- (1.) O. P. Garg, J. By means of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India the petitioners have chal lenged the order dated 31-3-1998 passed by the Regional Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits Meerut, which is An-nexure-10 to this writ petition.
(2.) HEARD Dr. R. G. Padia learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri R. K. Pandey learned Counsel for respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 Committee of Management, Anjuman Moin-Ut- TUlaba, Bulandshahr is a society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act. This society came into being in the year 1928 and is managing three educa tional institutions viz. (1) Muslim Inter College, Bulandshahr (2) Faiyaz Begum Muslim Girls Inter College, Bulandshahr and (3) Muslim Girls Degree College Bulandshahr. The last election of the society was held on 26-12-1993 of which Haji Raunaq Ali Khan, respondent No. 2 and Abdul Shaheed Khan were elected respectively as President and Secretary. The period of the Committee of Manage ment was three years and consequently it is alleged that fresh election was held on 26-12-1996. The last elected candidates was registered by respondent No. 1, Deputy Registrar on 7- 4-1997. Petition No. 2 Mohammad Shamim Alam Khan who claimed to be the Secretary of the Society having been allegedly elected on 3-8-1997 took an exception to the order of registration dated 7-4-1997 in favour of the committee represented by respondent No. 1, Haji Raunaq Alikhan. Mohammad Shamim Alam Khan filed a number of objections and the representations which came to be decided by the Deputy Registrar, respondent No. 2 by the im pugned order which indicates that on a number of dates parties evidence was taken and after hearing them it was con cluded that the order of registration on 7- 4-1997 was rightly passed and now it is of no consequence to decide the alleged il legalities and irregularities in the last elec tion on 26-12-1993 as the new election of 26-12-1996 has taken place. Assailing the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Dr. Padia urged that respondent No. 1 has arrogated to himself a jurisdiction which has been conferred upon the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registra tion Act, 1860. According to the learned Counsel, the Deputy Registrar had no authority or competence to decide the dis pute raised by the rival Committees of Management and that the only legal course to be adopted by respondent No. 1 was to have referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority for decision under Section 25 of the Act. Under the Govern ment Order a Sub-Divisional Officer has been notified as the Prescribed Authority for purposes of Section 25 of the Act. Sri R. K. Pandey learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has repelled the various sub missions made on behalf of the petitioner and supported the order passed by respondent No. 2.
(3.) I have given thoughtful considera tion to the matter. There is no dispute about the fact that the scope, object and controversy which is to be decided and the authorities under Section 4 (1) proviso to Section 25 of the Act are quite separate and distinct. Under Section 4, annual list of managing body is to be filed before the Registrar for record. The list of the manag ing body is to be counter-signed by the old members and if the old office bearers do not counter-sign the list, the Registrar may, in his discretion issue a public notice or notice to such persons as he thinks fit inviting objections within a specified period and is required to decide all objec tions received within the said period. It is a sort of administrative enquiry. On the other hand, the Prescribed Authority on a reference made to it, by the Registrar or by atleast 1/4th of the members of a society, hear and decide in a summary manner, any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such society and may pass such orders in respect thereof, as it deems fit. The Prescribed Authority has the power to set aside the election of an office bearer if he is satisfied that any corrupt practice has been committed by such office bearer, that the nomination of any candidate has been im properly rejected or that the result of the election, insofar as it concerns such office bearer, has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination or by improper rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote, which is void or by any non-compliance with the provisions of the rules of the society. A bare reading of Section 25 would make it clear that the Prescribed Authority can go into the validity of otherwise of the elections, as set up by the rival office bearers on the founds specified above. The Registrar as no power to Act under Section 25 of the Act except that he can simply make a reference to the Prescribed Authority. Section 25 of the Act contemplates different situation, It is attracted only when there is no dispute in respect of registration of Society or its renewal of certificate or registration but there is dispute between two rival parties each of whom is claiming to be validly elected body. In such a situation the dispute be tween the two rival parties has to be referred for adjudication under Section 25 of the Act. Section 25 of the Act is also attracted when a party challenges the il legality or otherwise of the election of par ticular set of office bearers of society on the grounds enumerated in Section 25 of the Act. Thus, the dispute under Section 25 of the Act can only be referred for adjudication only when it is found that the registration of the society or its renewal is intact.;