- (1.) The petitioners who claim themselves to be the Managing Committee of Sri Paramhans Educational Society, Majhauli, District Ballia, a registered Society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act1 and its Secretary have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in questioning the legality of the order dated 18 January 2016 passed by the second respondent2 discarding the papers submitted by the petitioners for registration of the list of office bearers under Section 4 of the Act and accepting the claim laid in that regard by the third respondent3 and further directing for proceedings being undertaken for renewal of the registration at his instance. All proceedings submitted by the petitioners as well as action taken on basis of these proceedings have been declared a nullity. On the other hand, the proceedings submitted by the third respondent have been held to be lawful and valid as those were conducted from amongst valid members who participated in the proceedings dated 5 February 1996. The effect of such declaration is that the periodical election held at an interval of three years since after 1996 and some of which were duly recognised by the authorities by passing specific orders, have been rendered a nullity.
(2.) Sri G.K. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that there had been a series of previous adjudication by the different authorities wherein the elections held in the past, in which the second petitioner was elected as Secretary/Manager were upheld. In this regard reliance has been placed on an order passed by the Regional Level Committee on 20.9.2004 in which the claim of the second petitioner as Manager on the basis of elections held on 27.4.2003 was upheld and the rival claim set up by the third respondent was rejected. The order was affirmed in writ petition field by the third respondent. Again, it is pointed out that the second respondent by an order dated 29.6.2006 directed for registration of the list of the office bearers submitted by the petitioners and repelled the objection filed by the third respondent. The order of the second respondent was again affirmed with the dismissal of writ petition No.51647 of 2006. It is pointed out that again by an order dated 18.4.2007, the Regional Level Committee recognised the management elected on 23.4.2006 with the second petitioner as its Manager. The third respondent again challenged the same in a writ petition4, which was dismissed on 15.4.2008 leaving it open to him to file civil suit. Thereafter, the third respondent filed Original Suit No.511 of 2011 in which an application for temporary injunction filed by him was rejected. Again in writ petition No.33970 of 2012, which came to be decided by this Court by judgement dated 16.10.2012 in reference to the rival claim for renewal of registration, this Court observed that basic dispute between the parties is regarding the membership of the society/electoral college which can only be decided in a suit. Relying on this judgement, it is urged that the impugned order now passed by the second respondent suffers from non-application of mind. It is submitted that even this Court while deciding the writ petition No. 33970 of 2012 held that the findings recorded by the civil court while deciding the application for temporary injunction shall be binding on the second respondent. However, it is submitted that the second respondent has ignored the findings of the civil court and has infact usurped the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act in deciding the rival claim relating to the elections. It is further submitted that observation in the impugned order that the petitioners have not produced the original record, is wholly incorrect in as much as the original records were produced before him at the time of hearing on 8.1.2015. It is further submitted that the hearing concluded before the second respondent on 8.1.2015 whereas the order has been passed after more than one year on 18.1.2016 and this itself is sufficient to vitiate the impugned order. It is further submitted that the third respondent filed certain papers on 27.1.2015, i.e., after hearing had concluded on 8.1.2015. These papers were taken note of in the impugned order without the copies thereof being made available to the petitioners and thus serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. It is further submitted that no finding in relation to the validity of the alleged elections set up by the third respondent has been recorded and the papers submitted by him have been held to be valid on the basis of surmises and conjunctures.
(3.) On the other hand, Sri H. N. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent submitted that in the impugned order, the Assistant Registrar has only decided the membership dispute. It is urged that in the year 1996, there were only 13 members and taking notice of the said fact, the Assistant Registrar has passed the impugned order. He further submitted that the petitioners could not produce the original documents nor any evidence in relation to induction of new members in the year 1996 to 1998 and thus, no illegality has been committed.;