- (1.) The petition is to quash the order issued on 19.06.2014 by the 3rd respondent, namely, the District Registrar, placing in abeyance the election schedule ordered on 23.05.2014. The decision of the District Registrar was in response to some objections given by persons claiming to be past members of the society on 10.06.014 that the membership roll had been prepared without including them and that the list was not correct. The list had been published by the petitioners on 13.05.2014 and the notice published in an English daily was that the suggestions, claims and objections were invited from life members upto 17.05.2014. Subsequently on 20.05.2014, yet another publication notice had been made inviting claims/objections and suggestions regarding final voter list of life members and any life member could file his claims, objections or suggestions upto 23.05.2014 in the office of the member of the Saini Degree College. The contention is that any objection regarding membership will have to be seen independently of an objection regarding the voter list and the publication of notice regarding membership itself must be taken to have been finalized on 13.05.2014. If an objection had not been brought before the Registrar within 15 days from the said date, namely, from 13.05.2014 which could have been at best extended for another period of 7 days by the Registrar, the objection given on 10.06.2014 by some of the persons claiming to be members could not be taken as valid to place the election schedule in abeyance. The impugned order was purported to be issued under Section 39(6) of Haryana Registration & Regulation of Societies Act of 2012 (for short, 'Act of 2012") and the counsel would argue that the objection to membership came under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act and it could not be taken as an objection which is contemplated under Section 39(4). The petitioner would, therefore, seek for quashing of the order passed by the District Registrar. During the pendency of the writ petition, the court had allowed for continuance of the election process after the nomination were filed and scrutiny undertaken, this court had directed some of the objections raised by some persons to be examined by the District Registrar and a report filed in court. The report has also been filed after holding an enquiry which is produced before court as one passed on 12.08.2014. The report takes up several issues relating to the eligibility of members, who had been admitted, the defects in the constitution of collegium etc.
(2.) Some of the private respondents, who had been impleaded on their own applications contending that they are also members and they have been left out, have a case to contend that the petitioners on their own extended the time for calling objection on publication and the publication made on 23.05.2014 was still keeping open the issue of life member to file his or her objection and it should therefore be taken as the date from when the objection could be given under Section 39(4).
(3.) Although there is an issue of age, namely, that in the members enlisted by the petitioners, there are persons, who are less than 21 years of age, which is the minimum eligible age under the Act of 2012, the counsel for the petitioner points out that they had not admitted any new member at the time of re-registration and since under the old Act, the eligibility for membership was only 18 and, therefore, such of those members, who had already been admitted could not be taken to be disqualified, are wrongly admitted under the Act of 2012.;