Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Manipur, Division Bench of Chief Justice M. Sundar and Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma, clarified that while the Registrar of Societies holds statutory authority to investigate the affairs of a registered society upon forming a bona fide opinion that circumstances suggest mismanagement, such power must be exercised strictly in accordance with the prescribed legal framework. The dispute arose from a contested election of office bearers of a state sports body, wherein a member association alleged procedural irregularities. The Court set aside the Registrar's order directing fresh elections, finding it procedurally non-compliant, while directing a fresh inquiry to be conducted within stipulated timelines.

The matter arose from a dispute concerning the election of office bearers and Executive Council members of the Manipur Olympic Association (MOA), a society registered under the Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989 (MSR Act). The earlier council, elected on 19.08.2018 for four years, completed its tenure on 18.08.2022. Thereafter, notices were issued for convening an Annual General Body Meeting and conducting fresh elections, culminating in elections scheduled for 14.01.2024 but concluded on 12.01.2024 as all candidates were elected unopposed.

The Manipur Olympic Association, a society registered under the Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989, had its office bearers and executive council elected in August 2018 for a four-year term, which elapsed in August 2022. Following the expiry of the term, a notice was issued in October 2023 convening an Annual General Body Meeting and election, which could not be held due to the National Games. A fresh notice was subsequently issued in December 2023 scheduling elections for January 2024.

Also Read: Compassionate Assistance To Deceased Government Employee's Dependents Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation To Extent Of Overlapping Pecuniary Loss: Supreme Court

A member association, the Manipur Judo Association, submitted representations to the Registrar of Societies alleging that holding elections through a council whose term had already expired was improper, and sought appointment of an ad-hoc committee. These representations were followed by a judicial direction mandating the Registrar to examine them and pass a speaking order.

The Registrar thereafter issued an order cancelling the December 2023 election notice and directing fresh elections through a Returning Officer. This order was challenged before a Single Bench, which quashed it on the ground that the Registrar lacked the requisite statutory authority. The State of Manipur and the Registrar appealed against that finding before the Division Bench.

The Division Bench commenced its analysis by examining the scope of the Registrar's authority under Section 22 of the Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989. On the question of statutory jurisdiction, the Court observed that "Second appellant (Registrar of Societies, Manipur) certainly has powers to investigate the affairs of a society (MOA in this case) under Section 22 of MSR Act when he/she, on information is of opinion that circumstances suggesting that a society is guilty of mismanagement of affairs has come to light."

On whether such circumstances existed in the present case, the Court stated that "conduct of election by council whose tenure had elapsed resulting in election of all office bearers and all members of executive council being elected unopposed viewed in the light of allegations of MJA that it is a make believe affair is certainly a circumstance which will prima facie qualify as information leading to opinion qua mismanagement of affairs of MOA."

The Court was careful to record that it was not returning any finding on the merits of the mismanagement allegation, observing that "we are not expressing any opinion that there is any mismanagement of affairs and we also equally hasten to make it clear that we are not going to write that there is no mismanagement of affairs."

On the procedural lapses in the Registrar's order, the Court observed that "the exercise of power by second appellant under Section 22 of MSR Act read with Rule 30 of MSR Rules is neither in accordance with the substantive provision namely, Section 22 nor in conformity with the procedure prescribed vide Rule 30 of MSR Rules." It further noted that "the second appellant has not appointed an officer for inquiry into alleged mismanagement of affairs" and that "the report of the officer cannot culminate straightaway in an order of election as Registrar should have sent the report of the officer together with his comments to the State Government."

Addressing the State's contention that the Government's awareness of the proceedings amounted to sufficient compliance, the Court recorded that "mere knowledge of State Government about the proceedings before Registrar culminating in the 19.01.2024 order can hardly be construed as compliance with the basic requirement of Section 22 much less rigour of Section 22 of MSR Act."

The Court applied the Taylor v. Taylor principle to the Registrar's conduct, stating that "when the Registrar exercised power under Section 22, it ought to have been done in prescribed manner or not done at all but the latter option is unavailable as second appellant was mandamused to act on MJA representation by a judicial order albeit in accordance with Act and Rules."

Also Read: Right To Effective Representation Under Article 22(5) Cannot Be Time-Barred By Rigid Timelines In NSA Detention Grounds: Manipur High Court

“Until the decision of State Government and logical conclusion qua State Government, management of the affairs of MOA will be pursuant to 14.01.2024 election (concluded on 12.01.2024)…the office bearers and executive council, who are now in office pursuant to 14.01.2024 elections (concluded on 12.01.2024), shall continue to function but the decision taken will be subject to the outcome of the drill which is to ensue.”

“All questions are left open, the second appellant shall proceed with the drill untrammelled by any observation/s made in this order as such observation/s have been made for the limited purpose of disposal of the captioned WA and the captioned MC thereat.”

"In the light of narrative, discussion and dispositive reasoning thus far, captioned writ appeal is partly allowed with observations and directions with the timelines as above. Consequently, the captioned miscellaneous case therein is disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. M. Rarry, Senior Advocate instructed by Ms. Nikita, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. N. Ibotombi, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. Leo, Advocate; Mr. N. Jotindra, Senior Advocate instructed by Md. Syed Murtaza Ahmed, Advocate

Case Title: State of Manipur & Anr. vs. Manipur Olympic Association & Ors.
Case Number: W.A. No. 2 of 2026
Bench: Chief Justice M. Sundar, Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma