SANJAY MISRA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 and Sri S.P. Shukla for the opposite party Nos. 6 and 7.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.4.2002 (Annexure No. 23 to the writ petition) as also the order dated; 27.12.2002 passed by the respondent No. 5, the Sub -Divisional Officer, Mankapur, District, Gonda. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that an Authorized Controller had been appointed for the institution and under his aegis the election dated 24.8.1997 was conducted the said election was granted approval by the Sub -Divisional Officer order dated 9.8.2001 while exercising his power under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that subsequent to the aforesaid order dated 9.8.2001, the respondent No. 5 has proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 3.4.2002 thereby recalling the earlier order dated 9.8.2002. As a consequence of the order dated 3.4.2002, the respondent No. 5 has proceeded to cancel the election dated 24.8.1997 by the impugned order dated 27.12.2002. The contention is that the Sub -Divisional Officer while exercising his jurisdiction under Section 25(1) of the Act could not recall his earlier order, which would amount to exercising a power of review, which he was inherently lacking. The second submission is that the election dated 24.8.1997 was conducted under the Authorized Controller and was duly approved. Consequently, the dispute raised with respect to the election could be decided by the respondent No. 5, which he did on 9.8.2001 and the said election was found to have been validly held. The third submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even in the application made by the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 they were claiming on the basis of their own election dated 24.4.2001 and the election of 1997 held by the Authorized Controller was not a subject matter of the objection filed under Section 25(1) of the Act. For the aforesaid contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the findings recorded by the Sub -Divisional Officer in the impugned order dated 27.12.2002. He contends that in so far as the election of 1997 is concerned the respondent No. 5 has set it aside on the ground that the first election having been held in the year 1993, the next election was due only in the year 1998, hence the election of 1997 was invalid. The second ground taken in the impugned order is that there was no list of the general body of the society, that there was no agenda nor it was circulated and that the Principal was not present when the proceedings for the elections were held. The Sub -Divisional Officer also held that none of the original record was produced by the petitioner before him. For the aforesaid grounds on the basis of affidavits filed by various members in support and against the parties, the election of 1997 has been set aside. He further contends that the election dated 24.4.2001 on the basis of which the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are claiming has also been set aside by the impugned order dated 27.12.2002 and in so far as the respondents' election is concerned, the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer has attained finality because admittedly the same has not been challenged by the respondent till today.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 contends that the order dated 9.8.2001 was an exparte order inasmuch as by referring to paragraph No. 34 of the counter affidavit, he submits that the date fixed before the Sub -Divisional Officer had been proponed by him and no notice of the same was available with the respondents, hence, the order dated 9.8.2001 was passed by the respondent NO. 5 in a clandestine manner and in connivance with the petitioner. He further contends that the respondent No. 5 while exercising his jurisdiction under Section 25(1) of the Act has inherent power to recall the order on the ground that preponement of the date without notice to the respondents amounts to a fraud on the power being exercised by the respondent No. 5. He further contends that when the order dated 3.4.2002 had been passed the petitioners did not challenge the same and have proceeded before the respondent No. 5 which has culminated in the passing of the impugned order dated 27.12.2002. For the aforesaid reasons he contends that the findings of fact recorded in the impugned order holding the election of 24.8.1997 as invalid cannot be faulted and does not require any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;