AJOY NATH RAY, ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. - (1.) THE appeal is summarily disposed of and we are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Tiwari on 3.7.2006.
(2.) BY that order, his Lordship disposed of the writ petition without affidavits, as parties had sufficiently made clear through learned Counsel that the matter would be disposed of on points of law and facts are not so much in issue as the case had come before the Court by way of a writ. One of the main arguments in appeal before us was that the Assistant Registrar of Society, Varanasi, who had passed the impugned order dated 5.4.2006 had not given the appellants a fair hearing. The order records (at page 184) some 10 dates of hearing and also that (at page 197) documents have been exchanged between the parties sometime in or about the month of March, 2006. About the ten or so dates of hearing mentioned, there is no dispute excepting with regard to the last, which is the 4th of April, 2006. It appears that parties had been intimated that the hearing would take place on 3.4.2006. According to the appellants, they attended on that day but found the Assistant Registrar on leave on that day. They left an application at the office stating that the next date should be fixed for Saturday, as a lawyer practicing in the High Court would attend on behalf of them and that it was not possible for him to attend daily.
(3.) IT does not appear that the appellants made any attempt to find out on the next date what was happening in the office of the Assistant Registrar although they made the case that on 3.4.2006, the Assistant Registrar was on leave only for the day.;