Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) SANJIV Memorial Education Society (hereinafter referred to as the ''Society") and its Chairman have filed this petition for quashing of the order dated 25th June, 2009 passed by the Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P. Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the ''Registrar") by which, while exercising revisional powers, he has set aside the order dated 24th December, 2008 passed by the Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P. Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Deputy Registrar).
(2.) IT is said that petitioner No.2, S.P. Jalan was elected as the Chairman of the Society and respondent No.4-P.C. Gupta was elected as the Secretary of the Society. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 Smt. Seema Gupta and Smt. Harshu Gupta were also elected as the Members of the Governing Body of the Society. A dispute arose as some members of the Society filed objections and the matter was decided by the Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P. Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the ''Assistant Registrar") by the order dated 18th February, 2008. Respondent No.4, P.C. Gupta subsequently submitted documents before the Deputy Registrar for registration in which new members were inducted on the basis of meetings held on various dates. Notice was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Registrar and after hearing the parties concerned, the Deputy Registrar by the order dated 24th December, 2008 rejected the documents submitted by respondent No.4-P.C. Gupta. A Revision was then filed on 1st January, 2009 by respondent No.4 before the Registrar against the order dated 24th December, 2008 passed by the Deputy Registrar. The petitioners raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the Revision but as the Registrar was proceeding with the matter the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 31219 of 2009 which was disposed of by this Court by the order dated 26th June, 2009 with a direction to the Registrar to first decide the preliminary objection raised by the petitioners regarding the maintainability of the Revision filed before the Registrar. However, the Registrar by the order dated 25th June, 2009 partly allowed the Revision and remanded the matter to the Deputy Registrar. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Gopal Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order dated 25th June, 2009 deserves to be set aside on the sole ground that the Revision filed before the Registrar against an order passed by the Deputy Registrar was not maintainable.
(3.) SRI H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 contended that the order passed by the Registrar should not be set aside as it will result in reviving an illegal order dated 24th December, 2008 passed by the Deputy Registrar. However, he did not make any submission regarding the maintainability of the Revision filed before the Registrar. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.;