D.S.Sinha, Lakshmi Bihari, JJ. - (1.) On 14th December. 1999, the learned single Judge, before whom instant petition was up for consideration for admission, passed the following order : "Hon'ble S. Harkauli, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This writ petition arises out of an order passed by the Registrar of the Societies dated 19.11.1999 by which it has been held that respondent No. 2 is valldly elected committee of management and petitioner No. 1 is not the validly elected committee. The election of respondent No. 2 is alleged to have been held on 21.3.1999 while election of petitioner No. 1 is alleged to have been held on 20.6.1999. The renewal of certificate of registration of the societies was done in 1991. Consequent upon the election, three applications were filed for renewal of registration. First application was by out going committee of management which did not appear to press the application and the application was impliedly rejected by granting renewal in favour of respondent No. 2. Two other applications were made by petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2. Consequence to the finding in favour of election dated 21.3.1999, the renewal has been granted in favour of respondent No. 2. The order is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the Registrar had no power to decide the dispute as to which of the committee of management was validly elected committee of management. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 who has filed a caveat in this case has relied upon Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act. 1860 "as amended in its application to U.P." to Justify the decision of the Registrar. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 relies upon two decisions of this Court in (1998) 2 UPLBEC WOO and (1998) 3 UPLBEC 1925. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, relies upon the decision of this Court in Khaparaha Educational Society v. Assistant Registrar, 1993 ESC 201, in which after considering the earlier decisions the learned single Judge has taken a view that the dispute regarding election should be referred to the Prescribed Authority instead of being decided by the Registrar. An argument was raised in the said reported decision which is contained in paragraph 7 of the Law Report. The said argument does not appear to have been answered except by saying that if the argument is accepted, Section 25 (1) would become meaningless. For ready reference Section 4 (1) proviso as applicable in U.P. and Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act is reproduced below : "Section 4 (1).--Once in every year, on or before the fourteenth day succeeding the day which, according to the rules of the society, the annual general meeting of the society is held, or, if the rules do not provide for an annual general meeting in the month of January, a list shall be filed with the (Registrar) of the names. addresses and occupations of the Governors, council, directors, committee, or other governing body then entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society : Provided that if the managing body is elected after the last submission of the list, the counter-signatures of the old members, shall, as far as possible, be obtained on the list. If the old office-bearers do not countersign the list, the Registrar may. In his direction, issue a public notice or notice to such person as he thinks fit inviting objections within a specified period and shall decide all objections received within the said period. "Section 25 (1).--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 registered in Uttar Pradesh, 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, and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit: Provided that the election of an office-bearer shall be set aside where the prescribed authority is satisfied : (a) that any corrupt practice has been committed by such office-bearer ; or (b) that the nomination of any candidate has been improperly rejected : or (c) that the result of the election is so far it concerns such officebearer has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination or by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void or by any non-compliance with the provisions of any rules of the society." In my opinion, if interpretation as suggested by learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted, then the word "and shall decide all objections received" in the proviso of Section 4 (1) will become absolutely meaningless. On the other hand, the provision of Section 25 (1) indicates that the said Section is intended to constitute the prescribed authority into an election Tribunal dealing with cases of election of individual members who are either guilty of corrupt practice or have been improperly elected because of the reasons given in the said proviso. Thus, Section 4 (1) and Section 25 (1), aforesaid, operate in different and distinct field. Where the dispute is not of the nature referred to in the proviso of Section 25 (1), but concerns other matters it has to be decided by the Registrar if the list is not counter-signed by out-going members and objections are received pursuant to or even without public notice or other notice contemplated by proviso. In the circumstances, I consider it desirable that the matter be placed before a Bench of at least three Hon'ble Judges (in view of the earlier Division Bench) for clear interpretation of two provisions referred to above so that the question of law may be settled. For this purpose relevant papers may be submitted before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for instituting a larger Bench. In the meantime if the petitioner is so advised he may institute a suit in accordance with normal law. Dated 14.12.1999" Pursuant to the above order dated 14th December, 1999, the then Hon'ble The Chief Justice passed an order which reads thus : "Place it before the Bench presided over by Hon'ble D.S. Sinha. J." N.K. Mitra 19.1.2000"
(2.) Consequently, the matter is up before this Bench. The Bench has read and re-read the order with the assistance of Sri A.P. Shahi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Narsingh Dikshit, the learned counsel of the respondent No. 2, and Sri Vinay Malvlya, the learned standing counsel of the State of U.P., representing the respondent No. 1, in anxiety to find out the question or questions of law which need answer by this Bench.
(3.) Clause (b) of the second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter V of the Rules of Court, 1952 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') empowers a Judge, if he thinks fit to refer a case which may be heard by a Judge sitting alone or any question of law arising therein for decision to a larger Bench. Obviously, the case has not been referred to this Bench for decision. From a meaningful reading of the order dated 14th December, 1999. the Bench perceives that it is called upon to settle some questions of law. However, the Bench has not been able to identify the question or questions of law referred for answer.;