Satish Chandra, C.J. - (1.) The Jakha Shiksha Parishad, Khajni in the district of Gorakhpur was a Society registered under the U.P. Societies Registration Act, 1960. In 1978, the petitioner alleges that elections of the office bearers of the Society took place and he was elected as the Manager-cum-Secretary. He applied to the Registrar for the renewal of the registration of the Society. In due course the Registrar granted the renewal with the petitioner being the Manager-cum-Secretary of the Society by an order dated 25th July, 1978. Subsequently, respondent no. 5, who was the erstwhile Manager-cum-Secretary moved a complaint before ,he Registrar that the renewal had been obtained by fraudulent elections and that the petitioner was never elected as the Manager-cum-Secretary. It was further asserted that the respondent no. 5 continued to remain as the Manager-cum-Secretary. On this the Registrar called upon the petitioner as well as respondent no 5 to produce evidence in support of their respective cases. He ultimately held respondent no. 5 to be the duly elected Manager-cum-Secretary. He directed the petitioner to hand over renewal certificate to respondent no. 5. He further directed respondent no. 5 to produce the accounts, rules, regulations, etc. for the years 197C-77 and 1977-78. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in substance the dispute was whether the petitioner or respondent no. 5 was the duly elected Manager-cum-Secretary. This was an election dispute. Under Section 25 (1) of the U.P. Societies Registration Act as amended in 1975, it was liable to be decided only by the Prescribed Authority. The Registrar had no jurisdiction to entertain or decide such a dispute. The point has substance. Section 25 (1) aforesaid reads:- "25. Disputes regarding election of office bearers. - (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 U,P, 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". It is, thus, apparent that the Registrar himself had no jurisdiction to hear and decide any doubt or dispute in respect of an election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such a society. His decision that the respondent no. 5 continues to be the Manager-cum-Secretary or that the petitioner was not duly elected was wholly without jurisdiction. He was in law bound to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority.
(3.) In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Registrar is set aside. It will be open to the Registrar to refer the dispute to the Prescribe Authority if he so thinks fit.;