- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 12-7-1996 (Annexure-11 to the petition ).
(2.) HEARD the learned counsels for the parties. A Society, namely, Shiksha Sansthan Samiti, Sarsena, district Mau (formerly district Azamgarh) was registered for the first time on 7-12-1968. According to the bye-laws of the society, the terms of the office bearers is five years. True copies of the memo and bye-laws is Annexure-1 to the petition. It is alleged in paragraph 3 of the petition that the last election of the office bearers was held on 22-7-1990 and hence new election was due in 1995. It is alleged that a meeting of the general body of the society was held on 13-6-1995 to hold a fresh election and on that date a fresh election was held in which the persons mentioned in paragraph 3 of the petition were allegedly elected as office bearers. It is alleged in faragraph 4 that the said election dated 3-6-1995 was a valid election. In paragraph 5 of the petition, it is alleged that the respondent No. 3, Narbadeshwar Singh, with mala fide intention and by misusing his position submitted a forged list of office bearers of the society before the respondent No. 1 in which the elected office bearers were excluded and the names of new per sons who were not even the general mem bers of the Society were included. The Assis tant Registrar issued a notice to the office bearers of the society vide Annexure-3 to the petition. The petitioners submitted their objections in which they alleged that no election was held on 13-6-1993 as alleged by the respondent No. 3 and the papers submitted by him were forged and fictitious documents. True copies of the objection and affidavits are Annexures 4-A and 4-B. It is further alleged in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the petition that a motion of no confidence was carried out against the respondent No. 3 vide Annexure-9 to the petition. In para graph 13, it is stated that the respondent No. 1 without applying his mind passed an order on 12-7-1996 rejecting the claim of the petitioner and approving the papers sub mitted by the respondents 2 and 3. True copy of the order dated 12-7-1996 is Annexure 11 to the petition. In paragraph 17-A of the petition, it is stated that the term of the office bearers was five years and the alleged election, dated 13-6-1993 was a manipula tion on the part of Narbadeshwar Singh. It is alleged that the respondent No. 1 without ascertaining the facts passed a cryptic order and held that the list submitted by the petitioner is farzi. It is submitted that in the event of doubt and dispute regarding the election of office bearers of the society, the Assistant Registrar should have referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 3 in which the allega tions in the petition have been denied. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit it is alleged that the papers submitted by the respondent No. 3, Narbadeshwar Singh was for the seventh renewal of the certificate of registration, true copy of which is Annexure C. A.-1. In paragraph 11, it is stated that in 1993 itself the list and addresses of the mem bers of the Managing Committee of the Society was submitted in view of Section 4-A of the Societies Registration Act 1962. In this list, on the basis of the election dated 13-6-1993 there were some changes in the office bearers. In paragraph 12 it is stated that on the basis of this election held on 13-6-1993, the Society was granted renewal of its certification of registration upto 10-10-1995. In paragraph 13, it was alleged that the Assistant Registrar after scrutinising the papers found that the same were correct and he granted renewal. In paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that no inter ference can be made in the renewal of cer tificate particularly on the basis of an ap plication of a rank stranger who is not even the member of the Society and did not sub mit subscription fee. In paragraph 26, it is stated that the renewal of the certificate of registration has been granted upto 9-10- 2000. In the rejoinder affidavit, it is reiterated in paragraph 4 that the respon dent No. 3 was the Manager of the Society till 24- 12-1995 but he was removed from that post on 24-12-1995 by a motion of no confidence and that now Gopal Singh is the Manager. In paragraph 6 it is stated that there was no election due in 1993 nor was any such election held and all the papers were fabricated by the respondent No. 3 to make the Society his family association. It is reiterated that the last election of office bearers was held in July, 1990 and hence the next election fell due in July, 1995 and hence there was no occasion to hold an election on 13-6-1993. In paragraph 7, it is stated that the papers annexed to the counter affidavit are forged and fictitious documents. In paragraph 8, it is stated that the new incum bents, namely, Ravi Shanker Singh, Shashi Shankar Singh and Paras Nath Singh shown as office bearers of the society are the real sons of respondent No. 3 which is also proof of the manipulation. It is stated in para graph 15 that the Assistant Registrar has no jurisdiction to decide about the validity of the election of the office bearers or con tinuance of the office bearers. In paragraph 21, it is stated that there were 57 approved members of the General Body. This list was lying in the office of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 3 submitted a different list of the General Body and changed the list of members of the General Body as well as the list of the office bearers. It is also stated that the respondent No. 1 has approved a farzi list submitted by the respondent No. 3.
(3.) IT is settled by a series of decisions of this Court that a dispute regarding the elec tion of office bearers of the Society cannot be decided by the Assistant Registrar and it must be referred by him to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25, vide Committee of Management and others v. Zila Basic Shik-sha Adhikari and others, 1987 UPLBEC 33, Khapraha Educational Society and another v. Assistant Registrar Firms, Chits and Societies, Varanasi Region Varanasi and another (1993) 2 UPLBEC 890 ; Vijai Narain Singh v. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits Registration, U. P. Lucknow and others. 1981 UPLBEC 308 ; C. M. Jawahar Lal Nehru Uchchater Madhyamik Vidyalaya v. Assistant Registrar, Firm Societies and Chit, Gorakhpur, 1994 (2) AWC800. In the present case, the dispute is whether there was a valid election on 13-6-1993 or on 13-6-1995. Thus there is no dis pute regarding the renewal of registration of the Society but the dispute is only regarding the election of office bearers. Since there were conflicting versions regarding the elec tion of office bearers, in my opinion, the dispute had to be referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 and the matter could not be decided by the Assistant Registrar himself.;