- (1.) V. K. Shukla, J. Present writ petition has been filed by the peti tioners questioning the validity of the order dated 21. 2. 2003 passed by Sub-Divi-r sional Magistrate, Ghoshi, District Mau in proceeding under Section 25 (1) Of Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the order dated 15. 10. 2003 passed by Dis trict Inspector of Schools, Mau by means of which District Inspector of Schools has proceeded to determine the electoral college for holding the election of the Committee of Management of the institution in question.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that in District Mau there is registered society known as Shiksha Prasar Samiti Siyarahi. Said society in question was registered on 22. 5. 1961 and affairs of the same is to be run and managed as per the provisions as contained under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and as per the bye-laws of the society. Said society runs an institution known as Bapu Inter College, Siyarahi Post Panail, District Mau which is duly recognized under the provisions as contained in U. P. Act No. II of 1921 and affairs of the said educa tional institution is to be run and managed as per the provision as contained under Scheme of Administration framed in exercise of authority vested under Section 16-Aof U. P. Act No. II of 1921. Father of Dr. Ramesh Chandra Rai, Dr. Jai Chandra. Rai become manager of the institution in the year 1990 and his signa tures were attested and thereafter fresh election took place on 12. 12. 1993 wherein Dr. Jai Chandra Rai was again elected as Manager and his signature was at tested on 25. 3. 1994. Sri Upendra Rai who has been impleaded and arrayed as respondent No. 5 in the writ petition got renewal of registration of the society in question for the period starting with effect from 10. 10. 1995 and then Dr. Jai Chandra Rai appeared before the Assistant Registrar concerned and contended that Upendra Rai was not even primary member of the society and has obtained the renewal certificate by practicing fraud. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority for deciding the dispute under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 31. 8. 1994. Upendra Rai filed Suit No. 258 of 1994 questioning the validity of the election of Dr. Jai Chandra Rai as Manager. In the said suit application for grant of injunction was also moved and said injunction application was rejected on 19. 5. 1998. In the said suit stand has been taken by the District Inspector of Schools, Mau that Upendra Rai is not even member of General Body of the Society. Against the said order of refusal to grant injunction Appeal has also been filed being Misc. Appeal No. 78 of 1998. Dr. Jai Chandra Rai died on 13. 10. 2002. Petitioner, Dr. Ramesh Chandra Rai claims that he was elected in place of Dr. Jai Chandra Rai on 19. 10. 2002. Upendra Rai has also staked his claim that he was elected as Manager but no decision was taken on the papers which were [submitted, however, Prescribed Authority on 21. 2. 2003 accepted the claim of Upendra Rai. Misc. Appeal No. 78 of 1998 was got dismissed as not pressed oh 12. 3. 2003. Petitioner moved an application on 6. 3. 2003 for recalling of the said order passed by Prescribed Authority. Petitioner has also made request to the Regional Joint Director of Education that no order be passed on the basis of order passed by Prescribed Authority. District Inspec tor of Schools sent his report to the Regional Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh and Regional Joint Director of Education on 8. 5. 2003 proceeded to appoint Au thorized Controller. District Inspector of Schools, therefore, passed order on 9. 11. 2003 determining the electoral college. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Upendra Rai and therein stand has been sought to be taken that entire claim set up by the petitioner is farce and fictitious and further it has been sought to be contended that in the office of District Inspector of Schools there was no record available in respect of validity of the election and further documents has been forged. It has been contended that electoral college has rightly been determined for holding the election. Rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed. After pleadings mentioned have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.
(3.) SRI I. R. SRIvastava, Advocate, appearing for petitioner contended with vehe mence that in the present case both Prescribed Authority as well as District Inspector of Schools have totally transgressed and over stepped their jurisdiction in passing the order impugned without providing opportunity of hearing and with out considering the material available on record, as such writ petition in question deserves to be allowed. Learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri H. N. Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 on the other hand contended that cogent reasons have been assigned, as such no interference is required.;