G.P.Malhur, J. - (1.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record.
(2.) The appellants in this appeal filed writ petition challenging the order dated 9.2.2000 of the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits. Varanasi. The writ petition having been dismissed by a learned single Judge on 30.3.2000, they have preferred the present special appeal.
(3.) It is not in dispute that an election to elect the office bearers of the Society was held on 8.7.1992. Thereafter no election was held within a period of three years. The appellants allege that an election was held on 9.3.1997 in which appellant No. 2 Uma Shankar Giri was elected as Manager. One Dwarlka also claimed that an election was held on 13.12.1998 in which he was elected as Manager. He applied for renewal of the registration of the society, on the basis of the aforesaid election. The Assistant Registrar by his order dated 9.2.2000 held that as the election of the society had not been held within the specified period prescribed under the rules it was not possible to recognize any one of the alleged Managers. By the same order, he directed that a fresh election be held and in connection thereof he fixed 11.3.2000 as the date for deciding the Issue regarding membership of the Society. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the view taken by the Assistant Registrar that election had been held after the expiry of the period fixed tn the bye-laws is incorrect in as much as Para 8 of the byelaws of the Society provides that the office bearers of the Society shall continue to function till fresh election is held. We are unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The opening part of Para 8 of the bye-laws specifically lays down that the terms of the olfice bearers will be three years from the date of the election. Thereafter a proviso has been added which lays down that the office bearers shall continue to function till a fresh election is held. A plain interpretation of Para 8 of the byelaws would show that normal period of office bearers of the Society is three years from the date of election and after the expiry of three years, they are entitled to function till the election is held. The election was held on 8.7.1992 and the appellants claimed that the next election took place on 9.3.1997, i.e.. after about five years. Sri Dwarika claimed that election took place on 13.12.1998, i.e.. after more than six years. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion -that the Assistant Registrar was justified in exercising powers under sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act in directing that a fresh meeting of the general body be held for electing office bearers of the Society. Sri Srivastava lastly urged that it is a case where there was a dispute in respect of election or continuance of office bearers of the Society and, therefore, the matter ought to have been referred to the Prescribed Authority for decision under subsection (1) of Section 25 of the Act. We are unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The dispute referred to under this provision could arise only if the election had been held within the period of three years and two rival groups claimed to have been elected as office bearers of the Society. The claim made by both the parties was based upon the elections, which were admittedly held after more than five years. In these circumstances, the Assistant Registrar was perfectly justified in issuing direction to hold a fresh election under sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act. We, therefore, find no Illegality in the Impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.;