A.P.MISRA, J. - (1.) The petitioner by means of the present writ petition sought for quashing the order dated 13th June, 1988 (Annexure-13) passed by the Deputy Registrar by virtue of which it did not recognise the election dated 23rd Aug. 1987, of the society and further under S.25(2) of the Societies Registration Act directed for holding fresh elections and appointed one Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits as an election officer to conduct the same.
(2.) The petitioners' case is that the petitioner No. 1 is a registered society which was initially registered in 1957 with the Registrar of Joint Stock Company and thereafter registration has been renewed from time to time under the societies Registration Act. Last renewal was effected by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Meerut on 11-3-1986 for a period of five years from 10th Oct. 1985, which is still in force. By a resolution dated 21st April, 1985, the general body unanimously affected two changes in the bye-laws, one, that instead of Baisakh, April/May the main general body session would be held in the month of August each year, and, second, that the office bearers would be elected for a period of two years instead of one year. Thereafter, the said amendment in the bye laws was communicated to the Assistant Registrar Firms, on 14th June, 1985. In response thereof on 2nd July, 1985, a letter was sent by the Assistant Registrar to the petitioner by means of which it was desired apart from other things to get the aforesaid election proceedings (21st April, 1985) confirmed by the general body and submit the same within fourteen days for confirmation. Thereafter, the general body in its meeting dated 18th August, 1985 confirmed the aforesaid election dated 21st April, 1985. The information of these proceedings was also communicated to the Assistant Registrar on the 25th Sept. 1985, which was received in the office of the Assistant Registrar on the 8th Oct. 1985. In this controversy also a prayer for the renewal of registration as the previous registration was expiring on the 10th Oct. 1985. Thereafter, the Registrar forwarded a renewal certificate under his letter dated 14th March, 1986, enclosing the registration certificate dated 11th March, 1986. Thereafter, since after the aforesaid election dated 18th Aug. 1985, by virtue of amendment of the bye-law period being extended from one year to two years the next election was held in the general body meeting dated 23rd Aug. 1987 According to the petitioner, respondent No. 4 Sri Madan Lal Agarwal, applied to the Assistant Registrar for stopping the proposed election dated 23rd Aug. 1987 by show of hands and the Assistant Registrar on 19th Aug. 1987 sent a letter to the petitioner on the same day asking for the reply to the said objection and the petitioner replied the same on 21st Aug. 1987. Thereafter, the impugned election was held on 23rd Aug. 1987. It is this election which has been held by the Deputy Registrar by means of impugned order to be invalid, on account of it being held after two years instead of one year and also on the ground that the election could not have been held under the amended bye-law as the same was not approved and further according to the old bye-law since last election was held on the 18th Aug. 1985, the election should have been held within a period of one year i.e. by 17th Aug. 1986, and that having not been done the committee of management which was elected on 18th Aug. 1985, its term came to an end. Thus, the Deputy Registrar exercising powers under S.25(2) of the Societies Registration (hereinafter referred to as Act) appointed the Assistant Registrar as election officer to hold fresh election.
(3.) The first ground of challenge of the impugned order by the petitioner is that the amendment of Society bye-law 9-Ga by the general body resolution dated 21st April, 1985 was valid and Assistant Registrar has wrongly held it to be invalid. Thus, the election of the office bearer of the committee of management held by the general body on the 23rd Aug. 1987, could not be said to be illegal and a decision to the contrary in the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It was further urged that, compliance of S.4-A of the Act is merely directory and its mere non-compliance would not lead to invalidate the action of the society.;