- (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Sri S. N. Tripathi and Sri Shamim Ahmad Abbasi.
(2.) THE dispute in the present case is regarding the validity of the order dated 10th October, 1988 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region Varanasi in respect of the Society known as the Organisation of Rural Kusami Kala, Ghazipur. To this Society renewal was granted on 28-10-1987 for a period of five years. THEreafter, a dispute arose in between Sri S. N. Tripathi and Shamim Ahmad on one hand and Sri V. S. Mathur, respondent no. 2 on the other hand. THE respondent no. 1 vide impugned order dated 10-10-1988 held that Sri V. S. Mathur was the elected President of the Society and in that capacity he was entitled to function Challenging the aforesaid order, this writ petition has been filed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 25 of the Societies' Registration Act (as amended by the State of U. P.) it was incumbent on the Registrar in the event of the dispute covered by that section arisen, to refer the same to the Prescribed Authority. The order of the respondent no. 1 passed by himself without making any reference to the Prescribed Authority was invalid. The learned counsel contended that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute involved in between the parties. For this proposition, the petitioner's counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in All India Council v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region Varanasi, 1988 AWC 1154. In this case the Division Bench held that : "If a dispute is raised with Regard to the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, the same has to be decided only by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) and not by the Registrar......" In this connection the Division Bench also found that Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act does not confer power on the Registrar to assume function of the Prescribed Authority which had been conferred on him in the event of a dispute of election arisen. In our opinion, the contention raised by Sri Pathak is fully covered by this decision. The Prescribed Authority alone has power to decide the controversy, and the Registrar should have made a reference to him. For respondent no. 2 reliance has been placed on Section 4 but for the reasons given in the Division Bench decision, the said section does not apply.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the petition is allowed and the order dated 10-10- 1988 is quashed. It will however, be open to the Registrar to refer the matter if so advised, to the Prescribed Authority. The contention of the contesting respondent that the petitioner has filed a civil suit for the same relief and therefore, the instant writ petition is not maintainable, is incorrect inasmuch as, the aforesaid suit was filed in April 1988 whereas, the impugned order had been passed on 10 10- 1988. Neither the impugned order nor was actually so.;