CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 1 of 31

$~J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment pronounced on: 02.02.2026

+ CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025

SATYA PRAKASH RAVIDAS .....Petitioner

versus

ALAKH NIRANJAN PRASAD SINGHNA & ORS. .....Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 13723/2025

SATYA PRAKASH RAVIDAS .....Petitioner

versus

THE ADM DISTRICT SOUTH & ORS. .....Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 15987/2025

SATYA PRAKASH RAVIDAS .....Petitioner

versus

THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES & ANR. .....Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 16305/2025, CM APPL. 66703/2025, CM APPL.

68682/2025 & CM APPL. 70557/2025

SATYA PRAKASH RAVIDAS .....Petitioner

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 2902/2025, CM APPL. 19993/2025, CM APPL.

27880/2025, CM APPL. 34624/2025 & CM APPL. 38858/2025

SATYA PRAKASH RAVIDAS .....Petitioner

versus

SDM HQ REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES & ANR. .....Respondents

Presence: Mr. Satya Prakash Ravidas, Petitioner in person in

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025, W.P.(C) 13723/2025, W.P.(C)

15987/2025, W.P.(C) 16305/2025 & W.P.(C) 2902/2025.

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 2 of 31

Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Anil Dutt,

Mr. Yogit Mehra, Mr. Paras Choudhary, Mr. Amartya

Bhushan, Ms. Lavi Agarwal, Advocates for Raj Vidya Kender

in CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025, W.P.(C) 13723/2025, W.P.(C)

15987/2025, W.P.(C) 16305/2025 & W.P.(C) 2902/2025.

Mr. Ashish K. Dixit, CGSC along with Mr. Umar Hashmi,

Mr. Harshit Chitransh and Ms. Iqra Sheikh, Advocates for R-1

to R-5.

Mr. Dhruv Rohatgi, Panel Counsel (GNCTD) along with Mrs.

Chandrika Sachdev and Mr. Dhruv Kumar, Advocates for

GNCTD in W.P.(C) 16305/2025.

Mr. Dhananjaya Mishra, Mr. Navneet Dogra and Mr. Amritesh

Mohanty, Advocates for R-1 in W.P.(C) 2902/2025.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

JUDGMENT

W.P.(C) 13723/2025, W.P.(C) 15987/2025, W.P.(C) 16305/2025 and

W.P.(C) 2902/2025

1. Multiple writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner concerning

the same society, i.e., Raj Vidya Kender (RVK). Having regard to the

overlapping nature of the causes of action and the commonality of issues

raised, it is considered appropriate to adjudicate all these petitions together.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court asserting his association

with the affairs of RVK, a society registered under the Societies Registration

Act, 1860, and formerly known as the Divine United Organisation (DUO).

The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court aggrieved with

the current management and functioning of the society. According to the

petitioner, there exists an alleged error in the bylaws of RVK, whereby the

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 3 of 31

name of a fictitious individual, “Param Hans Sad Guru Dev Sri Sant Ji

Maharaj,” has been inserted in place of the real and living individual, Mr.

Prem Rawat.

3. It is further submitted that paragraph 3(a) of the bylaws of RVK

describes the principal objective of the society as the propagation of the

knowledge of “Param Hans Sadgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj,” who,

according to the petitioner, is a non-existent person. This alleged error has,

in the petitioner’s view, enabled unelected individuals to seize control of the

society and exploit it for their personal benefit.

4. The petitioner additionally contends that sub-paragraph 4(d) has been

misused to suppress dissent and to insulate alleged offenders from

accountability. He claims that key positions within RVK have been usurped

by shareholders and employees of certain private entities, including those

associated with one Mr. Deepak Raj Bhandari. It is contended that Mr.

Deepak Raj Bhandari, a Nepalese national, who exercises unlawful control

over RVK has committed a financial fraud of ₹550.30 crores in relation to

RVK.

5. It is also the petitioner’s allegation that the purported unelected

governing body of RVK fabricated an authorization letter dated 16.04.2019

to initiate false litigation (CS (OS) 470/2019) against him. He further

highlights that no balance sheets, election records, or statutory filings of

RVK have been submitted before the Registrar of Societies since 2003.

6. The case of the petitioner is that RVK has remained a defunct society

since 2003, with no lawful elections to its governing body for more than

twenty-two years. The petitioner seeks to fasten admission/s by the Registrar

of Societies, on the basis of certain communications, dated 20.11.2023,

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 4 of 31

27.09.2023, and 27.05.2024. It is emphasised that the Registrar has the

authority to directly intervene and conduct an election for a society if the

existing election process is deemed invalid or improperly conducted. It is

submitted that the Registrar is vested with powers under Sections 12, 12A,

13, 14, and 19 of the Act to regulate, call for information, and conduct

enquiries into the affairs of societies.

7. It is submitted that the prolonged absence of elections and functioning

governance renders all subsequent activities of RVK void and illegal. It is

pointed that the unelected and unauthorized persons of RVK, have

unlawfully sold the Ashram “Prem Bhawan Raj Vidya Kendra, Near Gaya

Gumti, Patna. It is pointed that from 1987 onwards, the respondents, in

collusion with private individuals are transferring and vesting DUO’s

immovable and movable properties into various private companies, trusts,

and entities without the sanction of the General Body or compliance with

statutory provisions.

8. Another grievance of the petitioner is that the present managing body

of RVK is conducting public events, collecting donations, and issuing

communications in the name of Shri Prem Rawat, who is not recognized

anywhere in the registered Memorandum of Association or bylaws of RVK.

It is also emphasised that under the guise of a charitable society unelected

and unauthorized persons of RVK are collecting funds without

authorization.

9. In W.P. (C) No. 13723 of 2025 the petitioner has also challenged a

notice dated 30.07.2025 issued by the Fist Appellate Authority, intimating

that a hearing was scheduled on 21.08.2025. Notice dated 30.07.2025 is

reproduced as under –

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 5 of 31

10. However, it is submitted that the said notice was dispatched only at

17:01 hours on 21.08.2025, i.e., after the date and time fixed for the

petitioner’s appearance, and was delivered to him only on 26.08.2025, as

reflected in the India Post tracking records (ED5356781671N). It is

submitted that this sequence of events clearly evidences mala fides,

deliberate administrative delay, and denial of a reasonable opportunity of

hearing, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings.

11. It is submitted that prior to this, on 26.04.2025, the Petitioner had

filed an RTI application (ID No. 175-TRTI/2025) seeking information

regarding one “Udayanand,” who is purportedly shown as the Vice-

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 6 of 31

President of RVK. It is submitted that the said individual, however, is a

fictitious person with no known identity, parentage, or existence. It is

submitted that to the said RTI application the petitioner received vague and

evasive replies dated 02.05.2025 and 18.06.2025, failing to address the core

issue of the fictitious nature of “Udayanand,” which raises grave concerns of

fraud and manipulation within RVK’s governance structure.

12. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid, the petitioner has filed the

present batch of petitions.

13. In W.P. (C) no. 2902 of 2025, the petitioner has prayed as under –

“a) Direct the Respondent No.1 to perform his statutory duty by

recording the Petitioner's name as *Caretaker* of *Respondent No.2.* to

safeguard its assets and interests. I further request that this arrangement

remain in place until a General Body meeting is convened to submit the

balance sheet for the last 10 years.

b) Cancel the sale deed of the Ashram Prem Bhawan Patna executed on

30.11.2024 with immediate effect.”

14. In W.P. (C) no. 2902 of 2025, the petitioner has also filed an amended

writ petition, wherein the petitioner has prayed as under –

15. In W.P. (C) no. 16304 of 2025, the petitioner has made the following

prayers –

“(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent authorities,

namely the Registrar of Societies (NCT of Delhi) and Station House

Officers of P.S. Maidan Garhi (New Delhi) and P.S. Genome Valley

(Telangana), to verify the legal status, governing body, and authenticity

of the society "Raj Vidya Kender" (formerly "Divine United

Organization") before granting or permitting any public events in its

name.

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 7 of 31

(b) Issue a Writ of Prohibition or interim stay on the public events

announced as the "125th Anniversary of Hans Jayanti" scheduled on 08-

09.11.2025 at Raj Vidya Kender, Shahurpur, New Delhi, and 26.11.2025

at Raj Vidya Kender (South), Turkapally, Telangana, until:

a valid General Body Meeting is duly convened, and

lawful amendment is made replacing the fictitious name "Param Hans

Sadgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj" with "Shri Prem Rawat" in the

Memorandum of Association.

(c) Direct the Registrar of Societies to conduct an inquiry under Sections

12 and 12A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, into the legality of the

2003 amendments and the alleged unauthorized collection of funds in the

name of Shri Prem Rawat.”

16. In W.P. (C) NO. 15987 of 2025, the following prayers have been

made –

“(a) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing

the Respondents to produce before this Hon'ble Court the resolution(s)

passed in the Governing Body meetings of Raj Vidya Kender (RVK),

together with all records relating to the erstwhile society Divine United

Organisation (DUO) and its subsequent change of name to RVK on

07.07.2003, including full particulars of all immovable and movable

properties of DUO that were allegedly transferred, vested, or otherwise

dealt with under RVK.

(b). In the alternative, if the Respondents fail, neglect, or refuse to

produce such records, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct

Respondent No. 1 (Registrar of Societies, NCT of Delhi) to conduct a

statutory enquiry under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 into the

affairs of Respondent No. 2 (RVK), and to take consequential action,

including cancellation of registration, if violations of the Act are

established.”

17. In W.P. (C) NO. 13723 of 2025, the petitioner has prayed as under –

“a. Issue a writ of 'Mandamus', or any other appropriate writ, order, or

direction, commanding Respondent No.3 to convene an urgent General

Body Meeting in the presence of the owner of the intellectual property, o

Mr. Prem Rawat" which has not been held for the past 22 years, for

considering pending court cases and appointment of legal counsel to

represent and engagement of advocate to represent Respondent Nop.3.

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 8 of 31

b. Issue a writ of 'Certiorari', or any other appropriate writ, order, or

direction, quashing the notice dated 30.07.2025 issued by Respondent

No.1 along with all consequential proceedings.”

18. Further the petitioner has filed a common synopsis in the present

petitions wherein the following submissions have been made by the

petitioner –

i. There exists a complete breakdown of legal governance in the Divine

Light Universal Organisation (DUO), now projected as Raj Vidya

Kender (RVK). It is submitted that based on the official records

produced by the Registrar of Societies on 12.11.2025, it is

conclusively established that the original bylaws of DUO

unequivocally designate Shri Prem Rawat as the Patron for life.

Under the bylaws, only the Patron is empowered to appoint an ad-

hoc committee, authorize the Governing Body, or approve any

amendment. No person or body is competent to remove or

supersede the Patron. It is averred that this single admitted fact

fundamentally invalidates the claims of the private individuals who

have unlawfully taken over DUO/RVK and have acted as “office

bearers” without any lawful authority.

ii. The Registrar of Societies file, produced before this Court for

inspection, demonstrates that DUO has not held a single General

Body Meeting for decades and that no resolutions, elections,

audited accounts, or filings exist on record. The file does not

contain (i) any General Body resolution authorizing an election;

(ii) any record of lawful proceedings under the Societies

Registration Act; or (iii) any approval of amendments or name

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 9 of 31

change by the Patron. Consequently, every action undertaken in

the name of DUO or RVK, including the purported name change,

constitution of any governing body, dealing with society assets,

and transactions relating to Patna Ashram, is void ab initio, non est

in law, and constitutes fraud upon the statute.

iii. It is emphasised that the alleged change of name from DUO to “Raj

Vidya Kender” on 04.07.2023 is a glaring instance of illegality. It

is submitted that the mandatory conditions under the Societies

Registration Act and the DUO bylaws, requiring a properly

convened General Body Meeting and Patron’s approval, have

never been satisfied. Accordingly, the purported name change is

absolutely void, confers no legal validity, and cannot vest any

authority in those claiming to represent RVK.

iv. It is pointed that after the unauthorized takeover, the private

individuals unlawfully removed the Patron from his rightful

position and embarked upon a systematic process of diverting

DUO’s charitable assets. They created private companies,

transferred DUO properties into such entities, and misappropriated

substantial funds.

v. It is further submitted that the purported sale of the Patna Ashram is

void ab initio. DUO/RVK never had a validly constituted

Governing Body, nor was there any resolution, authorization,

power of attorney, or approval from the Patron permitting sale of

any charitable property. The alleged transfer is wholly illegal, ultra

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 10 of 31

vires the bylaws, contrary to statute, and incapable of conferring

rights upon any purchaser irrespective of the alleged consideration.

vi. The petitioner further submitted that DUO’s charitable properties,

including the Patna Ashram and other assets across India, were

created from public donations for religious, spiritual, educational,

and public-benefit purposes. These assets cannot be treated as the

private property of individuals. Misappropriation or alienation of

such property is a matter of public trust, and this Court, in exercise

of its jurisdiction under Article 226, is empowered and obligated to

preserve the status quo ante to prevent irreversible harm to

charitable property.

19. In the said common synopsis, the petitioner has further prayed as

under –

20. On the other hand, while controverting to the aforesaid contentions of

the petitioner RVK has submitted as under -

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 11 of 31

i. In 1977, a society named Divine United Organisation (DUO), applied

for registration under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The

application, submitted on 20.05.1977, enclosed the proposed

Memorandum of Association (MOA) and Rules and Regulations.

ii. Under the original Rules and Regulations, Param Hans Sadguru Dev

Shri Sant Ji Maharaj @ Balyogeshwar @ Shri Prem Pal Singh Rawat

(popularly known as Shri Guru Maharaj Ji) was designated as ‘Patron’

and was to hold the position for life. The society recognized three

categories of membership, Patron, Life Member, and Ordinary

Member.

iii. Upon objections by the Registrar of Societies, DUO submitted an

amended MOA and Rules on 26.09.1977. The amendments removed

the ‘Patron’ category, limited membership to Life and Ordinary

Members, and altered the registered office. DUO was thereafter

registered on 31.10.1977, with its aims and objects remaining

substantially unchanged.

iv. In 2003, pursuant to majority approval of the Governing Body, DUO

amended its MOA and changed its name to Raj Vidya Kender (RVK).

It is submitted that the amendments followed four special general

body meetings held on 02.08.2002, 08.09.2002, 04.10.2002 and

10.12.2002.

v. It also emphasised that the Registrar of Societies has acknowledged

that RVK regularly filed its Annual Governing Body lists under

Section 4 of the Act at least until 2019. It is submitted that filings

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 12 of 31

have continued up to 2025 and that elections are conducted every five

years, the latest having taken place in 2024.

vi. The principal objective of RVK remains the propagation of the

teachings of Mr. Prem Rawat, an internationally known speaker and

author. References to “Param Hans Sadguru Dev Shri Sant Ji

Maharaj” in the Rules and Regulations pertain to Mr. Prem Rawat.

vii. It is also pointed that a separate entity, Raj Vidya Kender

(South), is a registered trust in Chennai. It is distinct from RVK

(Delhi) and has no overlapping trustees or governing body members.

viii. It is further submitted that due to the petition’s involvement in

illegal and anti-social activities, the Petitioner was blacklisted from

entering RVK premises from 14.01.2014. The case of the RVK is that

the petitioner has no locus to file petitions concerning RVK, as he is

neither a member nor affiliated with the society.

ix. It is submitted that RVK has filed a defamation suit (CS(OS)

470/2019) against the petitioner. An interim stay order was passed on

19.07.2023 and subsequently made absolute on 10.04.2024. The suit

remains pending.

x. The petitioner has thereafter filed multiple writ petitions and

applications against RVK on overlapping grounds. It is submitted that

a recent habeas corpus petition (W.P.(Crl.) 2399/2025) was dismissed

by the Division Bench on 09.09.2025.

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 13 of 31

xi. It is averred that Courts have repeatedly noted that the petitioner files

frivolous and repetitive petitions without disclosure of prior

proceedings.

xii. It is further submitted that Section 13 of the Societies

Registration Act, 1860 bars the writ jurisdiction of this Court over

private disputes concerning management of a registered society, for

which civil remedy is prescribed.

xiii. It is contended that the petitioner has alleged that Mr.

Udayanand is a fictitious person. It is submitted that this is factually

incorrect. Mr. Udayanand is currently the Vice-President of the

Society. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not disclosed the

fact that a similar plea has been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of

this Court in W.P.(Crl.) 2714/2025 vide order dated 28.08.2025.

xiv. It is also submitted that the petitioner alleges that Mr. Deepak

Raj Bhandari has siphoned crores of money from the Society. It is

submitted that an identical plea was raised in IA no. 7752 of 2025

filed in CS (OS) 470/2019 which was dismissed vide order dated

25.03.2025 and the petitioner was warned from filing such frivolous

application. This fact not been disclosed

xv. Lastly it is the case of RVK that the Petitioner is a habitual litigant

who repeatedly abuses judicial process, as recognized in several

orders. In order to substantiate its case reliance has been placed on the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Pandurang Vithal Kevne v. BSNL

& Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4108.

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 14 of 31

21. During the course of arguments, the Registrar of society has

submitted as under -

i. It is submitted that the reliefs sought pertain to the internal

management and private disputes concerning a society registered

under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (“the Act”). Matters

relating to the governance, control, and administration of a

registered society are essentially private law disputes, for which

appropriate civil remedies are available.

ii. It is submitted that the statutory framework under the Act is narrow

and circumscribed. Under Section 3 of the Act, the Registrar has a

function of registering a society upon filing of a memorandum of

association referable to Sections 1, 2, and 20 of the Act. Under

Section 4, the limited role of the Registrar is to receive the annual

list of the managing body of a registered society. Under Section

12A (as applicable to Delhi), when there is any change in name of

the Society after following the procedure prescribed in Section 12

of the Act, the proposition of change in name is required to be filed

with the Registrar for change in name. In terms of Section 12 (2),

the Registrar has to apply its mind as to whether the proposed

name is identical or similar to any other existing society.

iii. It is further emphasised that the facts relevant to the present case

indicate that the society in question was registered under the name

“Devine United Organisation” on 31.10.1977 under Section 3 of

the Act, and subsequently changed its name to “Raj Vidya

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 15 of 31

Kender” on 07.07.2003 in accordance with Sections 12 and 12A.

The last annual list of the governing body was filed on 30.01.2019.

iv. It is submitted that this Court has consistently held that the Registrar

of Societies does not possess supervisory, disciplinary, or

regulatory powers over the internal affairs of societies registered

under the Act. Reliance has been placed on order dated 12.04.2012

passed in Supreme Court Bar Association (Regd.) v. Registrar of

Societies & Ors., W.P.(C) 3260/2010, Dinesh Kumar v. Registrar

of Societies, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 2814, and Hua Seng Chew v.

Registrar of Societies and Firms, W.P.(C) 8604/2020.

v. It is submitted that registrar of societies is merely a registering

authority and has no jurisdiction to interfere in the management,

functioning, or internal affairs of a registered society. Any

grievance relating to administration, membership, meetings,

elections, or property of the society is required to be adjudicated

before the competent civil court.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

22. Having heard both the parties, this Court is of the view that the

grievance/s of the petitioner cannot be adjudicated in exercise of jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

23. It is a well-settled position of law that disputes relating to the internal

management of a society must be adjudicated before a competent civil court

and cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. In Dinesh Kumar & Anr. v.

The Registrar of Societies & Ors, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 2814, the Court

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 16 of 31

has categorically held as under –

“4. The counsel for the respondent No. 1 Registrar of Societies

appearing on advance notice states that the Registrar under the

Societies Registration Act has no power in the matter and is not in a

position to decide the inter se disputes between the Members and the

Management of the Society. It is stated that the Registrar is only a

registering authority and is not empowered to approve or disapprove

any amendment or to take any action with respect to any

irregularities.

5. The counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to show any

duty or obligation under the law upon the Registrar of Societies to

take any action and which it may be failing to perform or take.

Without the petitioners showing that there is any denial to perform

the obligation or duty required to be performed in law, no mandamus

can be claimed.

6. Besides the aspect of delay, which has not been satisfactorily

explained, I am also of the view that the writ petition qua the inter

se disputes of Members and the Management of the Society does

not lie. The earlier writ petition preferred for the same relief though

by others was also withdrawn with liberty to seek appropriate relief.

The rejection of the plaint in the suit preferred thereafter was as

barred by limitation. If the plaintiffs in the suit are aggrieved from

the said finding, they are to seek remedies against the said judgment

and cannot again maintain a writ petition. I may also notice that the

challenge to the amendment is inter alia on the ground that the

notice preceding the meeting in which the amendments were carried

out was defective. The said plea raises a disputed question of fact

which in any case cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.”

24. The petitioner has also raised objections concerning the functioning of

the Registrar of Societies and has asserted that the Registrar is vested with

authority under Sections 12, 12A, 13, 14, and 19 of the Societies

Registration Act, 1860 to regulate and conduct inquiries into the affairs of

registered societies.

25. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that in an earlier order dated

19.05.2025 passed in CM APPL.22817/2025 in W.P.(C) 2902/2025, the

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 17 of 31

submissions made on behalf of the Registrar of Societies were duly

recorded, wherein the Registrar categorically stated that there was nothing

amiss in the affairs of the concerned society. In view thereof, the interim

order dated 07.03.2025 was vacated. The relevant portion reads as under:

“9. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, particularly the

submission of learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 that there is

nothing amiss about the state of affairs of the concerned society, the

interim order dated 07.03.2025 is vacated.”

26. Further, the Registrar of Societies has taken a stand that it lacks

jurisdiction over the society’s internal functioning and that its statutory role

is confined to registration and maintaining basic records.

27. In order to deal with the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding

the scope and extent of powers of the Registrar of Societies, particularly the

assertion that the Registrar is empowered under Sections 12, 12A, 13, 14,

and 19 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 to regulate and inquire into

the internal affairs of societies, this Court deems it appropriate to first

examine the relevant statutory provisions. The said provisions are

reproduced as under -

“12. Societies enabled to alter, extend, or abridge their purposes.—

Whenever it shall appear to the governing body of any society registered

under this Act, which has been established for any particular purpose or

purposes, that it is advisable to alter, extend, or abridge such purpose to

or for other purposes within the meaning of this Act, or to amalgamate

such society either wholly or partially with any other society, such

governing body may submit the proposition to the members of the society

in a written or printed report, and may convene a special meeting for the

consideration thereof according to the regulations of the society;

but no such proposition shall be carried into effect unless such report

shall have been delivered or sent by post to every member of the society

ten days previous to the special meeting convened by the governing body

for the consideration thereof, nor unless such proposition shall have been

agreed to by the votes of three-fifths of the members delivered in person

or by proxy, and confirmed by the votes of three-fifths of the members

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 18 of 31

present at a second special meeting convened by the governing body at

an interval of one month after the former meeting.

12-A. Registration of change of name.—(1) Where a proposition for

change of name has been agreed to and confirmed in the manner

prescribed by Section 12, a copy of the proposition so agreed to and

confirmed shall be forwarded to the Registrar for registering the change

of name. If the proposed name is identical with that by which any other

existing society has been registered, or in the opinion of the Registrar so

nearly resembles such name as to be likely to deceive the public or the

members of the either society, the Registrar shall refuse to register the

change of name.

(2) Save as provided in sub-section (1), the Registrar shall, if he is

satisfied that the provisions of this Act in respect of change of name have

been complied with, register the change of name and issue a certificate of

registration altered to meet the circumstances of the case. On the issue of

such a certificate the change of name shall be complete.

(3) The Registrar shall charge for any copy of a certificate issued under

sub-section (2), a fee of rupee one or such large fee and exceeding

rupees five as the State Government may from time to time, direct; and

all fees so paid shall form part of the Consolidated Fund of India.

13. Provision for dissolution of societies and adjustment of their

affairs.—Any number not less than three-fifths of the members of any

society may determine that it shall be dissolved, and thereupon it shall be

dissolved forthwith, or at the time then agreed upon, and all necessary

steps shall be taken for the disposal and settlement of the property of the

society, its claims and liabilities, according to the rules of the said

society applicable thereto, if any, and, if not, then as the governing body

shall find expedient, provided that, in the event of any dispute arising

among the said governing body or the members of the society, the

adjustment of its affairs shall be referred to the principal Court of

original civil jurisdiction of the district in which the chief building of the

society is situate; and the Court shall make such order in the matter as it

shall deem requisite:

Provided that no society shall be dissolved unless three-fifths of the

members shall have expressed a wish for such dissolution by their votes

delivered in person, or by proxy, at a general meeting convened for the

purpose:

Provided that [whenever any Government] is a member of, or a

contributor to, or otherwise interested, in any society registered under

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 19 of 31

this Act, such society shall not be dissolved [without the consent of the

Government of the State of registration].

14. Upon a dissolution no member to receive profit.—If upon the

dissolution of any society registered under this Act there shall remain

after the satisfaction of all its debts and liabilities any property

whatsoever, the same shall not be paid to or distributed among the

members of the said society or any of them, but shall be given to some

other society, to be determined by the votes of not less than three-fifths of

the members present personally or by proxy at the time of the dissolution,

or, in default thereof, by such Court as aforesaid:

Clause not to apply to Joint-stock Companies.—Provided, however, that

this clause shall not apply to any society which shall have been founded

or established by the contributions of shareholders in the nature of a

Joint-stock Company.

19. Inspection of documents. Certified copes.—Any person may inspect

all documents filed with the Registrar under this Act on payment of a fee

of one rupee for each inspection; and any person may require a copy or

extract of any document or any part of any document, to be certified by

the Registrar, on payment of two annas for every hundred words of such

copy or extract; and such certified copy shall be prima facie evidence of

the matters therein contained in all legal proceedings whatever.”

28. It is also relevant to advert to Sections 3 and 4 of the Societies

Registration Act, 1860, which are as under:-

“3. Registration and fees.—Upon such memorandum and certified copy

being filed, the Registrar shall certify under his hand that the society is

registered under this Act. There shall be paid to the Registrar for every

such registration a fee of fifty rupees, or such smaller fee as [the State

Government] may, from time to time, direct; and all fees so paid shall be

accounted for to [the State Government].

4. Annual list of managing body to be filed.—Once in every year, on or

before the fourteenth day succeeding the day on which, according to the

rules of the society, the annual general meeting of the society is held, or,

if the rules do not provide for an annual general meeting, in the month of

January, a list shall be filed with the Registrar of Joint-stock Companies,

of the names, addresses and occupations of the governors, council,

directors, committee, or other governing body then entrusted with the

management of the affairs of the society.”

29. A perusal of the above mentioned provisions makes it abundantly

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 20 of 31

clear that the Societies Registration Act, 1860 does not confer upon the

Registrar of Societies any supervisory, adjudicatory, or disciplinary

authority over the internal affairs of registered societies.

30. Under Section 3 of the Act, the limited function of the Registrar as

that of registering a society upon submission of its Memorandum of

Association, while Section 4 merely casts a statutory obligation upon the

concerned office-bearers to file an annual return before the Registrar of

Societies, setting out the names, addresses, and occupations of the

governors, council, directors, committee, or other governing body then

entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society.

31. In Supreme Court Bar Association (Regd.) v. Registrar of Societies

& Ors., 2012:DHC:2422, this Court has categorically observed as under -

“12. Section 4 of the Act casts a duty on the persons concerned to file

an annual return before the ROS containing the names, addresses

and occupation of the members of the Executive Committee. But the

law does not provide for any contingency- much less for the

suspension or dissolution of the society because of failure to comply

with Section 4. The conclusion drawn by the ROS, that if a return is

not filed in terms of Section 4 of the Act, the society is liable to be

suspended or dissolved, or that its existence becomes illegal is, to say

the least, outrageous and unfounded. The Act does not vest any

control or supervisory or disciplinary power or jurisdiction in the

ROS to take action against a society registered under the Act. The

disputes in relation to a society registered under the Act would,

necessarily, have to be taken before, and resolved by the Civil

Court. This is also evident from Sections 13 and 14 of the Act,

which provide for resolution of issues dealt with therein by the

Court.”

32. Further, the scope of interference by the Registrar under Sections 12

and 12A of the Act has also been conclusively settled. In Sunil Agarwal and

Ors. v. Govt. of NCT Of Delhi And Ors., 2024:DHC:6515, this Court has

made the following observation -

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 21 of 31

“13…….At the same time, the Registrar of Societies in their Counter

Affidavit have also explicitly acknowledged that it does not have

jurisdiction over internal affairs of a registered society and their role

is limited up to registration of a society. They have also categorically

confirmed that they can neither decide, doubt or dispute regarding the

election of a society nor interfere in the dispute between the members

of the society.

14. Thus, in light of the explicit stand taken by Registrar of Societies,

relating to its jurisdiction, we have to examine whether the Registrar’s

reliance on Section 12 of the Act to reject the amendments to the MoA

has a legal foundation. Section 12 of the Act reads as follows:

12. Societies enabled to alter, extend or abridge their

purposes.— Whenever it shall appear to the governing

body of any society registered under this Act, which has

been established for any particular purpose or purposes,

that it is advisable to alter, extend, or abridge such

purpose to or for other purposes within the meaning of

this Act, or to amalgamate such society either wholly or

partially with any other society, such governing body

may submit the proposition to the members of the society

in a written or printed report, and may convene a special

meeting for the consideration thereof according to the

regulations of the society; but no such proposition shall

be carried into effect unless such report shall have been

delivered or sent by post to every member of the society

ten days previous to the special meeting convened by the

governing body for the consideration thereof, nor unless

such proposition shall have been agreed to by the votes

of three-fifths of the members delivered in person or by

proxy, and confirmed by the votes of three-fifths of the

members present at a second special meeting convened

by the governing body at an interval of one month after

the former meeting.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

15. Elucidating on the scope of Section 12 of the Act, the Division

Bench of this Court in Dushyant Sharma v. Haryana Wrestling

Association & Ors, has observed that Section 12 of the Act enables a

society to alter or amend its objects and purpose and does not extend

to registering any amendment in Rules and Regulations of the society.

Additionally, in Supreme Court Bar Association v. B.D. Kaushik, 5 the

Supreme Court observed that rules relating to the exercise of the right

to vote and contest elections do not amount to altering, amending, or

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 22 of 31

changing the aims and objects of the society and can be implemented

without the consent of the Registrar, as provided in the Act.

16. In light of the above, it is clear that the Registrar of Societies

does not have supervisory powers over the affairs of the society and

we must now consider whether the Petitioner’s prayer can be granted.

17. In the opinion of the Court, Registrars’ reliance on Section 12 of

the Act is misplaced. The provision specifically addresses situations

where the governing body of a society seeks to alter, extend, or

abridge the society’s ‘purposes’—essentially a change in the

objectives or mission of the society. It is intended to regulate changes

that would affect the very character and goals of the society, requiring

a higher threshold of approval from the members to ensure that such

changes are genuinely in the society’s best interests. In contrast, the

matter before the Court pertains merely to a change in the

composition of the governing body members, amendment of MoA and

by-laws and not a change in the society’s core purposes. Respondent

No. 3 society was established with the purpose of establishing

educational institutions, and this purpose has remained the same.

Therefore, any amendments in the constitution of the governing body

would not trigger Section 12 of the Act.

18. Furthermore, the Registrar of Societies does not have the

authority under Section 12, or any other provision of the Act, to

intervene in the internal affairs of the society, such as the election or

appointment of governing body members, unless it involves a

statutory violation. The communication dated 02nd November, 2020,

issued by the Registrar, indicates that the Registrar has assumed the

role of an adjudicatory body and questioned the changes in the

governing body, which is beyond the scope of powers conferred on

them by the Act. Furthermore, a society is entitled to have its own

rules and regulations, which constitute a contract among its members.

Although these rules must be registered under the Act, they do not

acquire a statutory character, and the authority to amend, vary, or

rescind such rules rests with the general body of the society’s

members. The society’s internal governance, including changes in the

governing body, is governed by its own rules, subject to compliance

with the Act, but not under the purview of Section 12, which strictly

pertains to changes in the society’s purposes.

19. That apart, the contention of the Registrar of Societies that the

relevant documents pertaining to the amendment in the MoA and by-

laws were not provided, and therefore the communication dated 13th

June, 2018 could not be taken on record under Section 12 of the Act,

is thus not sustainable. There is no provision of law cited by the

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 23 of 31

Registrar to substantiate this contention. The Societies Registration

Act does not empower the Registrar to impose additional procedural

requirements beyond those prescribed by the Act itself. The

Registrar’s demand for such documentation appears to be an

overreach of authority, as there is no statutory basis for requiring

these specific documents to validate an amendment in the rules and

regulations of a society already registered under the Act. Therefore,

the Registrar’s insistence on such documentation is without legal

foundation and cannot sustain.

20. In light of the foregoing, the Registrar’s impugned actions are

ultra vires the Act. The controversy arising from the communication

dated 28th July, 2023, issued in response to an RTI application filed

by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Khemka, needs to be addressed. In this

communication, the Registrar of Societies disregarded the earlier

communication dated 13th June, 2018 and instead relied on previous

records to assert that the composition of the society’s governing body

remains unchanged. Given this inconsistency, the communication

dated 28th July, 2023 must be disregarded.

21. That said, it must be clarified that the observations made by this

court are only for the purpose of creating an interim arrangement, till

such time, the Civil Court in Civil Suit No. CS SCJ No. 313/24, 6 takes

a final view in the matter relating to the legality of the meeting dated

13th June, 2018. As can be noted from the prayers sought in the Civil

Suit preferred by the intervenors, the minutes dated 13th June, 2018

and the resolutions passed therein, have been impugned as void ab

initio and non est in law. The resolution of these issues falls squarely

within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, which must adjudicate the

validity of the meeting and the decisions taken therein. The final

decision of the Civil Court will be binding on the Registrar of

Societies/Respondent No.2 and will determine the legitimacy of the

governing body’s composition as recognized on 13th June, 2018.

Therefore, it is reiterated that the observations made by this Court are

limited to assessing the jurisdiction and actions of the Registrar of

Societies and should not be construed as reflecting any opinion on the

validity of the minutes of the meeting dated 13th June, 2018. These

issues remain within the purview of the civil court.”

33. In Employees Welfare Forum & Ors. v. Registrar Of Societies

Central & Ors., 2024:DHC:8242, this Court has observed as under -

“6. The stand taken by the Registrar of Societies is in consonance with

the view taken by this Court in several decisions. In Maheshwari

Mandal (Delhi) v. The State of Delhi & Ors. after examining the

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 24 of 31

scheme of the Societies Registration Act, the Court conclusively held

that on a plain reading of Sections 12, 12A, 12B and 12C of the

Societies Registration (Delhi Amendment) Act, 1954, 7 in conjunction

with Section 3 of the Societies Registration Act, does not empower the

Registrar of Societies to adjudicate any issues with regard to the

amendment of any purpose or object of the society. The relevant

portion of the said judgment is as follows:

“7. It is apparent from the plain reading of the sections12,

12A, 12B and 12C of the Act read with section 3 of the Act

that the Registrar does not have any power to adjudicate

any issues with regard to the amendment of any purpose

or object of the society. However, in terms of Section 12A

of the Act, the Registrar has the power to review

registration of the change in name of a society if in its

opinion the same resembles or is identical to the name of

any existing society.

8. At this stage it is also relevant to mention that a Division

Bench of this Court in Dushyant Sharma v. Haryana

Wrestling Association & Ors: LPA No. 18/2012, decided on

10.01.2012 had observed that section 12 of the Act enabled

a society to alter or amend its objects and purpose and did

not extend to registering any amendment in Rules and

Regulations of the society.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent was

also unable to point out any provision in the Act which

empowers the Registrar to perform any adjudicatory

function in respect of the disputes raised by the petitioner.

10. Mr Abhinav Vasisht, learned Senior Advocate

appearing for the petitioner also pointed out that where

ever the State Legislatures intended the Registrar to

perform any adjudicatory function, the State Legislatures

had enacted express provisions in that regard. He referred

to the provisions of Section 12D of the Act as applicable in

the State of Uttar Pradesh. The said section reads as

under:-

“12D. Registrar's power to cancel registration in certain

circumstances.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in

this Act, the Registrar may, by order in writing, cancel the

registration of any society on any of the following grounds:-

(a) that the registration of the society or of its name or

change of name is contrary to the provisions of this Act or

of any other law for the time being in force; (b) that its

activities or proposed activities have been or are or will be

subversive or the objects of the society or opposed to public

policy; (c) that the registration or the certificate of renewal

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 25 of 31

has been obtained by misrepresentation of fraud:”

11. This Court finds much merit in the aforesaid contentions

advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Plainly, the Act as

applicable to Delhi does not include any provision which

entitles the Registrar to cancel a registration once the same

has been granted. As stated above, there is also no

provision which empowers the Registrar to examine and

adjudicate any dispute with regard to any alleged

irregularity in the procedure adopted by the society to

amend its Rules and Regulations.”

7. Having regard to the scheme of the Societies Registration Act, this

Court concurs with the legal position set out in the afore-noted

decision. Significantly, this pertinent issue was not brought to the

notice of the Court at the first instance. No doubt, the impugned order

was passed in compliance with the directions issued by this Court,

nonetheless, it still suffers a jurisdictional error. Further, though the

present petition does not specifically challenge the order dated 15th

February, 2016, it is evident that the said order also delves into the

issue of the validity of amendments—an adjudication that falls beyond

the jurisdictional competence of the Registrar. Therefore, both the

impugned order and the previous order dated 15th February, 2016,

are vitiated by a jurisdictional error and are consequently liable to be

set aside.

8. In light of the foregoing, this Court is of the considered view that

the appropriate remedy for the two factions of the governing body of

JNNYC, who are vying for control of its management, by questioning

the amendments to MoA, lies with the Civil Court of competent

jurisdiction. The Registrar of Societies could not have rendered any

opinion as he lacked jurisdiction.”

34. The legal position therefore stands crystallized as under :-

i. The Registrar of Societies is not vested with authority under Section

12 or any other provision of the Act to intervene in the internal affairs

of a registered society, except in cases involving a clear statutory

violation. Even under Section 12A of the Act, the Registrar’s

jurisdiction is narrowly circumscribed and is confined solely to

examining the registration of a proposed change of name, and that too

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 26 of 31

only where such name is identical with or deceptively similar to the

name of an existing society.

ii. Disputes concerning the affairs of a society registered under the Act

must necessarily be instituted before and adjudicated by a competent

civil court, as reinforced by Sections 13 and 14 of the Act and the

consistent judicial precedents on the issue.

iii. Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to resolve such disputes, nor can

mandamus be issued in absence of a statutory duty owed by the

Registrar.

35. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, the reliefs sought by

the petitioner, which squarely impinge upon the internal affairs of the

concerned society, are not maintainable under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. Issues as regards the petitioner’s claim to be named as

caretaker of RVK; challenges to the sale deed of Patna ashram property;

alleged irregularities in alienation, mutation, transfer, construction or

demolition of properties; allegations of fictitious membership, or claims that

the society has become defunct, are all matters concerning the internal

affairs of the society. Any grievance in respect thereof can only be examined

by a competent civil court having jurisdiction.

36. Thus this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the said issues.

The petitioner is, however, at liberty to avail appropriate civil remedies in

accordance with law for redressal of the grievances raised.

37. As regards prayer (b) of W.P.(C) 13723/2025, which pertains to the

impugned notice dated 30.07.2025 issued by the First Appellate Authority,

this Court has considered the petitioner’s grievance that the said notice was

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 27 of 31

dispatched only at 17:01 hours on 21.08.2025, after the date and time fixed

for his appearance, and was in fact delivered to him only on 26.08.2025. In

these circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the

concerned authorities to reconsider the matter, after affording him a proper

opportunity of being heard.

38. Further, with regard to prayer (a) in W.P.(C) No. 15987 of 2025,

wherein the petitioner seeks directions to the registrar of societies to place

before this Court the resolutions purportedly passed in the Governing Body

meetings of Raj Vidya Kender (RVK), along with all records pertaining to

the erstwhile society, Divine United Organisation (DUO), and its subsequent

change of name to RVK, including complete particulars of all movable and

immovable properties of DUO allegedly transferred, vested, or otherwise

dealt with under RVK, this Court notes that Section 19 of the Societies

Registration Act, 1860 expressly entitles any person to inspect documents

filed with the Registrar under the Act and to obtain certified copies or

extracts thereof.

39. It is, therefore, open to the petitioner to seek inspection and certified

copies of such documents as are available on record with the Registrar of

Societies. However, this Court cannot issue directions to the Registrar of

Societies, NCT of Delhi, to conduct an inquiry into the affairs of RVK or to

take consequential actions such as cancellation of registration (prayer b in

W.P.(C) No. 15987 of 2025).

40. The present petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. It is

clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of

opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s allegations. The Registrar of

Societies shall, however, continue to ensure regulatory oversight and

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 28 of 31

compliance with the Societies Registration Act, 1860 strictly within the

statutory framework.

41. All the other applications filed by the petitioner including CM

APPL.38858/2025 in W.P.(C) 2902/2025 also stand disposed of.

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025

42. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the

following reliefs.

43. Vide order dated 07.03.2025 passed in W.P. (C) 2902 of 2025, this

Court had issued the following directions –

1. Issue notice to the respondents, on necessary steps being taken by the

petitioner, through all permissible modes, including electronically. Dasti

in addition.

2. Let the notice indicate that reply be filed by the respondents within a

period of three weeks from the receipt of notice. Rejoinder thereto, if any,

be filed within a period of one week thereafter.

3. List on 21.04.2025.

4. In the meantime, status quo shall be maintained as regards the

immoveable properties of the respondent no.1.

44. Subsequently, CM APPL. 22817/2025 was filed by Raj Vidya Kender

seeking vacation of the ex parte ad-interim status quo order granted on

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 29 of 31

07.03.2025. After hearing the parties, the said application was allowed, and

the status quo order operating in favour of the petitioner was vacated vide

order dated 19.05.2025. The order dated 19.05.2025 is reproduced as under

–

1. This is an application seeking vacation of directions contained in the

order dated 07.03.2025, wherein, it has been, inter alia, directed that the

respondent no.1 shall maintain status quo as regards the immoveable

properties of the respondent no.1.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2/ Raj Vidaya Kender society

(Red. No. 8845/1977) submits that the petitioner is guilty of concealment

of the material facts in the present petition and the concerned society has

been existing for a long period of time and is quite reputed.

3. He submits that affairs of the respondent no.2 have been conducted in

a manner which is perfectly consistent with law and in compliance with

the requirements of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

4. He draws attention to other previously instituted litigations between

the petitioner and the respondent no.2, wherein, strong observations

have made by this Court as regards the conduct of the present petitioner.

In particular, attention is drawn to the judgment dated 17.04.2025 in

W.P.(CRL) 3931/2024 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in

which, it has been found that the petitioner has made reckless allegations

against the Advocate who appeared against him on behalf of the

respondent no.2. Findings have been rendered as regards the conduct of

the petitioner and as regards suppression of material facts.

5. Importantly, attention is drawn to a communication dated 19.03.2025

addressed by the petitioner in the aftermath of the aforesaid order dated

07.03.2025 passed by this Court wherein it has been stated as under:-

“NOTICE TO ALL CONCERNED MEMBERS OF RVK

SOCIETY

To: All Concerned Members of RVK Society

Date-19.03.2025

Re: Maintenance of Status Quo regarding Immovable

Property of RVK Society

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 30 of 31

This is to inform you that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has

passed an order dated 7.3.2025, in W.P. ( c ) No. 2902/2025

directing that the status quo be maintained with regards to

the immovable property of RVK Society.

In accordance with the Court’s order, it is hereby notified

that:

- The immovable property of RVK Society shall remain in its

current state, and changes or alterations shall be made

thereto.

- No transfer, sale, or alienation of the immovable property

shall be permitted until further orders from the Court.

- All members of the Society are directed to comply with the

Court’s order and maintain the status quo.

Please take note of this important development and ensure

compliance with the Court’s directives.

Sd/-

Sincerely,

Satya Prakash Ravidas

Through Petitioner in Person W.P.( c ) No.2902/2025

Pursuant to the dated 7.3.2025 in W.P. ( c ) No.2902/2025 of

the Hon’ble Court, I am hereby deemed to be the caretaker of

RVK.”

6. As such, the petitioner has sought to project the interim order to imply

that he has been appointed as the caretaker of the respondent no.2. The

same clearly amounts to a mischievous misrepresentation thereof.

7. Learned counsel for the Registrar of Societies/respondent no.1 also

points out that the petitioner has filed multiple petitions with regard to

the respondent no.2 making vague and frivolous allegations having no

merit at all. He points out that the Registrar has duly disposed of the

representation/s of the petitioner in terms of the previously instituted

petition filed by the petitioner before the Telangana High Court being

Writ Petition No.: 8685 of 2024.

8. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2 also draws attention to

a communication addressed by the respondent no.2 to the respondent

no.1 on 02.01.2025, wherein, it is recorded that the elections of the

respondent no.2 were duly held on 10.12.2024 and the concerned office-

bearers were duly elected.

CONT.CAS(C) 685/2025 & Connected Matters Page 31 of 31

9. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, particularly the submission

of learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 that there is nothing amiss

about the state of affairs of the concerned society, the interim order dated

07.03.2025 is vacated.

10. However, while vacating the interim order, it is made clear that all

rights and contentions of the petitioner are left open to be considered at

the time of final disposal of the writ petition, on the next date of hearing.

11. The application stands disposed of.”

45. In view of the above, once the very order that forms the foundation of

the present contempt petition stands vacated, and in view of dismissal of

W.P.(C) 2902/2025, no cause for contempt survives. Consequently, the

petition is dismissed.

SACHIN DATTA, J

FEBRUARY 2, 2026/sv