- (1.) IN this petition counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Learned Counsel for the parties have agreed that this petition may be decided finally at this stage.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this peti tion, as disclosed in the writ petition, are that Lal Kishore Lal and Jadav Rai on 3-4-1935 purchased land measuring 65' x 35' consisting of plot No. 1702, in Kasba Chauharpur (now known as Vikas Nagar) in district Dehradun. On this land a temple known as Digambar Jain Temple was constructed and also some shops. THE management of the temple and its properties is looked after by Society. In 1987 the Society, petitioner No. 1, Shri Digambar Jain Panchayat, Vikas Nagar (hereinafter referred to as Panchayat) applied for registration of the Society before Assis tant Registrar (Firms, Societies and Chits), Dehradun, respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 2 claimed himself to be President of the Committee of Manage ment of the Panchayat with one Vijai Kumar as its secretary. On 7-11-1987 ob jection was filed by respondent No. 3 society known as Shri Digambar Jain Samaj, Jain Dharmartha Aushadhalaya, Chakrata Road, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as Samaj) through secretary Prem Chand Jain. Respondent No. 3 also applied for registration of the Samaj with different committee of management before respondent No. 2. By letter dated 23/25-4-1988, An-nexure-2 to the writ petition, respondent No. 2 requested Sub- Divisional Officer, Pachhwa, to conduct an inquiry as to which of the two societies is in control of the management of the temple and its proper ties and is thus entitled for registration. The Sub-Divisional Officer in his turn summoned both the parties and also ob tained a report from me police and on the basis of the material before him, gave his opinion on 23-8-1988 that respondent No. 3 is real society and Shri Digambar Jain Samaj may be registered. Respondent No. 2 by order dated 1-9-1988 registered respondent No. 3 and issued a registration certificate, which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order petitioners filed a reference under Section 3-B of Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the State Government. The State Govern ment by order dated 8-10-1991, Annexure-10 to the writ petition, rejected the refer ence on the ground that it is not main tainable u/s. 3-B of the Act. Challenging the certificate, Annexure-6 and the order dated 8-10- 1991 passed by the State Govt. , petitioners have filed the present writ peti tion under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the aforesaid two orders and also for a direction to the Assistant Registrar to register petitioner No. 1 as society under the provisions of the Act and also for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to interfere in the working of the petitioner and the management and con trol of Digambar Jain Temple, Vikas Nagar and its properties. On 22-11-1997 this petition was listed for admission hearing before us. Shri Prakash Krishna, learned Counsel ap pearing for respondent No. 3, raised a preliminary objection against entertain ing this writ petition on the ground that the petitioners have already filed Original Suit No. 646 of 1991 in the Court of Civil Judge, Dehradun relating to the same con troversy which is still pending. Learned Counsel for petitioners was granted time to ascertain the true position and to file an affidavit stating the present stage of the suit.
(3.) ON 5-12-1997 when the writ peti tion was again listed before us, Shri R. K. Jain filed a supplementary affidavit in para 2 whereof filing of Original Suit No. 646 of 1991, Bhagwan Paras Nath Digambar Jain Mandir Vikas Nagar, Dehradun, Digambar Jain Panchayat; vikas Nagar, Dehradun and others v. Digambar Jain Samaj Vikas-nagar, Dehradun and others, has been ac cepted. It has also been stated in this para graph that the relief sought in the suit is for declaration and grant of permanent injunction against defendant Nos. 1 to 12 in the suit. A copy of the plaint has been filed as Annexure-1 to the supplementary counter-affidavit, a perusal of which shows that Digambar Jam Samaj, respondent No. 3, is defendant No. 1 in the suit. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also filed an application for permission to delete relief No. 3 from the writ petition. Shri R. K. Jain, learned Counsel for petitioners, has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case respondent No. 2 was not competent to grant registra tion in favour of respondent No. 3 and it ought to have made reference under Sec tion 3-B of the Act to the State Govern ment. Precisely the submission of the learned Counsel is that in view of the dis pute between the petitioners and respon dent No. 3 and as the Assistant Registrar was not competent to resolve the dispute, grant of registration by him was without authority, ft has also been submitted that the State Government taking an er roneous view of law has illegally rejected the reference on the ground that it does not come within the purview of Section 3-B of the Act. Learned Counsel has submitted that reference filed by the petitioners before the State Government was competent and ought to have been heard and decided in accordance with law. It has been submitted that the reference could be made even if the two rival can didates claimed registration in respect of the society. For his submissions learned Counsel for petitioners has placed reliance in case of Muzaffar Husain and others v. Assistant Registrar (Firms, Societies and Chits), U. P. Meenit Region, Meerut and others, 1987 (2) UPLBEC 1011. Shri Prakash Krishna, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that as the petitioners have already availed alternative remedy of suit, the present writ petition is not legally maintainable and is liable to be rejected. It has also been submitted that the relief sought in the writ petition and the suit are identical and petitioners cannot be al lowed to delete the relief No. 3 at this stage to meet the preliminary objection raised by respondents against maintainability of the writ petition. It has also been sub mitted that the substantial dispute be tween the petitioners and respondent No. 3 is about title over the temple and its properties which can be adequately decided only in a suit and not in the writ petition. Justifying the orders of respon dent Nos. 1 and 2 learned Counsel for the respondents have submitted that the As sistant Registrar on the basis of the material before him and the report sub mitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer prima facie felt satisfied about the genuineness of the claim of respondent No. 3 and thus granted registration. Such a course adopted by him was legal and jus tified. It has been further submitted that the State Government has rightly taken the view that the reference made by petitioners was not maintainable under Section 3-B of the Act as the scope of the reference under Section 3-B is not to resolve the competing titles of two inde pendent and different societies claiming title in respect of the temple and its properties. In the reference before the State Government under Section 3-B of the Act the only question as to whether the Society is entitled to get itself registered in accordance with Section 3 could be looked into. As respondent No. 3 society has al ready been registered on the basis of the prima facie satisfaction about its control and management over the temple and its properties, nothing was left to be decided in the reference. The order passed by the State Government thus does not suffer from any error of law.;