- (1.) The appellants filed a petition before the learned Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to question the legality of an order dated 7 November 2013 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi by which he finalized the electoral college (consisting of twenty eight members) for the purpose of holding an election. Apart from this relief, the appellants sought a direction to permit them to participate and vote in the election which was to be held on 17 November 2013 and a mandamus not to declare the result of the election till the disposal of the writ proceedings.
(2.) The election has been held and the result has been declared. The grievance of the appellants is that they were excluded from the electoral college when the Assistant Registrar on 7 November 2013 made a final determination of the list of persons who are eligible to participate and vote in the election. Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') provides a remedy where any doubt or dispute arises in respect of the election of the office bearers of a Society. However, the Prescribed Authority may entertain a dispute on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least 1/4th of the members of the Society.
(3.) The submission of the appellants is that since they have not been allowed to participate and vote in the election on the ground that they were not shown in the record as being the members of the Society, they would have no locus to file an election dispute under Section 25 (1) of the Act. The learned Single Judge while directing the Prescribed Authority to decide the election dispute, has qualified the observations by observing that if a proper reference is filed under Section 25 (1) of the Act, the Prescribed Authority may decide the dispute expeditiously. The grievance of the appellants is in respect of the exclusion of their names from the electoral college. Unless the appellants obtain a declaration in regard to their membership and in respect of their entitlement to participate and vote in the election, obviously, they would not be entitled to question the result of the election. In the exercise of writ jurisdiction, the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to entertain a disputed question of fact in regard to, whether they are truly and genuinely members of the Society. The appellants would, therefore, have to take recourse to their ordinary civil remedy in that regard.;