- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. In this case the petitioner obtained renewal of registra tion of the concerned Society. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had alleged that the said renewal was obtained fraudulently by mis-leading the Regis trar, inasmuch as the petitioner had no right to obtain renewal. The renewal obtained by the petitioner was cancelled.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for respondents No, 2 and 3 that thereafter renewal of the registration of the Society was granted to the said respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He further contends that the said renewal having expired, further application has been made by the said respondents for renewal of the registration of the said Society, which is pending. Before cancelling the registration the renewal of registration was obtained by the petitioner and a notice to show cause was issued on 16-9-1991 which was challenged by means of writ petition No. 29879 of 1991, since been disposed of by an order dated 12-5-1992 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) directing the Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits to consider as to whether there is any existence of genuine dispute and if so, to refer the same to the Pres cribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. By an order dated 20-6-1992 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits held that there was no such genuine dispute which can be referred under Section 25 of the Act and the dispute was squarely covered under Section 12-D of the said Act and, therefore, he had decided the same himself. Against the aforesaid order, second writ petition, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23970 of 1992 was moved. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 22-10-1992 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) directing the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, to find out if there is any genuine dispute about the office bearers of the Society then he should refer the matter under Section 25 of the Act to the Prescribed Authority in terms of the order dated 12-5-1992. Thereafter by an order dated 26- 11-1992 the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits once again held that the same was not disputed within the meaning of Section 25 of the Registration Act and, therefore, had decided the same himself, as a dispute within the meaning of Section 12-D of the said Act. It is against this order the present writ petition has been moved. Dr. R. G. Padia, alongwith Prakash Padia, appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the dispute, by no stretch of imagination can be termed as a dispute within the meaning of Section 12-D of the said Act. Inasmuch as in order to decide the genuineness of the person claiming renewal the scope of determination encroached in the domain of deciding the question of eligibility of a person to continue as office bearers, which ultimately goes to the very root to decide as to whether a person has been genuinely elected or not and thereby the same walks away from the domain of Section 12-D of the said Act and falls within the realm of Section 25 of the Act. According to him the scope of Section 12-D is limited only to the question of cancellation of registration or the cancellation of renewal obtained by fraud and mis-representation and such cancellation is in respect of the Society itself and not in respect of a particular group. Here, admit tedly, the registration of the Society has not as such been cancelled but the registration obtained by the petitioner was cancelled and the registration was renewed to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Therefore, it was decided as to who are entitled to get renewal. Therefore, he submits that the questions boils down to the determination of eligibility of a person entitled to get renewal, namely, as to who have been really elected as office bearers of the Society and who could obtain such renewal. Therefore, the Registrar, could not have any jurisdiction to decide the same.
(3.) SRI C. K. Parekh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respon dent Nos. 2 and 3 on the other hand contends that there is no question of deciding any dispute with regard to the election or continuance as office bearers. It was a simple case of cancellation of renewal of registration obtained by the petitioner by practising fraud and mis-representation. Therefore the simple question was that as to whether renewal was obtained by fraud and if so whether the same should be cancelled or not. Here is this case it was found that the renewal was obtained by fraud and, there fore, the same was cancelled. According to him, in order to decide the said question, the Registrar may go into incidental or these questions and that will not result in deciding the dispute with regard to election or continuance of any person as office bearers. Dr. Padia in support of his contentions has relied on the decision referred to in the case of Abhay Grasth Gramin Jan Sangathan Kusmikhahn v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi, 1990 (1) UPLBEC 480 ; Muslim Welfare Society v. The Assistant Ragistrar, Firms Society and Chits, 1991 (18) ALR 339 and Khapraha Educational Society v. Asstt. Registrar, Firms, Chits and Societies, Varanasi Region, Varanasi, 1993 (2) UPLBEC 890. On the other hand Sri Parekh has relied on the case of Shambhu Kumar Tripathi v. The Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies and Chits, AIR 1994 All 209 and Shiksha Samiti Degree College, Garua Maksudpur v. Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, U, P. , Lucknow, AIR 1990 All 110.;