D. S. Sinha J. - (1.) A -Heard Chaudhary N. A. Khan and Sri H. P. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the parties. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.
(2.) ACCORDING to Chaudhary N. A. Khan, learned counsel for petitioner, the respondent no. 1 is not issuing a certified copy of the list of the officers of the petitioner society, allegedly submitted on 20th November, 1989 in compliance with the provisions of section 4 of the Societies registration act, 1860, as amended by the State of U. P. (hereinafter called the Act) following the election alleged to have been held on 17th November, 1989. It cannot be disputed that under section 19 of the Act any person may inspect all the documents filed with the Registrar under the Act on payment of a fixed fee. Under the said provision any person may require a copy or extract of such dacument or any part thereof to be certified by the Registrar on payment of certain fee. If there has been election of the office-bearers of the petitioner-society on 17th November, 1989 and a list of the officers has been submitted on 20th November 1989 and a proper application has been made for issuance of the certified copy of the list the registrar would be under legal obligation to issue the certified copy of the list of officers.
(3.) FROM the averments made in the petition it is not clear as to when the application for issuance of the certified copy of the list of officers was made by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner-society has invited the attention of the court to the averments made in paragraph 19 of the petition in this regard. Paragraph 19 talks of the reminders with regard to the issuance of "the list of the committee of Management." It is not disclosed as to whether and when the application for certified copy of the list of the officers was made. However in view of the fact that under section 19 of the Act any person is entitled to have a certified copy of the list of the officers, the petitioner-society cannot be denied a certified copy of the list of its officers, if lodged with the Registrar. Respondent no. 1, who is, presumably, exercising the power of the Registrar under the Act, is, therefore, directed to issue to the petitioner Society a certified copy of the list of its office-bearers on a proper application being made, if not already made. This order shall be effective only if the alleged election of the Office bearers has duly taken place on 17th November, 1989 and a list of the Office-bearers elected at the said election has been duly submitted with respondent no. 1 on 20th November, 1989, as alleged in the petition.;