- (1.) O. P. Garg, J. In this writ petition, the validity of the order dated 18-8-1997, Annexure-7 to the writ petition, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur has been challenged by the petitioner- Committee of Management Janta Audyogik Vidyalaya, Sherpur Gurha, Kanpur Dehat through its Secretary/manager, Vir Sen Yadav. Counter and rejoinder- affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is finally disposed of.
(2.) HEARD Sri Ashok Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri V. K. Shukla, learned Counsel for the respon dent Nos. 2 and 3. Sri Janta Audyogik Vidyalaya, Sherpur, Gurha, Kanpur Dehat is a society which was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 9-1-1963. The renewal of the certificate of registration of the said society was made on 19-3-1994 for a period of 5 years commencing from 10-10-1990 on the application of Ram Swarup Yadav, the then Manager/secretary. List of the Committee of Management and its office bearers of the year 1993-94 was filed. At that time, there were only 12 members of the general body. Shiv Lal Singh, Respondent No. 3 applied for renewal of the certificate of registra tion for a period of 5 years and filed the necessary documents as required under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act. The petitioners filed objections before the Deputy Registrar who by the impugned order dated 18-8- 1997 came to the conclusion that the papers filed by Shiv Lal for renewal of the certificate of registration under Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are acceptable and accordingly by invoking the powers under Section 4 (1), list of the committee of management of the year 1997-98 was registered and renewal for 5 years w. e. f. 10-10-1995 was allowed and the objec tions filed by Vir Sen Yadav were rejected. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioners challenged the im pugned order on the ground that no op portunity of hearing was given to the petitioners and in effect, the impugned order is merely ex pane. It was also urged that the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdic tion to pass the impugned order as the only course' left open to him was to have referred the dispute about the election of the rival committees of management to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act. Sri VK. Shukla repelled all these submissions.
(3.) ON behalf of the petitioners, it was urged that the Registrar himself has no jurisdiction under Section 4 (1) of the Act to hear and decide any doubt or dispute in respect of an election or continuance in office of an office bearer of a society and, therefore, any decision given by him in this regard will be wholly without jurisdiction. Sri Khare maintains that the Dy. Registrar was under the law bound to refer the dis pute of the nature raised before him to the Prescribed Authority. In support of his contention, Sri Khare placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) 1981 UPLBEC308 (DB) Vijay Narain Singh v. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U. P. Lucknow A Ors. ; (2 ). (1987) 1 UPLBEC 333 Committee of Management and Ors. v. Zila Basic Siksha Adhikari and Ors. ; (3) (1988) 1 UPLBEC 515 (DB) Purva Bazar Educational Society, Gorakhpur v. Asstt. Registrar, Firms Chits and Societies, Gorakhpur. (4) AIR 1988 Allahabad 236 All India Council andanrv. Firms, Societies and Chits. (5) 1991 AWC 1311 Muslim Welfare Society Machlinagar v. Asstt. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits. (6) 1993 (2) UPLBEC 890 Khoproha Educational Society and Ors. v. Asstt. Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits. (7) 1994 HVD (Alld) Vol. Ill 389 (DB) Company Management v. Asstt. Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits. The gamut of all these rulings is that if there is any doubt or dispute about the election of the committee of management or the office bearers, such a dispute cannot be resolved by Deputy Registrar in exer cise of his powers under Sections 3-A and 4 of the Act and he is left with no option but to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority for being decided under the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. Sri Shukla maintained that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar is in effect, an order under Section 4 of the Act and, therefore, no exception can be taken about it. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court, namely, (i) (1995) 2 UPLBEC 1242, Committee of Management, Kishan Shiksha Sudan, Bankshai Distt. Basti and another v. Assis tant Registrar, Chits, Firms and Societies, Gorakhpur and (ii) dated 28-10-1997 in Special Appeal No. 22 of 1996 Shiksha Parishad Nagwa Ballia and another v. Dy. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits and Ors. Before entering into the con troversy whether the impugned order, in effect, is an order passed under Section 4 of the Act or amounts to usurpation of the power of the prescribed authority, as con templated under Section 25 of the Act, it would be proper to make a reference to the celebrated decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1998 (1) UPLBEC 399 Shiksha Prasar Samiti Allahabad and another v. Registrar Societies, Chits and Firms, U. P. , Lucknow and others, in which it was observed that in a case in which both the sides are seeking renewal of registra tion of the same society, they cannot be said to be aggrieved party, if the renewal of the registration is granted by the authority concerned. The renewal is of the registra tion of the society and it is for the benefit of all the members and office bearers of the society. There may be a situation that two rival factions of the same society may apply for renewal separately and the renewal may be granted at the instance of one of them but the ultimate beneficiary shall be the society as a whole and not the individuals alone seeking renewal. In such a situation after renewal of the registration of the society, the dispute about renewal must be taken to have come to an end. A stranger cannot and should not be allowed to claim renewal of registration of the society. In the instant case, the renewal of the certificate of registration has been allowed at the instance of Shiv Lal Singh-Respondent No. 3 who cannot be said to be a stranger.;