Raj Karan Singh Tanwar And ORS. v. State Of Haryana And Others





    
  

 

 !"

#$ %%%#"

"

!#$ &#$'$ ""#!()*!"

#$ %%%#$+!#"$ 

!

# 

  %%%#"

"

!# &#$'$ ""#!()*!"

#$ %%%#$+!#"$ ,"#!(#- $ !.%%      
  #$#".

$%) / 0102!-"# (!+#"

"

!#$3!%"! 
% ,% $

4 

102!-"#

%5!'24102!-"# (!#/   +#"

"

!#$ 
% ,%0/!4""  '1# !02!-"# "

$%6$

5!#4102!-"#

%& 2#65!*4102!-"# (!"

#+#"

"

!# 
%

%,##+60

 4102!-"# (!#$+!#"3!% 
%



%06$  # "102!-"# (!#$+!#"3!% 
%

%2 # 4 6 2

1# !02!-"# "

%52 "

""4102!-"# (!#$+!#"$3!% 
 (!#$+!#"$3!%7 
%

%2 $ '$

6104%0%5%1)*%   %

$  !#  $ 44   $+!$#  !(  9!"

 "

#  9!2#!"#   "

+#"

"

!$$"

#* 2!42#-!//!:'#$"

!$!(4 (-"% % #+4 #$( 4#!9# 4(!(#$+!#"$3!%"!
 1  #  "6#  ! #-!% 
!+ #$ 2# 9## $'++4 #  "! "

# -!'$#4(!"

#+#"

"

!#$% 3.

Primary challenge in these writ petitions is order dated 28.01.2022, passed by the District Registrar, Firms & Societies, Kurukshetra whereby petitions raising dispute regarding membership and election to Kshatriya Sabha, have been accepted by District Registrar. Petitioners have also assailed interim orders passed by District Registrar as well as some orders passed by the Administrator. 4.

Counsel for the contesting respondents has taken a preliminary objection that petitioners have an alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 79 of the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012. Reference has been made by him to order dated 12.12.2024 passed in CWP-6120-2023 titled "Rajinder Singh Tanwar and others Versus State of Haryana and others" to emphasize

7 that in a similar situation, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, has remanded the matters to the appellate authority. 5.

This prayer has been opposed by the counsel for the petitioners, who have placed reliance upon notification dated 23.05.2025 issued by the Registrar General of Societies, Haryana to urge that governing body of the society is competent to induct new members to a society and District Registrar cannot pass such an order. He has pointed out some orders passed by State Registrar. Arguments on merits have also been addressed by the counsel for the petitioners. 6.

Having heard counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that as an alternate efficacious statutory remedy is available under the statute, present petitions are not maintainable. Petitioners deserve to be relegated to avail the statutory remedy. Arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners cannot be considered at this stage. 7.

In view thereof, writ petitions are disposed of with a liberty to petitioners to avail the alternate statutory remedy. Liberty is also given to them to raise all the pleas before the appellate authority in case they chose to take recourse to the alternate remedy. 8.

Since these writ petitions have remained pending before this Court, petitioners shall be entitled to the exclusion of period spent before this Court while pursuing these petitions.

9.

In case, petitioners approach the appellate authority within a fortnight from today, appellate authority shall make an endeavour and decide the appeals as expeditiously as possible within a period of six

 months from the date of institution.

10.

Pending miscellaneous application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

   



   !"

  #$%&$%  %'()*%+,(-%'.!*/  %(,) #$%&$%  %-) &'01%  %(,)