S.C.Mathur, J. - (1.) The only question arising in this writ petition is whether the dispute that was decided by the Registrar, Firms and Societies was covered by Section 12-D of the Societies Registration Act. 1860 (Act 21 of 18601 (for short the Act) or was covered by Section 25 thereof? The question has arisen in the circumstances hereinafter indicated.
(2.) There is a society known as Shree Sanatan Dharm Sanskrit Pathshala Rupadiha, District Bahraich. This Society was registered in the year 1956 under the provisions of the Act. At the time of this registration Sri Shiv Ram Srivastava was the Manager of the Society. On 6-9-1979 Sri Ram Chandra Agarwal, opposite party Nil. 3 made an application for renewal of registration. This renewal, it appears was granted on 12-10-1979 and was to be in respect of the period commencing on 10-10-1977 and ending on 10-10-1979. On 6-111979 opposite-party No. 3 again applied for renewal and renewal certificate valid up to 10-10-1981 was issued on 4-1-80. Thereafter on 27-6- 1980 an objection was filed on behalf of Sri Sheo Ram Srivastava who stated that he continued to be the Manager of the Society and opposite-party No. 3 had no right to act on behalf of the Society and to obtain the registration. The objection of Sri Shiv Ram Srivastava was upheld by the Deputy Registrar who by his order dt. 3-9-1981, Annexure-1. held that Sri Shiv Ram Srivastava never resigned from the office as was pleaded by opposite party No. 3 and therefore, he continued to be the Manager. On this basis the renewal of registration that was made at the instance of opposite party No. 3 was cancelled, and a fresh certificate was issued to sri Shiv Ram Srivastava on 31-10-1981. This order was appealed against by opposite party No. 3 before the State Government, Before the State Government the case of opposite-party No. 3 was that the Deputy Registrar wrongly treated the dispute as one under Section 12-D of the Act and that the dispute raised by Sri Shiv Ram Srivastava was actually covered by Section 25 under which the dispute could be resolved by the Prescribed Authority and not by the Deputy Registrar. On this basis it was pleaded by opposite party No. 3 that the order passed by the Deputy Registrar was without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed, The State Government by its order dated 20-4-1982 Annexure 8, upheld the contention of opposite party No. 3 and held that the dispute was covered by Section 25 of the Act and not by Section 12-D. After holding thus, the State Government quashed the order of the Deputy Registrar and directed that it would be open to the Registrar to take action under Section 25 of the Act. This is the order which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
(3.) In support of the writ petition it has been argued by Sri Kapil Deo that the matter was squarely covered by Section 12-D and, therefore, the direction given by the State Government is erroneous. In order to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel relevant portions of Section 12-D and Section 25 may be reproduced :- "12-D.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Registrar may, by an order in writing cancel the registration of any society on any of the following grounds- (a) that the registration of the society or of its name or change of name is contrary to the provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force; (b) that its activities or proposed activities have been or are or will be subversive of the objects of the society or opposed to public policy. 25. (1) The prescribed authority mar, 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 ...... ...... ............ ...";