- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The order dated 2nd December 1996 (Annexure '9' to the writ petition) has since been challenged by means of the present writ petition. Mr. Ashok Bushan assails the said order in the background that the Society was registered on 23rd September, 1958 and the petitioner No. 2 Sri Rama Shanker Singh was elected as Manager of the Society. The Society was renewed on 1st January 1980 by the Assis tant Registrar. One Sri Balram Pathak raised an objection on 15th May, 1981 against the order of renewal of the Society dated 1st January, 1980. There upon the Assistant Registrar had referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. According to him, the said dispute was decided as infructuous by an order dated 6th January 1996. Whereas in the meantime the election of office bearers had taken place for the last time on 25th June 1994. Sub sequently by an order dated 2nd December 1996, the Assistant Registrar had held that Sri Dharnidhar Singh, herein respondent No. 2, was the Manager of the Society by reason of his being elected validly.
(2.) MR. Ashok Bhushan assailed the said order dated 2nd December 1996 on the ground, first, that since there was a rival claim, the Assistant Registrar did not have any jurisdiction to decide the dispute and he ought to have referred the matter under Section 25 (1) of the Act to the Prescribed Authority. Secondly he contends that while deciding the dispute and passing the order dated 2nd December, 1996, though had referred the election held by Dharnidhar Singh but had not adverted to the election held by the petitioner Rama Shanker Singh though the records of the dispute were al ready placed before the Assistant Registrar. He next contended that though all the relevant records relating to the holding of the election including the minute books were produced before the Assistant Registrar, the same were not taken into con sideration and, therefore, the order passed by him suffers from bias. Mr. A. P. Sahi, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, assails the contention of Mr. Ashok Bhushan. He first contends that there was no dispute or rival claim lodged before the Assistant Registrar in order to bring the dispute within the ambit of Section 25 (1) of the Act. According to him, the Assistant Registrar does not act as merely a post office or rubber stamp. As soon a dispute is raised the Assis tant Registrar is not supposed to refer the same mechanically. In order to make a refer ence, the Assistant Registrar has to satisfy himself about the existence of the dispute or the rival claim. Only when he is satisfied that there exists a rival claim, then only he is required to refer the matter under Section 25 (1 ). In the present case, there being a finding that there was no rival claim which is supported by records, there is no infirmity in the said order. Secondly he contends that no material was available before the Assistant Registrar to the effect that an election had taken place on 25-6-1995. His next conten tion is that the petitioner having made in correct statement in paragraph 15 of the writ petition to the effect that the petitioner had filed the documents whereas from Annexure '5', it appears that the documents were submitted by one Ram Naresh and not by Rama Shanker, the petitioner, his claim can not be sustained. He also led me through various leadings and the Annexures similarly as Mr. Ashok Bhushan had led me through the pleadings and the Annexures respectively. Mr. Ashok Bhushan, in reply, sub mitted that the Prescribed Authority had never decided the validity of the member ship of Dharnidhar. Therefore, the election held by Dharnidhar can not be upheld and the alleged finding that the Prescribed Authority had decided that Dharnidhar was a member being wholly non-existent, the order impugned can not be sustained.
(3.) THOUGH Mr. Ashok Bhushan and Mr. A. P. Sahi had raised contentions argu ments extensively in support of their respec tive points as urged, it is not necessary to go into all those questions for the purpose of deciding the issue involved. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue germane to the question is as to whether the Assis tant Registrar was competent to decide the question himself without making a reference under Section 25 (1) of the said Act to the Prescribed Authority. Section 25 (1) of the Act requires that if there is a dispute with regard to the election of officer bearer or continuance in office, then it is incumbent on the Assistant Registrar to refer the same to the Prescribed Authority. The provision contained in the said Section postulate that the reference is to be made if there is existence of a dispute with regard to the election or to the con tinuance in office of the office bearers. Un less there is a dispute, the Assistant Registrar is not required to refer the same to the Prescribed Authority. The Assistant Registrar exercises a quasi-judicial authority in the matter of grant of renewal. He cannot act mechanically as soon a dis pute is raised. It has to apply its mind and find out as to whether there is in existence a dispute or not. Though in the garb of decid ing the question of existence of dispute, he is not empowered to decide the dispute or address himself on the dispute itself, but still then he is authorised to look into the exist ence of a dispute. His such decision with regard to the existence of the dispute is subject to revision of challenge before the appropriate forum. In exercise of writ juris diction this Court can go into and examine whether the Assistant Registrar has over stepped his jurisdiction while coming to a finding that no dispute exists. If it is found that he has so over-stepped, this Court can set is right. In the aforesaid context, the question, therefore, arises as to whether the finding that no dispute exists as arrived at by the Assistant Registrar in the order dated 2nd December, 1996 is justified or not. If it is found that the said finding is justified and is within the ambit and scope of the jurisdic tion conferred on the Assistant Registrar, then it is not necessary to go into the other question raised by the learned counsels of either of the parties.;