1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 4.9.2010 passed by the District Registrar, directing re-audit of the petitioner No.1 society.
2. The petitioners have brought the challenge against the said order after expiry of almost 2 years. This is one reason in view of which the Court is not inclined to entertain the petition after such delay against the order directing re-audit of the petitioner No.1 society.
3. Mr.Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order is contrary to the provisions contained under sub-section (6) of Section 84 of the Act. Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the reason for the delay caused in challenging the said order is that through inadvertence the copy of the order was misplaced by the petitioner and therefore, the order could not be challenged earlier.
4. It emerges from the record that the respondent - District Registrar has passed the order upon receipt of certain complaints. The provision under sub-section (6) allows the Registrar to pass an order of re-audit either on application by the society or otherwise. The order directing re-audit on complaint would be covered within the purview of expression 'or otherwise'. After expiry of period of 2 years since the date of the said order, the Court is not inclined to entertain the said contention at this belated stage. Under the circumstances, present petition is not entertained and disposed of. The explanation for the delay is also not palatable and/or sustainable inasmuch as another copy of the order could have been requested for, for challenging the same within reasonable time after the order was passed. The petition, for the foregoing reasons, is not entertained and it stands disposed of.
(K.
M. THAKER, J.) (vipul) Top