Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) Rajput Patharia Vidyalaya Sabha, Kamal Ganj, Farrukhabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society') through its Secretary Kulap Singh and Ashok Kumar, claiming himself to be a member of the General Body of the Society, have filed this petition for setting aside the order dated 10th September, 2007 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Kanpur Region, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Deputy Registrar').
(2.) The Society is registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act,1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The dispute in the present petition is with regard to the registration of the list of office bearers of the Executive Committee of the Society for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08. It is stated that an application dated 16th April, 2007 was submitted by respondent No. 3-Ashwani Kumar Singh before the Deputy Registrar for registration of the list of the office bearers of the Executive Committee of the Society for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 on the basis of the election held on 6th August, 2006. On receipt of the said papers, the Deputy Registrar issued notices to Kulap Singh, Raja Ram Varma and Ramesh Dayal on 7th May, 2007 to file objections against the said list and as no objections were submitted, the Deputy Registrar registered the list of office bearers submitted by Ashwani Kumar Singh on 4th June, 2007. The case of the petitioners is that they had not received the notice dated 7th May, 2007 sent by the Deputy Registrar and in fact they had submitted a list of office bearers of the Executive Committee of the Society for the year 2007-08 along with the application dated 26th June, 2007 and it is only when the Deputy Registrar informed the petitioners on 29th June, 2007 that the list of office bearers for the year 2007-08 had already been registered at the instance of Ashwani Kumar Singh that the petitioners came to know that Ashwani Kumar Singh had earlier submitted a list to the Deputy Registrar. The petitioners, therefore, filed objections before the Deputy Registrar on 17th July, 2007 but the Deputy Registrar by means of the order dated 10th September, 2007 rejected the objections filed by the petitioners and upheld the election set up by Ashwani Kumar Singh for the reason that the petitioners had not filed any objection against the election set up by respondent No. 3-Ashwani Kumar Singh despite service of the notice dated 7th May, 2007 inviting objections. It is this order dated 10th September, 2007 that has been impugned in the present petition.
(3.) Earlier, a learned Judge of this Court had dismissed the writ petition on 8th July, 2008 holding that it had become infructuous by lapse of time. This order was assailed by the petitioners in Special Appeal No. 915 of 2008 which has been allowed by judgment and order dated 7th August, 2008 and the writ petition has been restored. The observations are as follows:- "The writ petition as filed by the petitioners-appellants could not be said to have become infructuous. The learned Single Judge for the purpose of examining as to whether the elections pleaded by the rival claimants of the year 2007 had been held by a person competent to hold the said elections or not had to examine the legality of the election dated 6/8/2006. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 8/7/2008 in so far as it hold that the dispute in the writ petition as having become infructuous is legally not correct. So far as the delay in filing the writ petition is concerned, we may record that according to the writ petitioners, they were not served with the notice dated 7/5/2007, therefore, there was no occasion for the appellants-petitioners to file any objections or to challenge the order passed behind their back on the papers submitted by Shri Ashwil Kumar. The averments so made are disputed by Shri B.D. Mandhyan. However, we are not entering into the correctness of the aforesaid allegations at this stage of the proceedings and we leave it open to the learned Single Judge to determine the aforesaid issue also while deciding the writ petition afresh. However, in the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the writ petition suffers from laches so as to be dismissed on the said ground. In view of the above, the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 8/7/2008 is hereby set aside. The writ petition along with the interim application is restored to its original number. Office is directed to list the same before the appropriate Bench in the next cause list. Special appeal is allowed.";