Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) Surendra Singh and 81 others, claiming themselves to be life members of the Gramopyogi Shiksha Pracharini Samiti, Bakarganj, Goraju, Kaushambi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society') have filed this petition for setting aside the order dated 20th March, 2010 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Assistant Registrar') by which he has registered the list of office bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the Society under Sec. 4(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
(2.) It needs to be noticed that earlier Surendra Singh alone had filed Writ Petition No. 19012 of 2010 for assailing the same order dated 20th March, 2010 passed by the Assistant Registrar and this petition was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 13th April, 2010 with the following observations: Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Committee of Management could not have held the elections pursuant to the notice dated 27th August, 2008 published in the newspaper since the elections could have been conducted only by the Assistant Registrar under Sec. 25(2) of the Act as the Committee of Management of the Society had become time barred and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Committee of Management, Adarsh Shiksha Niketan Renukoot, District Sonbhadra and Anr. v/s. The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Division, Varanasi and Ors. : (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1600. He further submitted that on 8th February, 2008, prior to the holding of the elections, the President of the Society had written a letter to the Assistant Registrar to hold the elections of the Committee of Management under Sec. 25(2) of the Act and the Assistant Registrar had also written a letter for submission of the list of office bearers so that the elections could be held, but despite such objections, the erstwhile Committee of Management of the Society proceeded to hold the elections. He has further submitted that despite such objections having been filed by the Petitioner and certain other life members, the Assistant Registrar registered the list of office bearers and the members of the Committee of Management of the Society. ... The preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondents needs to be considered first. Under Sec. 25(1) of the Act, the Prescribed Authority may, on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least one -fourth of the members of a Society, hear and decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office bearer of such Society. In the instant case, the Assistant Registrar, on the basis of the election held on 14th September, 2008, registered the list of office bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the Society. Only one life member has challenged the order passed by the Assistant Registrar. It has, therefore, to been seen whether, at the instance of one life member, in view of the aforesaid provisions of Sec. 25(1) of the Act, it is a fit case for exercising the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) After referring the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 580 of 2009 (Kalrav Agarwal and Anr. v/s. State of U.P. and Ors.) decided on 12th May, 2009, the Court dismissed the said petition holding: In the present case also, only one life member of the General Body has sought the quashing of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar. It is, therefore, not a fit case, in view of the provisions of Sec. 25(1) of the Act, for exercising powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution at the instance of the Petitioner.;