Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) - The question which is to be decided in the instant writ petition is, as to whether the Prescribed Authority under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), can decide about the genuineness of a signature without getting an expert opinion about the same. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 23.4.2015 and 24.4.2015 passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The society know as Masdarul Uloom Educational Society which is registered under the Act, elected its office bearers to its committee of management on 20.11.2011, wherein the petitioner no. 2 Shabihuddin Khan was elected its Secretary. Thereafter as per Section 4 of the Act, the list of office bearers was also forwarded to the Registrar. Under Section 4-B of the Act, of course, the list of members of the General Body was also filed. On 8.3.2013, one Sri. Atiqur Rehman submitted an application to the effect that only such list of office bearers be registered wherein he had shown himself as the Secretary. The list which Sri. Atiqur Rehman submitted was accompanied by a resignation letter of the Petitioner no. 2.
(2.) A resolution of the General Body dated 25.2.2013 which accepted the resignation of the petitioner no. 2 was also submitted. Thereafter on 17.4.2013, the list as was submitted by Sri. Atiqur Rehaman of the year 2013-2014 was also registered. Consequently, the District Minority Welfare Officer Chandauli, was also informed by the Assistant Registrar about the change in the list of office bearers. When on 27.5.2013, the District Minority Welfare Association Chandauli informed the petitioner no. 2 about the change only then he came to know that some election had been held by the respondent no. 5 Sri. Atiqur Rehman. On 3.6.2013, therefore, the petitioner no. 2 Sri. Shabihuddin Khan moved an application before the Registrar informing him of the list of office bearers as per him for the year 2013-2014. Subsequently, on 20.6.2013 an objection was also filed by the petitioner no. 2 to the list submitted by Sri. Atiqur Rehman. As a reply to the objection of the petitioner no. 2 Shabihuddin Khan, Sri. Atiqur Rehman the respondent no. 5 also filed his rebuttals on 26.6.2013. To decide the matter, the Assistant Registrar on 28.6.2013 put the petitioner to notice to appear before him on 20.7.2013. Similarly, the respondent no. 5 was also required to appear before the Assistant Registrar. On 23.9.2013, the Assistant Registrar passed an order which recognized the office bearers of the respondent no. 5. This order dated 23.9.2013 was challenged by the petitioners by means of Writ Petition No. 62989 of 2013, which alongwith another writ petition no. 1254 of 2014 came to be decided on 28.5.2014 and the dispute regarding the office bearers was referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act. Before the Sub Divisional Officer, again, written submissions were filed by the petitioner and the respondent no. 5. Since, the case of the respondent no. 5 was that the petitioner no. 2 had resigned and this fact the petitioner no. 2 had contested, he had, therefore, lodged an F.I.R. on 13.1.2014 under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/504/506 and 120-B IPC. Before the Prescribed Authority arguments were raised and a request for summoning various documents was also made. Amongst the various requests, one of them made on 18.4.2015 was that the Prescribed Authority may summon the Forensic Expert's Report as had been got prepared in the criminal case which was initiated because of the lodging of the F.I.R. by the petitioner. However, on 23.4.2015, the application for summoning the forensic report was rejected and the Prescribed Authority, thereafter, on 24.4.2015 decided the claim of the office bearers of the petitioners and respondent no. 5 and held that Atiqur Rehman was the secretary of the Society.
(3.) Assailing the two orders dated 23.4.2015 and 24.4.2015, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition and made the following submissions:- I. When the matter was referred before the Prescribed Authority by the order of this Court dated 28.5.2014, the petitioner had already initiated criminal proceedings against the respondent no. 5 by getting registered a first information report on 23.1.2014 (case crime no. 29 of 2014 under Section 419/420/467/468/471/504/506 and 120-B IPC). Pursuant to that F.I.R., the investigation had commenced and the Investigating Officer had summoned the original resignation letter alleged to have been written by the petitioner no. 2 Shabihuddin Khan and had tried to ascertain as to whether the signature on it was that of the petitioner or had it been fraudulently forged by the respondent no. 5. The matter had been referred to a forensic lab of the Government and a report had been prepared by the laboratory. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 18.4.2015, when the petitioner made a request for summoning the report of the forensic lab, so that the Prescribed Authority could come to a proper conclusion by the impugned order dated 23.4.2015, the application of the petitioner to summon the expert's opinion was wrongly rejected. II. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after rejecting the application for summoning the expert's report, the judgment of the Prescribed Authority was delivered on the very next date. This, he submits, was a 10 page judgment and was, in fact, prepared from before and was only delivered on the very next day. III. The averment by the respondent no. 5 that there were 37 memebers in the general body was also wrong and, the membership of Atiqur Rehman itself was fraudulent as the receipt of membership fee which he had submitted was fabricated. It contained no signature of the petitioner no. 2 IV. When the petitioner had raised a definite issue before the Prescribed Authority that Atiqur Rehman's receipt of deposit of membership fee was fabricated and the signature of the petitioner no. 2 on that receipt was also forged then a finding ought to have been arrived at by the prescribed authority. V. The matter may be adjudicated upon by this Court as it involves a pure question of law and the petitioners could be relegated to avail the remedy of filing a suit. VI. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, even if, the prescribed authority was required to function as a regular Court it did mean that when contested issues were involved, it could dispense with procedures of law by which those issues could be resolved.;