M. Katju, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 22.12.1992 of a learned Single Judge of this court delivered in writ petition No. 22808 of 1991, Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Society, Maharajganj, v. Director of Higher Education, V.P. and others. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents and we have gone through the record. The dispute relates to Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Society, Maharajganj which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and it runs two post Graduate Colleges, namely, Jawahar Lal Nehru Smarak Post Graduate College, Maharajganj, and Lal Bahadur Shastri Smarak Degree College, Anandnagar, Gorakhpur. Earlier one professor Shibban Lal Saxena was at the helm of the affairs of the society as well as management of the two colleges. On his death on 20th October, 1985 a dispute arose between the parties to get control of the society and the management of the two colleges. Shri Nar Singh Narain Pandey and Shri Amar Nath Misra claimed to be the President and Manager respectively on the basis of election held on 24.11.1985, for Maharajganj College and 27.11.1985 for Anandnagar College. On the other hand, Shri Balram Bhatt, respondent No. 7 in the writ petition claimed to be the President and Manager of the Society and Managing Committees of the two colleges on the basis of a will of Professor Shibban Lal Saxena. The Vice -Chancellor on 18.1.1986 passed an order recognising the Committee of Management of which Nar Singh Narain was the President and Amar Nath Misra the Manager. However, the order of the Vice -Chancellor was set aside by the Chancellor by order dated 13.8.1986 and the matter was sent back to the Vice -Chancellor for a fresh decision by a speaking order after hearing the parties. The Vice -Chancellor again decided in favour of Nar Singh Narain Pandey and Sri Amar Nath Misra. This order was again challenged before the Chancellor, but the Chancellor rejected the representation on 26.10.1987. Against this order writ petition No. 843 of 1988 was filed in this court which was disposed of on 23.11.88 by a consent order which directed that the election of the office bearers of the Committee of Management of the two colleges shall be held by the Director of Education, U.P. or any Additional Director of Education nominated by him within six weeks of production of a certified copy of the order. There was an undertaking given by the learned counsel that Dr. Balram Bhatt, respondent No. 7 in the writ petition shall not challenge the fresh election. However, this undertaking was deleted on an application and rest of the order dated 23.11.88 was maintained, with a further direction that the Director of Education or Additional Director of Education shall see that valid members alone are entitled to vote.
(2.) IN pursuance of the aforesaid order of the Court, the Director of Education notified the date of election by his order dated 3.2.1991 and the elections were held on 16.2.1991 but this was again challenged in another writ petition before this Court. The main grievance of the petitioners in this petition was regarding the correctness of voters list and the grievance was that the same was not prepared after giving opportunity of hearing. This writ petition was decided finally after hearing the parties by a consent order on 26.2.91. The operative portion of the order was as follows: - - In view of the aforesaid agreed position between the learned counsel for the parties, it is hereby directed that the election held on 15/16.2.1991 shall not be given effect to and it shall be ignored for all purposes. The Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits is directed to prepare list of persons entitled to vote in the election for constituting Committee of Management in respect of the institutions, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. This list shall be prepared within two months. The list prepared by the Registrar shall be supplied to the Director of Higher Education who shall supervise the election of the Committee of Management of both the institutions within six weeks thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. There will be no order as to costs. In pursuance of the said order of the court a list of voters was prepared by the Assistant Registrar, Gorakhpur dated 4.5.1991 and on the basis of the voters list so prepared elections were notified by the Director of Higher Education by his order dated 15.6.91. In the order of the Assistant Registrar it was observed that in view of the Government Order dated 7.1.1982 and further in view of the judgment dated 28.1.1982 of the Lucknow Bench of this Court (delivered in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, U.P. & another v. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P. and another W.P. No. 6644 of 1987) the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur has all powers of the Registrar and in fact, he is functioning in the Division as Registrar and has authority to decide the dispute regarding preparation of list of voters in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 26.2.1991. On the basis of the aforesaid list prepared by the Assistant Registrar the Director of Higher Education held election on 6.7.1991. The writ petition out of which the present appeal arose was filed against the order dated 6.7.1991 by which the Director of Higher Education notified the election of the Committee of Management in respect of the two colleges. The order dated 11.7.1991 passed by the Vice -Chancellor by which the Committees of Management so elected have been recognised by the Vice -chancellor were also challenged as also the order dated 11.7.1991 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Maharajganj by which the signatures of Dr. Balram Bhatt, respondent No. 7 in the writ petition were certified to operate the accounts. The main grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition was that in pursuance of the order of this court dated 26.2.1991 (which has been quoted above) only the Registrar could decide the dispute regarding the voters list and not the Assistant Registrar, Gorakhpur. It was also submitted that the order dated 4.4.1991 was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition held that although the power of the Registrar could be exercised by the Assistant Registrar in view of Sec. 21 of Societies Registration Act, read with the notification dated 7.1.1982 of the State Government by which the power of the Registrar was conferred on the Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar, yet since in the present case the source of power was the order of the court dated 26.2.1991 hence only the Registrar could decide the dispute regarding the voters list and the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to decide the said dispute. We regret we are unable to agree with the learned Single Judge. In our opinion, the order of this Court dated 26.2.1991 has been misconstrued by the learned Single Judge. The word 'Registrar' in the said order should be interpreted to mean 'Registrar' as defined in Sec. 21 of the Act. Sec. 21 of the Act states "In this Act, the word 'Registrar' means a person appointed as such by the State Government, and includes an Additional Registrar, a Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrar, or Assistant Registrar, on whom all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act are conferred by general or special order of the State Government.";