SUNITA AGARWAL,J. - (1.) Heard Shri Siddharth Nandan, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Shailendra, learned counsel for review-applicant, Shri S.D. Kautilya and Sri Ram Kaushik, learned counsels for the respondents.
(2.) The instant review application has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 20.11.2017 passed by this Court on the ground that conclusion drawn by the Court that the challenge made by the petitioner to the resolution dated 17.1.2016 passed by the General Body of the Society touches the merits of the resolution which cannot be examined by the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad under Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1860') is in ignorance of the material on record.
(3.) It is submitted that the objection filed before the Registrar was confined to the procedural anomalies which had been done in passing of the resolution dated 17.1.2016 and the same being in violation of the bye-laws of the Society and needed no adjudication on the merits of the resolution asking parties to lead evidence or examination of witnesses. Submission is that the record before the Registrar was sufficient to examine this aspect of the matter. Even otherwise, the legal situation regarding the jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 4-B of the Act, 1860 has been settled by the Court in the judgment under review itself. The Court has held that the nature of power being exercised by the Registrar under the aforesaid provision is in the nature of quasi-judicial power which would require an examination in the decision making process. However, in the later part of the judgment under review, while dealing with the plea of the petitioner challenging the resolution of the Executive Committee of the society, the Court has erroneously held that the prayer made by the review-applicant before the Registrar was beyond the scope of enquiry under Section 4-B of the Act. It is contended that this Court has overlooked the objection taken by the petitioner-review applicant in his representation before the Registrar extract of which was reproduced by the Registrar in its order dated 26.8.2017 itself. According to the review applicant, the Court has overlooked the grounds of objections noted in the order passed by the Deputy Registrar Societies as follows:- 1. There was no resolution proposing the cancellation of membership of the petitioner seconded by any member of the Society and a notice which was supposed to be given 7 days prior to the meeting as contemplated under Rules 38(c) and 39(b) of the bye-laws of the Society. 2. The cancellation of membership of the petitioner was not on the Agenda in the meeting dated 17.1.2016 and consequently, it could not have been discussed as per Rule 26 of the bye-laws in the aforesaid meeting. 3. The members raised objection that before taking any action, no show cause notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner whose membership was likely to be cancelled but the Honorary General Secretary rejected the same observing that no opportunity was required and the said fact is transcribed in the minutes. 4. The meeting was chaired by an incompetent person and the entire proceeding stood vitiated as per Rules 23, 49 and 52 of the bye-laws of the Society. 5. The request for voting made by one of the members of the Executive Committee under Rule 25 was neither considered nor adopted which itself vitiate the proceedings. ;