Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri G.K. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Bhavesh Pratap Singh for respondent No. 3. Sri G.K. Singh states that he does not wish to file any counter affidavit. He also states that respondent No. 3 is the main contesting party, and being already represented, the matter could be decided finally.
(2.) By impugned order dated 2.5.2018, the Prescribed Authority has rejected the reference made by the petitioner under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 raising a dispute regarding right of person entitled to be Manager of the Managing Committee of Amar Saheed Heera Singh Uchattar Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Chandauli, a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The undisputed fact is that the recognised Manager, Shyam Behari Singh died on 10.6.2016 resulting in a casual vacancy on the post of Manager. Respondent No. 3 Vinod Kumar Singh, claimed that in the meeting dated 13.6.2016, he was elected as Manager. On the other hand, the petitioner claimed that he was elected as Manager in proceedings dated 17.6.2016. The Assistant Registrar by order dated 5.11.2016 recognised respondent No. 3 as Manager of the Managing Committee of the Society, and rejected the claim set-up by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Writ C No. 55308 of 2016 before this Court. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court by holding that substantial justice has been done by the Assistant Registrar by allowing Deputy Manager to act as Manager upon the death of Manager. However, while dismissing the writ petition, this Court left it open to the petitioner to seek reference under Section 25(1) of the Act, in case, he is not satisfied with the adjudication made by Deputy Manager. It was further directed that in case, any reference is sought by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Act within three weeks from the date of judgment, the same shall be examined in accordance with law and appropriate action would be taken. The operative part of the judgment dated 24.11.2016, reads as under : - "From the materials brought on record, this Court finds that substantial justice has been done by the Assistant Registrar, inasmuch as if the Deputy Manager has been allowed to continue as Manager upon the death of the outgoing Manager, no illegality can be said to have been caused. From the materials placed, it further transpires that petitioner has sought to raise dispute, and in case he is not satisfied with the adjudication so made, it is always open for petitioner to invoke the remedy under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. In case a reference is made, in accordance with the provisions contemplated under Section 25(1) of the Act, within three weeks from today, the same shall be examined, in accordance with law, and appropriate action would be taken, without further loss of time. In the facts and circumstances, noticed above, this Court is of the opinion that no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is called for in the facts of the present case. Writ petition is dismissed."
(3.) The petitioner, in pursuance of the liberty granted by this Court, sought reference of the dispute regarding entitlement of person to hold the office of Manager, to the Prescribed Authority. By the impugned order, the Prescribed Authority has rejected the reference.;