R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - (1.) In both the aforesaid writ petitions parties are the same and questions of facts and law are also identical. Thus, both the petitions can be decided by a common judgment against which the parties have no objection. Writ petition No. 2687 of 1997 shall be the leading case.
(2.) Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy between the parties are that the petitioner Society was registered on 18.10.1958 and it started an educational institution known as Adarsh Higher Secondary School, Jurapur Beehar. Dahiyawan, Allahabad. Prabha Shankar Pandey and Ram Lakhan Shukla, petitioner No. 2, claiming themselves as Sachiv and Manager respectively of the Society, made an application seeking renewal of the registration of the Society. At their instance, vide order dated 8.10.1991, renewal was granted for a period of five years with effect from 10.10.1990. Respondent No. 4 also filed an application on 9.1.1992 claiming renewal of the registration. However, when it came to his notice that renewal has already been granted at the instance of Prabha Shankar Pandey and Ram Lakhan Shukla, he made an application on 24.3.1992 for cancellation of the renewal of the registration granted on 8.10.1991. On 18.7.1992 a show-cause notice was issued as to why the renewal may not be cancelled under Section 12 D of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh {hereinafter referred as the Act). On 27.7.1992, reply was submitted by Prabha Shankar Pandey and Ram Lakhan Shukla. The Assistance Registrar, respondent No. 2, by his order dated 22.8.1992, cancelled the renewal of the registration granted in favour OP the petitioners which was challenged in writ petition No. 32538 of 1992. In this writ petition an interim order was passed on 1.10.1992 staying the operation of the order dated 22.8.1992. On 11.7.1996 operation of the interim order dated 1.10.1992 passed in the above writ petition was limited till 22.7.1996. However, on 22.7.1996, the interim order could not be extended as the Court could not sit. Then an application was filed on 25.7.1996, praying for extension of the stay order. On this application a limited interim order was passed on 9.8.1996 which was further made operative until further orders on 12.8.1996. After hearing the parties, however, the interim orders granted on 1.10.1992, 9.8.1996 and 12,8.1996 were vacated by order dated 21.8.1996. Challenging the aforesaid order, Special Appeal No. 121 of. 1996 was filed. On 12.9.1996 both the Special Appeal and the Writ Petition were disposed of finally. At the instance of the petitioners, the order dated 12.9.1996 was modified. The order dated 12.9.1996 as it stood after modification is being reproduced below : "Heard Sri R.L. Sharma for appellants, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Shri R.N, Singh for respondent No. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed on 21.8.1996 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32538 of 1992 vacating the stay order passed on 1.10.1992 the petitioners-appellants have filed this appeal assailing the said order. With consent of learned Counsel for parties, we have heard both, the Special Appeal and the writ petition for disposal. In the writ petition the appellants prayed for quashing of the notice dated 18.5.1992 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) and the order dated 22.8.1992 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) passed by. the Assistant Registrar, Societies, Chits and Firms, Allahpur, Allahabad, respondent No. 2, cancelling the renewal of registration granted in their favour. By order dated 1.10.1992 this Court granted stay of operation of the impugned order (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) the said interim order was continued from time to time till it was vacated by the order dated 21.8.1996. On the basis of the interim orders passed by this Court from time to time the appellants, as stated by Sri R.L. Sharma, were in-charge of the management of the society and in the meantime, the term of the renewal order (five years) having elapsed application for further renewal is to be filed by them. According to Sri RL. Sharma the impugned stay vacation order dated 21.8.1996 has seriously prejudiced the appellants inasmuch as after the said order was passed by the application for renewal of registration filed by respondent No. 4 has been granted. .Shri R.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous since the period of renewal order, which was granted upto 9.10.1995, is already over. On perusal of the impugned order it appears that the main reason which promoted the learned Single Judge to vacate the stay order was that the period of validity of the renewal (five years) had elapsed and despite the cancellation order the appellants had reaped benefit of the order of renewal of registration due to the stay order passed by this Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case noted above and the submission made, it is our considered view that the special appeal and the writ petition should be disposed of with the order that on the appellants submitting an application for renewal of their registration before the competent authority within three weeks. the said authority will consider the same keeping in view the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the rules framed thereunder without being influenced by the observations made/finding recorded in the impugned stay vaeation order dated 21.8.19,96 passed in Writ Petition No. 32538 of 1992 and the order dated 22.08.1992 which was under challenge in the said writ petition, dispose of the matter in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order within two months of receipt of the application after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is ordered accordingly. The Special Appeal and the Writ Petition are disposed of on the above terms. No costs."
(3.) As there was no interim order during the period 22.7.1996 to 9.8.1996, respondent No. 2 on 1.8.1996 issued the renewal certificate in favour of respondent No. 4. Challenging the orders dated 1.8.1996, Writ Petition No. 40888 of 1996 was filed. The learned Single Judge on noticing the observations, in the order of the Division Bench dated 12.9.1996, passed in Special Appeal No. 121 of 1996, vide order dated 18.12.1996, directed to place the record of the aforesaid writ petition before the same bench.;