- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) SWAMI Parmanand Dandi Jan Kalyan Samiti, Mangoli Shahbad, Rampur was registered under Societies Registration Act on 20. 5. 1994 and was renewed from time to time. The tenure of Committee of Management of the Society is three years. The Bye-laws of the society provides that election will be held amongst 2/3rd members of the General Body and that last undisputed election of the Committee of Management of the aforesaid society was held on 5th December, 1998. According to Sri R. K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, next election was due in the year 2001 but as it was not held hence only the Assistant Registrar had the authority to hold the election after the period of three years. The submits that opposite party No. 3 claimed to hold an election on 12. 5. 2003, in which out of 21 members, 18 members have participated. He also submits that out of aforesaid 18 members said to have been participated in the election on 12. 5. 2003, eight of them moved an application before the Assistant Registrar along with their affidavits on 10. 6. 2003 inter alia that they had never participated in the said election proceedings on 12. 5. 2003 though there might be some papers signed by them. It is stated by Sri R. K. Ojha that in view of the above stand by eight members an affidavit including the petitioner that they had not participated in the election proceedings, the election papers submitted by the opposite parties are forged. It is further stated that it is clear from the election proceedings that same has been held without giving notice to the members of the Committee of Management and without publishing any Agenda,
(3.) HE then submits that 31 members had participated in the election of the petitioner, out of which 21 members had caste their votes including 10 newly added members. On basis of this he argues that 11 members had voted in favour of the petitioner whereas in contrast as per claim of respondents only 10 old members have voted in favour of the respondent No. 3: It appears that matter was referred to the Prescribed Authority. Thereafter writ petition No. 56798 of 2003 was filed by respondent No. 3 challenging the order of reference in which initially interim order was granted. Thereafter the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 23. 7. 2005 and the restoration application for recall of aforesaid order was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 6. 2. 2007.;