YOGISH KUMAR SAXENA - (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners, and Sri K.P. Shukla for the respondent no. 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
(2.) THIS petition questions the legality of the order dated 6th July, 2012 on several grounds, namely, that the Deputy Registrar had no authority to pass an order of review without there being any fraud or misrepresentation. The Deputy Registrar has exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the order on grounds that were not available and finally even otherwise the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice. Sri Yogish Kumar Saxena contends that once the Deputy Registrar had after putting the erstwhile office bearers to notice registered the list of office bearers he had no power to review the same. He contends that there is no finding of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners. The second contention of Sri Saxena is that the date fixed for hearing in the matter by the Deputy Registrar was 20th of June, 2012. Thereafter no dates were fixed and at least the petitioners had no notice of any further dates. He submits that on 21st June, 2012, the Deputy Registrar admitted documents filed by Jagdish Narayan Yadav the respondent no. 3 and on that basis has passed the impugned order. He contends that this procedure of entertaining documents after the close of hearing behind the back of the petitioners and then passing an order on the basis of such material violates the principles of natural justice.
(3.) SRI K.P. Shukla for the respondent contends that the aforesaid facts are incorrect and as a matter of fact the dates were fixed even thereafter uptil 4th July, 2012, whereafter the impugned order has been passed on Th July, 2012. He therefore contends that the impugned order does not violate the principles of natural justice and it has been passed after considering the entire material on record including the documents relied upon by the petitioners. 6 Sri K.P. Shukla has urged that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit at this stage as the matter may be disposed of on the basis of the material that is on record. The same submission has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel.;