In this matter the petitioner has made following prayers:
"9.[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the Respondent No.1 to implement Inquiry Report dated 26/11/2010 at Annexure-A.
[B] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 Club to maintain status quo qua the Board of Directors and Members of the Respondent No.3 Club.
[C] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct Respondent No.1 to initiate inspection under section 209A of the companies Act, 1956 as recommended vide Inquiry Report dated 26/11/2010 at Annexure-A."
The respondent No.2 Registrar of Companies has filed an affidavit on 1/2/2012, wherein it is inter alia mentioned as under:
" That the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi has taken decision on report dated 26-11-2010 of this Office and directed the Regional Director (NWR) Ahmedabad vide MCA's letter No. F. No.7/110/2011-CL-II dated 04-01-2012 to carry out the inspection of Books of Accounts and other records u/s. 209A of the Companies Act, 1956 of M/s. Karnavati Club Limited and submit report to the Ministry at the earliest (copy of letter dated 04-01-2012 is enclosed)"
It is further averred as under in the said affidavit:
"The Regional Director (NWR) Ahmedabad vide e-mail dated 12-01-2012 (11.49 A.M.) has communicated that the inspection of the said company has been taken up w.e.f. 12-01-2012 by the officers of the Directorate"
In view of this, it was submitted on behalf of respondent no.3 to dispose of this matter, as now, the prayer is satisfied, though this submission is made without prejudice to the paramount contention that the petitioner did not have any locus even to move this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Shri A.P. Champaneri submits that Shri PS Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India representing respondent nos. 1 & 2 has personal difficulty and, therefore, this matter be adjourned to 13/2/2012, and if it is not inconvenient to others, it can be kept on 15/2/2012.
Learned advocate Shri Syed for the petitioner submits that when respondent nos. 1 & 2's counsel is seeking time, let the matter be kept on 15/2/2012 as it is not convenient for him on 13th & 14th February, 2012.
This Court is of the view that time shall be granted as requested, and the matter is now kept on 15/2/2012. If counsels have inconvenience for that day, they shall make arrangements for representing themselves or else the matter will be decided on merits, especially when it is stated that the main prayer of the petitioner itself stood granted.
Adjourned to 15/2/2012.
[ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn Top