vide order dated 04.12.2017. The petitioner

further submits that, for ensuring transparency in the functioning

of the institution, a resolution dated 10.12.2017 was passed

providing for the operation of the bank account through the joint

signatures of the Principal, Mr. Sushil Kumar Srivastav, and the

Secretary, Mr. Premendra Pratap Singh.

7.The grievance of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1596 of 2021 is

that, without issuing any notice to the petitioner-institution or its

office-bearers, the current account maintained with the State Bank

of India, City Branch, Ambikapur, was placed under “Hold” vide

order dated 25.02.2021. It is contended that the action has

adversely affected the functioning of the institution, as the tuition

fees deposited by the students could not be withdrawn or utilised

for meeting essential expenses, including the provision of food,

water, electricity and other basic facilities. The salaries of the

teaching and non-teaching staff were also affected. Despite

representations dated 20.02.2021 and 25.02.2021, followed by a

legal notice dated 01.03.2021, the account was not made

operational.

8.In W.P.(C) No. 4874 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the

order dated 18.11.2021 passed by the Registrar in Appeal Case

No. 426/2021, titled Margdarshan Sansthan v. Assistant Registrar

and another. By the said order, the appeal was partly allowed by

setting aside the order dated 15.06.2020 passed by the Assistant

7

Registrar. However, the appellate authority directed an inquiry into

the affairs of the society through a three-member committee

comprising, inter alia, the Assistant Registrar and directed the

committee to submit its report within three months, if possible. In

the meantime, the trustees/founder members were directed to

look after the day-to-day affairs of the society until the dispute was

resolved.

9.Mr. A.N. Bhakta, learned counsel, along with Mr. Vivek Bhakta,

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1596

of 2021, submits that the action of placing the current account of

the petitioner-institution under “Hold” is arbitrary, illegal and

without authority of law. He submits that the appointment of Mr.

Premendra Pratap Singh as Secretary had already been

approved by the competent authority vide order dated 04.12.2017,

and the subsequent resolution dated 10.12.2017 provided for the

operation of the account through the joint signatures of the

Secretary and the Principal. Despite the subsistence of the

approved arrangement, the bank account was placed under

“Hold” without issuing any notice or affording any opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner-institution or its office-bearers. Such

action, according to learned counsel, is violative of Articles 14 and

21 of the Constitution of India.

10.Learned counsel further submits that the action impugned has

seriously prejudiced the functioning of the educational institution

8

and has adversely affected the interests of the students as well as

the teaching and non-teaching staff. He submits that the tuition

fees deposited in the account could not be utilised for meeting the

day-to-day expenses of the institution, including the payment of

salaries and the provision of essential facilities to the students.

Despite representations submitted by the President of the

institution and the issuance of a legal notice, no effective action

was taken to restore the operation of the account. Learned

counsel, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside

and appropriate directions be issued to enable the authorised

office-bearers to operate the account in accordance with the

resolution passed by the institution.

11.Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

in W.P.(C) No. 4874 of 2021, submits that the order dated

18.11.2021 passed by the Registrar in Appeal Case No. 426/2021

is contrary to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Societies

Registration Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of

1973”) and is liable to be set aside. He submits that, while

deciding the appeal and setting aside the order dated 15.06.2020

passed by the Assistant Registrar, the Registrar exceeded the

scope of appellate jurisdiction by constituting a three-member

committee to conduct a fresh inquiry and by directing the

trustees/founder members to take charge of the day-to-day affairs

of the society pending resolution of the dispute. According to

learned counsel, such directions have the effect of interfering with

9

the functioning of the duly constituted governing body, whose

composition and appointment had already been approved by the

competent authority vide order dated 04.12.2017.

12.Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order is

contrary to Sections 32 and 40 of the Act of 1973. He contends

that Section 32 prescribes the manner in which an inquiry into the

affairs of a society may be conducted, either by the Registrar

himself or by a person authorised by him, and does not

contemplate the constitution of a three-member committee in the

manner directed by the appellate authority. It is further submitted

that the Assistant Registrar, who had passed the order dated

15.06.2020 and whose order was set aside in appeal, was

subsequently made a member of the committee constituted to

conduct the inquiry, thereby giving rise to a reasonable

apprehension of bias. Learned counsel also contends that the

Registrar could not have initiated proceedings on his own motion

while exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 40 of the Act

of 1973, particularly when the statutory requirements for initiating

proceedings under Section 32 had not been satisfied. On these

grounds, learned counsel prays for quashing the impugned order

dated 18.11.2021.

13.Per contra, Mr. Anway Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for

the State, opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for

the petitioner and submits that the principal dispute involved in the

10

present matter is between the petitioner-institution and

respondent No. 9, as both claim to hold the office of Secretary of

Margdarshan Sansthan, Ambikapur. He submits that, owing to the

rival claims regarding the management and authorised office-

bearers of the society, the current account of the institution was

placed under “Hold” vide order dated 25.02.2021, pending

resolution of the dispute by the competent authority. Learned

State counsel further submits that the petitioner has not sought

any specific and substantive relief against the State respondents,

nor has any specific allegation of illegality or arbitrary action been

levelled against them. According to him, the controversy

essentially concerns the internal affairs and management of the

petitioner-society, particularly the rival claims to the post of

Secretary, and the State respondents have no direct role in the

said dispute.

14.Learned Panel Lawyer further submits that respondent No. 9,

being a separate legal entity and one of the persons claiming the

office of Secretary, is capable of defending his own interests in the

matter. He contends that the issues raised in the writ petition can

be effectively addressed by the parties directly involved in the

dispute concerning the management of the society and the

operation of its bank account. In the absence of any specific and

effective relief sought against the answering respondents, the writ

petition, insofar as it relates to the State respondents, deserves to

11

be dismissed. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition

against the State respondents.

15.Mr. D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.

4, namely, the Registrar, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya,

Krishak Nagar, Raipur, submits that the controversy raised in the

present writ petition does not concern any dispute relating to the

role or functioning of the University. He submits that the petitioner

has referred to the affiliation of the institution with Indira Gandhi

Krishi Vishwavidyalaya and the matters relating to agricultural

education; however, the principal dispute in the present case

concerns the rival claims of the petitioner and respondent No. 9 to

the office of Secretary of Margdarshan Sansthan, Ambikapur.

According to learned counsel, the said dispute is essentially

between the petitioner-institution and respondent No. 9 and does

not involve any substantive issue requiring adjudication against

respondent No. 4.

16.Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 further submits that no

specific or effective relief has been sought against the University

and no adverse allegation has been levelled against it in relation

to the impugned action of placing the bank account under “Hold”.

He submits that the order dated 25.02.2021 was issued by the

Branch Manager, State Bank of India, in the backdrop of the

dispute concerning the management of the society and the

authority to operate its bank account. In such circumstances, the

12

University has no direct role in resolving the inter se dispute

between the rival claimants to the office of Secretary. He,

therefore, submits that the writ petition, insofar as it relates to

respondent No. 4, deserves to be dismissed.

17.Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.

7 and 8, namely, the State Bank of India, submits that the current

account bearing No. 35033300020 is maintained in the name of

Margdarshan Sansthan, Ambikapur, and that a dispute arose

when the petitioner and respondent No. 9 asserted rival claims to

the office of Secretary of the society and, consequently, to the

authority to operate the said account. He submits that the

Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies, Surguja, vide

communication dated 09.04.2019, had informed the bank

regarding the alleged creation of a parallel managing society and

the possibility of funds being withdrawn through unauthorised

means. In view of the said communication and the subsisting

dispute regarding the identity of the authorised office-bearers, the

bank, vide communication dated 25.02.2021, placed the account

under “Hold” until the dispute was resolved by the competent

authority. Learned counsel submits that the bank took the said

action in order to safeguard the funds of the institution and to

ensure that the money deposited in the account was not

withdrawn or misappropriated by any unauthorised person.

13

18.Learned counsel for respondents No. 7 and 8 further submits that

the bank is merely the custodian of the funds deposited in the

account and cannot independently adjudicate the rival claims

concerning the management of the society or determine which of

the competing claimants is legally entitled to operate the account.

He points out that the petitioner had also challenged the order

passed by the Assistant Registrar before the Registrar, Firms and

Societies, in Appeal Case No. 426/2021, and that the appellate

authority, vide order dated 18.11.2021, partly allowed the appeal

and constituted a three-member committee to inquire into the

dispute, while directing that the trustees/founder members would

look after the day-to-day affairs of the society until the dispute was

resolved. He further submits that the said appellate order has also

been challenged in the connected writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 4874

of 2021, and both matters are pending consideration before this

Court. The bank, therefore, undertakes to permit operation of the

account in accordance with the directions issued by this Court

regarding the person or persons authorised to operate the same.

19.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

20.Upon perusal of the record in W.P.(C) No. 1596 of 2021, it

appears that the principal grievance of the petitioner-institution is

with regard to the order dated 25.02.2021, whereby its current

account bearing No. 35033300020, maintained with the State

14

Bank of India, City Branch, Ambikapur, was placed under “Hold”

on account of the dispute concerning the management of the

society and the rival claims regarding the office of Secretary. The

petitioner contends that the appointment of Mr. Premendra Pratap

Singh as Secretary had already been approved by the competent

authority vide order dated 04.12.2017 and that, pursuant to the

resolution dated 10.12.2017, the bank account was to be

operated jointly by the Secretary and the Principal of the

institution. On the other hand, the bank has justified its action on

the ground that, in view of the rival claims regarding the

management of the society and the authority to operate the

account, it was necessary to safeguard the funds of the institution

until the dispute was resolved by the competent authority. Thus,

the controversy concerning the operation of the bank account is

intrinsically connected with the determination of the persons

lawfully entitled to manage the affairs of the petitioner-society.

21.Further, upon perusal of the record in W.P.(C) No. 4874 of 2021, it

transpires that the petitioner has challenged the order dated

18.11.2021 passed by the Registrar in Appeal Case No.

426/2021, whereby the appeal was partly allowed by setting aside

the order dated 15.06.2020 passed by the Assistant Registrar,

while directing an inquiry into the affairs of the society through a

three-member committee. The appellate authority also directed

that, until the dispute was resolved, the trustees/founder members

would look after the day-to-day affairs of the society. The

15

petitioner has questioned the authority of the Registrar to issue

such directions, particularly with reference to Sections 32 and 40

of the Act of 1973. The dispute, therefore, essentially concerns

the legality of the directions issued by the Registrar and, more

importantly, the determination of the persons entitled to manage

and administer the affairs of the society in accordance with its

bye-laws and the applicable statutory provisions.

22.Having considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of

the parties and the material available on record, this Court finds

that the controversy involved in both the writ petitions cannot be

effectively resolved without determination of the dispute

concerning the management and administration of the petitioner-

society by the competent authority. The operation of the bank

account is consequential to such determination, as the bank

cannot be expected to decide the rival claims regarding the

authority to manage the society or operate its account. At the

same time, the continued freezing of the account has the potential

to affect the day-to-day functioning of the educational institution,

including the payment of salaries and the provision of essential

facilities to the students. Therefore, it would be appropriate to

direct the competent authority to bring the dispute to its logical

conclusion within a stipulated period, after affording due

opportunity of hearing to all concerned persons.

16

23.Accordingly, considering the nature of the dispute involved in the

present matters, the concerned Registrar, Firms and Societies,

shall ascertain whether the inquiry contemplated under the order

dated 18.11.2021 has been completed. If the inquiry has not yet

been completed, the concerned authority shall ensure that the

same is completed expeditiously, in accordance with law. Upon

completion of the inquiry, and after considering the inquiry report,

the existing members of the society, the relevant records, the bye-

laws of the society and the claims of all persons concerned, the

Registrar shall take an appropriate decision as to which persons

are legally entitled to manage and administer the affairs of the

society. The Registrar shall also determine, in accordance with

the applicable statutory provisions and the bye-laws of the society,

whether the existing members are entitled to continue managing

the society or whether any other persons are legally entitled to

undertake its management. Such determination shall be made by

a reasoned order, after affording an adequate opportunity of

hearing to all concerned parties, including the intervenor, whose

claim arises from the subsequent appointment as Secretary of the

society. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period

of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

24.Upon resolution of the dispute by the competent authority, the

current account of the petitioner-institution, which has been

placed under “Hold” by the State Bank of India, shall be permitted

to be operated by the person or persons found legally entitled

17

thereto, in accordance with law and the decision taken by the

competent authority. The bank shall act in conformity with such

decision and the applicable legal requirements.

25.It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on

the merits of the rival claims concerning the management of the

society or the entitlement of any particular person to hold the

office of Secretary. The competent authority shall independently

consider the matter and take a decision strictly in accordance with

law, uninfluenced by any observations made herein.

26.With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the writ

petitions, being W.P.(C) Nos. 1596 of 2021 and 4874 of 2021,

stand disposed of.

27.All pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed

of.

28.There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

Judge

Yogesh