Arun Tandon, J. - (1.) Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R.M. Saggi, Advocate on behalf of petitioners, Sri S.P. Pandey, Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of other respondents.
(2.) The dispute pertaining to the office bearers of the society duly registered in the name of style of 'Kshetriya Viksit Samiti, Sarai Bansi Utraon, Allahabad' was subject matter of consideration before this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2086 of 1998 and connected Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30519 of 1995. Both the writ petitions were decided under a common judgment and order of this Court dated 5th April, 2004. So far as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30519 of 1995 is concerned, this Court recorded a finding that the same was not maintainable as alternative remedy is being availed of. With regard to Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2086 of 1998, this Court after considering the contention raised on behalf of parties, remanded the matter for decision to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 after formulating three issues to be adjudicated upon by the Prescribed Authority. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the relevant portion of the common judgment and order of this Court dated 5th April, 2004, which reads as follows: Now the order passed by the Prescribed Authority has to be seen. A perusal thereof reflects that by means of issue No. 1 he has concluded that reference was competent, but rest of the order shows that, Prescribed Authority has, in fact, has not decided or adverted himself in deciding the dispute in respect to election or continuance of office bearers and members of the general body of the society. The Prescribed Authority has totally misdirected himself in the present case, inasmuch as issue of renewal has been mixed up with the issue of election, whereas renewal is for the benefit of each and every members of the general body of the society. Election dispute merely determines as to who are the persons who are to be saddled with the responsibility of running and managing the affairs of the society. List of office bearers and members, which is accepted at the time when registration of the society is done, is merely provisional in nature, and in case any one is aggrieved by acceptance of the list of office bearers and members, the same can be assailed in the proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act. The Prescribed Authority has noted in his order that dispute is going on in between the parties but at no point of time any endevour has been made by the Prescribed Authority to go into the question of validity of the election and to see as to who are the members of the general body of the society, and who are entitled to run and manage its affairs. The Prescribed Authority in the present case has totally failed to discharge duty cast upon him. The Prescribed Authority, under law, was obliged to decide the election dispute, once it was raised before him, and while deciding the dispute he ought to have addressed, apart from other questions, on the following three questions, mandatorily. (i) right of person/persons who had convened the meeting and held elections. (ii) validity of electoral college i.e. the persons who had participated in the election and had right to participate in the election by virtue of being valid members of the general body of the society. (iii) election has been held in consonance with the provisions as contained in the bye-laws of the society. In the present case, the Prescribed Authority has not undertaken any of the aforementioned exercise, whatsoever, as such order dated 31.12.1997 passed by the Prescribed Authority deserves to be quashed. In the result, writ petition No. 2086 of 1998 succeeds, and is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.12.1997 passed by the Prescribed Authority is hereby quashed. Writ petition No. 30519 of 1995 is dismissed as is infructuous. The matter is remanded back to the Prescribed Authority for being decided afresh in accordance with law and in light of the observations made in the body of this judgment. Both the parties have agreed to appear before the Prescribed Authority on 12.4.2004. Thereafter, the Prescribed Authority shall proceed to decide the dispute as observed above and shall conclude the entire proceedings within three months from that very date.
(3.) In compliance of the judgment and order of this Court dated 4th April, 2004 proceedings where re-initiated by the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority, by means of the order dated 17th July, 2004, has recorded a finding that the petitioners were not outgoing office bearers of the society and further that they had no competence to convene the meeting of the society. Therefore, the alleged elections set up by the petitioners are mere paper transactions and cannot be accepted. This order of the Prescribed Authority has been challenged on behalf of the petitioners by means of the writ petition.;