ORDER
Dipak Misra, J.
1. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, a society registered under the M.P. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 21-6-2000. Annexure P-4, issued by the respondent 2.
2. The facts as have been uncurtained are that the petitioner-society was established in the year 1971 with the object of promoting Homeopathic System of Medicine through education. With the aforesaid intention it has established a Homeopathic Medical College in the township of Chhatarpur. The said institution is recognised by the National Homeopathic Council of India and is affiliated with Doctor Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar. The society has its own bye-laws and it function, according to the requirement of the said bye-laws. The society is managed by its executive body which is constituted from amongst its members. It is averred in the writ petition that the executive body so constituted is also the ‘Governing Body’ of the society within the meaning of Section 3 (a) of the Act. It has been putforth that recently there has been a fresh election on 22-7-2000 and the new Governing Body has come into existence. It has been averred that the petitioner-society since its establishment in the year 1971 has received no aid or grant from the State Government except assistance of Rs. 50,000/- which was given to it prior to 1990-91. According to the writ petitioner, the society is not a State-aided Society and, therefore, the State Government has no control over the affairs of the society. The State Government is only the appellate authority under Section 40 of the Act. It has been pleaded that the respondent 3, the Registrar, Firms and Societies had initiated an enquiry into the affairs of the society for which an enquiry officer was appointed who conducted the inquiry and submitted a report to the respondent 3 who passed order on 17-11-1999, contained in Annexure P-2. Against the aforesaid order one Ashok Kumar Chourasiya preferred an appeal to the State Government under Section 40 of the Act. The respondent 2, the Under Secretary in the Department of Commerce and Industries acting on behalf of the State Government set aside the order dated 17-11-1999 passed by the respondent 3 and directed the matter to be looked into comprehensively and further action be taken accordingly. The said order dated 6-5-2000 has been brought on record as Annexure P-3. As has been setforth in the writ petition while the matter stood thus, respondent 2 issued
an order dated 21-6-2000. Annexure P-4 passed in exercise of powers conferred upon the State Government under Section 33 of the Act appointing the respondent 4, the General Manager, District Commerce and Industry Centre, Chhatarpur to supervise the affairs of the society. It has been further putforth that the respondent 2 has referred to the notice to the show cause and the findings as per Annexure P-5. It is averred in the writ petition that Annexure P-4 does not indicate the date of show cause and in any case the petitioner had not received any show cause. It is further urged in the writ petition that the respondent 2 has no authority in law to take action under Section 33 of the Act as the petitioner-society is not a State-aided society.
3. A return has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that the petitioner-society is a ‘State Aided Society’ as it has received aid of Rs. 50,000/- from the State Government and, therefore, the action taken vide Annexure P-4 is totally defensible. It is further highlighted that the show cause was duly issued to the petitioner-society through the Collector, Chhalar-pur. It has been putforth that the show-cause notice bears the date and the allegation on that score is absolutely incorrect. The notice to show cause has been brought on record as Annexure R-2.
4. During the pendency of the writ petition one Dr. Narendra Singh Sengar filed an application for intervention which was allowed by order dated 19-1-2001.
5. I have heard Mr, R.N. Singh, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Arpan Pawar for the petitioner, Mr. P.D. Gupta, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr. Atul Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the intervener.
6. Mr. R.N. Singh, learned senior counsel has raised two fold contentions, namely, the petitioner-society does not come within the ambit and sweep of the definition of ‘State Aided Society’ as defined under Section 3 (f) of the Act and, therefore, the State Government or its functionaries have no authority to exercise the powers under Section 33 of the Act; and second, the order passed vide Annexure P-4 is dated 21-6-2000 and the show-cause notice, which has been brought on record as Annexure R-2 is dated 22-6-2000 and this clearly portrays a picture that no show cause was issued before the order vide Annexure P-4 was passed and that also vitiates the order. The learned counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Adarsh Vidya Mandir v. State of M.P., 1982 MPLJ 762.
Mr. P.D. Gupta, learned Deputy Advocate General, per contra, has contended that the submission of the learned counsel of the petitioner does not merit consideration inasmuch as the definition in Section 3 (f) has been amended w.e.f. 4-9-1998 and as per amended provision the petitioner would come within the ambit and sweep of the said definition and can be regarded as State Aided Society. The learned State counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case ot Patarkar Bhawan Samiti, Bhopal v. State of M.P. and Ors. (W.P. No. 2543/99, decided on 13-7-1999). As far as the second contention of Mr. Singh is concerned, the learned State counsel has submitted that the date might have been erroneously mentioned but that would not vitiate the entire proceeding carried out by the respondent 2. The learned counsel for the intervener has adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Gupta.
7. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to Section 3 (f) of the Act as it stood before the amendment :
“3 (f) : “State Aided Society” means a society which receives or has received aid or grant or loan from Central Government or State Government or any other statutory body.” After the amendment the said provision reads as under :–
“(f) “State Aided Society” means a society which receives or has received aid, grant or loan or has received land or building or both on concessional rates and other facilities from the Central Government or State Government or any Statutory Body.”
8. Submission of Mr. Singh is that the petitioner-society does not receive aid from the State Government and had only received assistance of Rs. 50,000/- before the year 1990-91. Proponemcnt of the learned counsel is that the assistance rendered a decade back would not convert the society to be a State Aided Society. The unamended provision came to be interpreted in the case of Adarsh Vidya Mandir (supra) wherein the learned Chief Justice speaking for the Court expressed thus :–
“The expression ‘State Aided Society1 as defined in Section 3 (f) of the Adhiniyam means ‘a society which receives or has received aid or grant or loan from Central Government or State Government or any other statutory body’. The return filed by the respondent goes to show that on 2nd December, 1975, Rs. 500 were paid to the petitioner society for Manila Rally; on 7th January, 1976, a sum of Rs. 1,000 was paid for purchase of Silai machine; and on 27th February, 1976, a sum of Rs. 500 was paid for Manila Rally. After that, admittedly, no aid within the meaning of Section 3 (f) was paid to the society. However, it is stated in Paragraph 9 of the return that a grant of Rs. 1100 and another grant of Rs. 3070 were sanctioned in favour of the petitioner society during the year 1978-79, but were not paid for want of required information. These facts, in our opinion, are not sufficient to bring the society within the definition of “State Aided Society”. This definition was construed by a Division Bench of this Court in Adarsha Shiksha Samiti and Anr. v. The State of M.P. and Ors. In that case it was pointed out that the present perfect tense in the words “has received” contemplates a completed event connected in some way with the present time. It was also pointed out that the aid given in 1977 in that case was relevant for the academic year 1977 and that it had no relevance to the academic year 1978-79 when the action was taken in that case against the society. Applying the same principle, the grant received by the petitioner society in the instant case in 1975 and 1976 could not authorise taking of any action in May, 1979 by the respondent under Section 33.”
Thus, the law laid down in the aforesaid case clearly enunciates that the terms ‘has received’ has to be understood to contemplate a completed event connected in someway with the present time.
9. Mr. P.D. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the judgment passed in the case of Patarkar Bhawan Samiti (supra) wherein the learned Single Judge has ruled thus :–
“It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that in Adarsha Vidya Mandir v. State of M.P., 1982 MPLJ 762 it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that the grant received by a Society in 1975 and 1976 cannot authorise taking of any action by the State in May, 1979 under Section 33 of the Act, the Society not being “State Aided Society” in the said year. It was observed that the present perfect tense in the words “has received” contemplates a completed event connected in someway with the present time. But in the present case the petitioner was given a grant-in-aid of Rs. 2,00,000/-in the year 1995 for construction of a cultural hall. Therefore, as per amended definition of the Society it “received aid” and it is covered by the words “State Aided Society”. Now in addition to the present perfect tense, the past tense has also been used to cover the aid nor grant which was received in the past. Further, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was also granted on concessional rates for its building and for that reason also it is a State Aided Society. In view of the amendment in clause (f) of Section 3 of the Act, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner based on the Divisional Bench decision of this Court referred above is not acceptable.”
10. I have bestowed my anxious consideration and perused the judgment rendered in the case of Patarkar Bhawan Samiti (supra). On a close scrutiny of the same it is perceptible that the learned Single Judge has quoted the amended provision as under :–
“A Society which received aid, grant or loan or has received land or building or both on concessional rates and other facilities from the Central Government, Stale Government or any statutory Body.”
On a perusal of the aforesaid quotation it becomes luminously clear that there has been erroneous reproduction of the provision. Mr. Gupta, learned State counsel has produced the official gazette and fairly conceded that the provision has been erroneously quoted. It is admitted by him that the provision reads “a society which receives aid” whereas in the judgment it has been mentioned ‘a
society which received aid.’
11. On a reading of the aforesaid decision it becomes graphically clear that the learned Single Judge has interpreted the provision “received aid”. If the language used would have been ‘received aid’ the law laid down in the case of Adarsh Vidya Mandir (supra) would not have been applicable, but as the language used in the statute is ‘receives aid’, the law laid down by the Division Bench would be squarely applicable as the Division Bench has interpreted the terms ‘has received’. As the provision has been wrongly reproduced in the case of Patarkar Bhawan Samiti (supra). I am of the considered opinion that the same would not be a precedent on the point and the law laid down in the case of Adarsh Vidya Mandir (supra) would still govern the field.
12. If the present factual matrix is tested on the anvil of the law laid down by the Division Bench the petitioner-society cannot be treated as a ‘State Aided Society’ inasmuch as the society has been given assistance of Rs. 50,000/-almost a decade back which has no relevance in presenti. Section 33 of the Act deals with the supersession of Governing Body and it is applicable to the State Aided Society. In view of my conclusion that the petitioner-society is not State Aided Society, the State Government could not have passed the order contained in Annexure P-4.
13. Presently, I shall advert to the second contention of Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. On a perusal of Annexure P-4 it is apparent that the said order has been passed on 21-6-2000. The said order docs not reflect the date of notice of show cause. Submission of Mr. Singh is that no notice was ever served on the petitioner-society. The learned counsel for the State has referred to Annexure R-2. On a close scrutiny of Annexure R-2, it is perceivable that the same is dated 22-6-2000. On a bare perusal of the same it becomes graphically clear that the order vide Annexure P-4 was passed before the notice to show cause was issued. On this ground also the order passed vide Annexure P-4 is susceptible as the said order has come into existence in violation of principles of natural justice.
14. In view of the aforesaid premises the writ petition is allowed and the order passed vide Annexure P-4, being sensitively susceptible, is quashed. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
15. Writ Petition allowed.