- (1.) The controversy relates to accepting a list of the governing body members of the Society filed by one E. K. Aboobaker Musaliar for the year 1990-91. The appellant also filed a list of governing body members for the same year. The District Registrar passed an order dated 22/3/1990 accepting the list given by E. K. Aboobaker Musaliar. The appellant was aggrieved by the said order of the District Registrar. He approached the High Court by filing a writ petition. A learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the District Registrar taking a view that the District Registrar had no such power of deciding a dispute between the parties under s. 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as the scope of S. 4 was limited for accepting the list of governing body members filed by a party. The correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge was called in question in writ appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court did not agree with the order of the learned Single Judge and held that the order passed by the District Registrar accepting the list of the governing body members given by E. K. Aboobaker Musaliar was correct. In so doing, the Division Bench has taken a view that in case where more than one list was filed of the members of the governing body, prima facie, the District Registrar could accept one list without adjudicating upon the dispute between the parties with regard to who was competent or which governing body was a validly constituted governing body and the final decision as to which is the validly constituted governing body could be left to the appropriate or competent authority to decide. The Division Bench of the High Court has also referred to Sections 5 and 6 and other provisions of the Societies Registration Act to indicate that incidental power could be exercised. It has also observed that E. K. Aboobaker has been filing lists up to the preceding year and, prima facie, the Registrar accepted the lists filed by E. K. Aboobaker for the year in question and, if the appellant had any claim on the basis that he was competent to file the list of the governing body members, as the order of the Registrar had not become final, it was open to the parties to take that issue before the competent court. Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench, the appellant is before us.
(2.) Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that under S. 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the District Registrar was not competent to adjudicate the dispute. According to him, the Division Bench of the High Court was not right in holding that the District Registrar has acted correctly in passing the order. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents made submissions in support of the impugned order. In the order passed by the District Registrar, he has indicated reasons for accepting the list of members of the governing body filed by E. K. Aboobaker stating that he was filing the lists for the earlier years and, if the appellant was claiming on the basis that he was competent to file, he has to establish the same. Learned Single Judge has taken the view that under S. 4, the District Registrar has no power to adjudicate the controversy. The Division Bench of the High Court, in the impugned judgment, has observed thus: "Thus, in the case of a dispute when more than one return is filed, the Registrar has got the power to find out as to which one he should accept. There may not be an elaborate enquiry. Prima facie he has to satisfy as to which return is to be accepted. In this case, we find that the list given by the appellant was accepted, because it had the support of court orders and also it was being followed for a large number of years. No doubt, such an enquiry made by the Registrar and the decision taken from it does not become final. The party can take up the matter before a competent court as to who are the members of the governing body. ";