JUDGMENT K.C. Dhuliya, J. - Writ Petition No. 8001 of 1984 has been filed by Gulab Singh in bis capacity as Secretary of Sri Brajendra Jat Higher Secondary School Society, Biswara, District Mathura and also in his individual capacity, against the Assistant Registrar, firms Societies and chits, Bareilly Region, Bareilly, impleading Assistant Registrar, Shri Ram Sagar, also in his personal capacity as respondent No. 2. The prayer made in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is for quashing the orders of the Assistant Registrar dated 31-5-1984 (Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition). 13-6-1984 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and 16-6-1984 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). In fact the basis order is Anriexure-3, by which the Assistant Registrar has exercised his powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of Societies Registration Act (in short the Act). For holding the election of the office-bearers of the Society and authorising one Shri Shiv Raj Atri to en roll the members. In this writ petition, Kunwtr Pal Singh, Roop Singh and Six others, belonging to the party of Hoshiyar Singh, got them. Selves impleaded as respondents and they are arrayed as respondents No. 3 to 10. 2. The other writ petition has been filed by Roop Singh and Kunwar Pal Singh as petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in their capacity as Secretary/Manager and Vice President of the Society of the School. Their prayer is that the elections of the Committee of Management of the Society were held on 26th June, 1984 and in pursuance of that election they should be allowed to function and manage the affairs of the School. Thus this Writ Petition, in fact is consequential of the earlier writ petition and as such both the petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment. 3. The Writ Petition No. 8001 of 1084 is being referred to as the petition of Gulab Singh and the Writ Petition No. 8400 of 1984 is being referred to as (be Petition of Roop Singh, for the convenient disposal of these petitions. 4. Since in both the petitions, counter affidavits and Rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, we propene to dispose of these two petitions at the stage of admission. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of both the petitions. 6. 4. Since in both the petitions, counter affidavits and Rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, we propene to dispose of these two petitions at the stage of admission. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of both the petitions. 6. For the sake of clarity and convenience, we consider it better to give necessary background of the disputes between the parties for the management of the Society. There is no dispute about the fact that there is a registered Society under the Act for managing certain institution so of the Jat Community, which includes Sri Brajendra Jat Higher Secondary School, Bisawar, District Mathura. The last elections which were validly held and accepted were on 26-6-1977, in which one Rosban Lal was elected as President and Sri Gulab Singh as the Manager of the Society. A dispute regarding the election was raised by Har Prased Singh, A. S. Vaidik, Junwar Pal Singh, Mahajit Singh, Mejber Singh, Hoshiyar Singh, Ramji Lai, Har Raj Singh, Shiv Raj Singh Arti (Principal of S. B. J. Degree College), Bhedjit Singh, Vkram Singh ana Shri Chhagan Singh. Some of these persons also got themselves impleaded as respondents in Writ Petition No. 8001 of 1984. The matter was referred to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saidabad under Subjection (1) of Section 25 of the Act. The objection on behalf of Gulab Singh was raised before the Prescribed Authority that these persons were not members of the Society. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate by his order dated 27th October, 1979 dismissed the reference and held that the election of the Society, which was held on 6 6-1977, was valid. However, these persons did not remain quiet and filed Review Application before the Prescribed Authority, who stayed the operation of this order dated 27th October, 1979 on 6-2-1980. Roshan Lal and Gulab Singh being aggrieved by the order passed on Review Application, filed writ petition No. 1875 of 1980, which was admitted and the order of the Prescribed Authority staying the operation of his order dated 27th October, 1979 was stayed. This writ petition is still pending in this Court. 7. It seems the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was the Prescribed Authority. He ultimately rejected the Review Application. This writ petition is still pending in this Court. 7. It seems the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was the Prescribed Authority. He ultimately rejected the Review Application. The opposite Parties, Kunwai Pal Singh and others including Shiv Raj Singh Atri, filed Writ Petition No. 4297 of 1980 challenging the order of the Prescribed Authority, rejecting the Review Application No. 3-7-1980. This Writ Petition is also still pending in this Court. 8. The Assistant Registrar by his order if November 5, 1980, directed Gulab Singh to hold the election of the office bearers of the Society by February 1983. the Assistant Registrar also sent a copy of the order to Bhedjit Singh, referring him as the alleged Manager-cum Secretary of the Society. It is also referred in this order by the Assistant Registrar that the elections held on 18th June, 1980 was being cancelled. Since this order of the Assistant Registrar was not of the liking of the contesting opposite parities, Behedjit Singh and Hoshiyar Singh filed Writ Petition No. z47 of 1983, which was admitted by this Court on 6th January, 19a3 and the operation of the order of Assistant Registrar dated 5-11-1982 was also stayed with the result the petitioner Gulab Singh, as directed by the Assistant Registrar, could not hold the election of the office-bearers of the Society. 9. The election of the Committee of Management of the institution was also held and there was also some dispute which was referred to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra. The decision of the Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region, was not of the liking of the contesting opposite parties, who filed Writ Petition No. 6108 of 1981, Hoshyaar Singh v. Deputy Director of Education. This Writ Petition was also admitted and interim stay order was passed. However, this petition has no bearing with this case. The impugned order dated 31-5-1984, which is Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition, also refers to writ petition No. 247 of 1 83, filed by the contesting respondents. This Writ Petition was also admitted and interim stay order was passed. However, this petition has no bearing with this case. The impugned order dated 31-5-1984, which is Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition, also refers to writ petition No. 247 of 1 83, filed by the contesting respondents. The Assistant Registrar, Sri Ram Sagar, has stated at the foot of his order that the respondents should file applications before this Court for withdrawing the Writ Petitions, failing which the election schedule which was fixed by his order dated 31-5-1984 shall stand cancelled-It was because of this order that the respondents got their two Writ Petitions No. 247 of 1983, Bedjit Singh v. Assistant Registrar and Writ Petition No. 6.08 of 1981, Hoshiyar Singh v. Deputy Director of Education, dismissed on 11-7-1984. It was submitted by the learned counsel for Gulab Singh that the Assistant Registrar had no power under the Act to pass an order to the effect that the General Body of the Society may be constituted after membership is enrolled by Shri Atri who happened to be the Principal of the S. B. J. Degree College and apparently is a partisan person. The learned counsel also stated that in the teeth of the stay order passed by the Court in Writ Petition No. 247 of 1983 and Writ Petition No. 6108 of 1981, no election schedule for holding the election of the Society could have been made the Assistant Registrar. Firms, Societies and Chits. The learned counsel has urged that that ingredients of Section 25(2) of the Act for holding the election are, that (i) in case the election of the society was set aside by the Prescribed Authority and (ii) when the election of the Society had not been held within the prescribed period of time. According to the petitioner there was an order of the Assistant Registrar dated 5-11-1982 (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition) for holding the elector and it was on account of the Writ Petition No. 247 of 1983 that the election was stayed and could not be held. According to the petitioner there was an order of the Assistant Registrar dated 5-11-1982 (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition) for holding the elector and it was on account of the Writ Petition No. 247 of 1983 that the election was stayed and could not be held. The contention of the petitioner is that it was on account of the stay order of this Court that they could not hold the election and as such it is their right to hold the election and the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act cannot be evoked and the Assistant Registrar should not interfere or give any direction to an individual, who is a partisan person, to enroll the members. He can only, in such a situation, call a meeting of the general body of the Society for electing the office bearers and such meeting shall be presided over and conducted either by the Registrar himself or by any officer authorised by him in this behalf. The relevant provisions of sub-sections (1) and 2 of Section 25 of the Act are being quoted as under "25. Dispute regarding election of office-bearers 1) The prescribe authority may, on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least one-fourth of the members of a Society registered in Uttar Pradesh, hear and decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office bearer of such society, and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit : - (2) Where an order made under sub-section (1) an election is set aside or an office-bearer is held no longer entitled to continue in office or where the Registrar is satisfied that any election of office-bearers of a society had not been held within the time specified in the rules of that society, he may call meeting of the general body of such society for electing such office-bearer or office-bearers, and such meeting shall be presided over and be conducted by the Registrar or by any officer authorised by him in this behalf, and the provisions in the rules of the society relating to meetings and elections shall apply to such meeting and election with necessary modifications. (3)................................." In fact the entire question involved in this Writ Petition is about the power of the Registrar for holding the election and also authorising Shri Shiv Raj Singh Atri to enroll the members, inasmuch as, the conduct of the Assistant Registrar in holding and completing the election by 11a. m. on 26th June, 1984. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection at this stage that since the election had already taken place on 26-6-1984, the remedy open to the petitioner was by raising a dispute before the prescribed authority as contemplated under sub-section (I) of Section 25 of the Act. He has cited catena of decisions right from N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64 to the recent case of Supreme Court in Hassanuzzaman v. Union of India, reported in 1982 (2) SCC page 218. We are aware of all such decisions regarding election disputes, but in this writ petition it is not the election dispute that is involved. Here the question is with respect to the right of the Assistant Registrar and the rote that he has played in charging out the programme of holding the election of office bearers of the Society and authorising a partisan person, Shri Shiv Raj Singh Atri, to prepare the ground for holding the election in derogation Section 25 of the Act. It is true that in matters of election of the Parliament and also of the Legislatures of the States, there is complete bar under Article 329 of the Constitution to interfere in matters of elections or electoral matters by the Courts. the Supreme Court as well as this Court has always discouraged to meddle in the matters of the elections. This is keeping in view of the facts, that the Courts should not interred in the democratic functioning of the institutions and there should not be any hurdle in the process of democratisation of the elective institutions. But such things are not involved in the present case, which we are going to deal hereinafter. The Authorities referred to in support of this preliminary objection by the learned counsel for the respondent in Gulab Singh petition, are clearly distinguishable and are not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. In this view of the matters the preliminary objection is rejected. 11. The Authorities referred to in support of this preliminary objection by the learned counsel for the respondent in Gulab Singh petition, are clearly distinguishable and are not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. In this view of the matters the preliminary objection is rejected. 11. In the dispute regarding election of the society the prescribed authority gave its verdict c n 27 the October, 1979 in favour of Gulab Singh, holding that he was duly elected Manager of the society. Thereafter, unfortunately the prescribed Authority has illegally exercised its power that was not vested in him in a review application filed by the aggrieved party and staying the order dated 27th October, 1979- This order created all the troubles and complications in the case. However, the Assistant Registrar, Respondent No. 2, Shri Ram Sagar, issued an order on 5-11-J982 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) by which he held that the registration of the society is renewed through Shri Gulab Singh as Manager. He also gave direction to Gulab Singh hold the election by February, 1983. It is relevant to mention it here that the tenure of the office bearers of the society is for a period of three years and the last valid election that was held was on 26th June, 1977 in which Roshan Lal was elected as the President and Gulab Singh as the Manager of the society, which gave rise to the dispute and in reference, the Prescribed Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Act rejected the objection of the con- testing respondents and held Gulab Singh (Petitioner) as Manager of the society. I 12. Bhedjit Singh belonging to the party of Hoshiyar Singh and others filed Writ Petition No. 247 of 1983 and obtained stay order from this Court, staying the order of Assistant Registrar dated 5-11-1982. Consequently the election of the society could not be held as scheduled. Writ Petition No. 247 of of 1983, in fact created a hurdle on the way of election and it seems there was some commotion amongst the members of the society, which resulted in persuading ten life members of the society to submit a memorandum to the Assistant Registrar on 25-5-1984, for making efforts to hold election through some independent agency. The said memorandum is Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition. The said memorandum is Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition. In that memorandum it has been clearly mentioned that there are two groups, one is headed by Gulab Singh and the other is headed by Hoshiyar Singh. The Assistant Registrar, Shri Ram Sugar, thereafter passed an order on 31-5-1984, directing Shiv Raj Singh Atri, Principal Sri Brajendra Jat mahavidyalaya, Mathura to enroll members from 10 a. m. to 5 p.m. every day till 10th June, 1984. The Assistant Registrar, in fact, has laid down a detailed schedule for conducting the election, including inviting the objection, with respect to membership of the society and disposing the same. The elections were to be held on 26th June, 1984 till 5 p. m. It is interesting to note that in the same order the Assistant Registrar has given direction to Hoshiyar Singh and Bhedjit Singh to with drawl Writ Petition No. 247 of 1983 failing with his order of the date shall be deemed having been cancelled. 13. On 11-6-1984, Gulab Singh submitted the memorandum before the Assistant Registrar, drawing his attention to the fact that Hoshiyar Singh and Bhedjit Singh have filed Writ Petition No. 6108 of 19&2, 4297 of 1980 and 247 of 1983 which are still pending and by these Writ Petitions the elections of the office bearers of the society have been stayed. He, in fact, gave a warning to the Assistant Registrar that in case by 15-6-1984 he does not with drawl his order dated 31-5-1984, he will be compelled to approach this Court for necessary action. The Assistant Registrar by another order on the next day i. e. 12-6-1984, stayed 1 is order dated 31-5-1984, on the ground that since the Writ Petitions are already pending in this Court, the elections of the office bearers of the Society cannot be held. The other party again approached the Assistant Registrar on 13th June, 1984 in which references have been made to the aforementioned Writ petitions and also an Original Suit No. 34 of 983 filed in the court of Munsif by the respondents. It seems that they gave assurance to the Assistant to Registrar with drawl all the Writ Petitions as well as the Original suit pending in the court of Munsif. It seems that they gave assurance to the Assistant to Registrar with drawl all the Writ Petitions as well as the Original suit pending in the court of Munsif. The Assistant Registrar, Ram Sagar, without hearing other party, passed the order dated 13-6-1984, conceiving his earlier order dated 12-6-1984 and restoring this order dated 31-5-1984, for holding the election of the office bearers of the society. On 16th June, 1984 the Assistant Registrar passed another order standing therein that in view of his order dated 1-5-1984 the earlier order dated 5-11-1982 has become ineffective and in operative. All these orders were passed by the Assistant Registrar, without hearing the other side. He frequently changed his orders, which showed in consistency and oak of maturity of mind, or may be for some other reasons best known him. 14. It is, under these circumstances, that the petitioner Gulab Singh, has challenged the three impugned orders dated 31-5-1984, 31-6-1984 and 16-0-1984. The implication of these orders in authorising the party of Hoshiyar Singh to conduct the election and by categorically stating that his earlier order dated 5-11-1982 has become ineffective and ineffective, shows that he has deprived Gulab Singh of his right to hold the election, who was held as duly elected Manager of the Society by the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 2/-10-1979. The conduct Assistant Registrar lacks bona file on his part, in exercising his statutory power conferred on him by sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act. It smacks of partiality and clearly shows favouring the party led by Hoshiyar Singh. He had no authority and power to appoint Shiv Rai Singh Atri to enroll the members of the Society and to prepare grounds for holding the election. Sub-section (2) of Section 25 does not contemplate such a power being delegated to a private person, however highly placed he may be, and more so to such a person who the face of record is a partisan person aid belongs to the party of Hoshiyar Singh. Such elections are presided over and conducted by the Registrar or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf. The officer does not mean a private person. The officer means either the officer of the Department under Registrar of Societies and Chits or any other Executive Officer whom the Registrar thinks is the proper person to conduct the election. Such elections are presided over and conducted by the Registrar or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf. The officer does not mean a private person. The officer means either the officer of the Department under Registrar of Societies and Chits or any other Executive Officer whom the Registrar thinks is the proper person to conduct the election. In this connection learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the election was to be presided over by the Assistant Registrar and not by Sri Shiv Raj Singh Atri. It is true that the date of election was 26-6-1984 about which there is a note that item No. 1 of the programme of the schedule shall be disposed of by Shri Arti and Item No. 10 which is about conducting the election on 26th June, 1984, refers only that the same shall be conducted in the college. Other items No. 2 to 9 which relate to other formalities like objection to the membership, scrutiny, filing of nominations, etc. etc. were, to be conducted within the precinct of the office of Assistant Registrar between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. This programme schedule clearly empowered Sri Shiv Raj Singh Atri, who is a partisan person, belonging to the party of Hoshiyar Singh, to enrol new members. The record does not show as to how many members were enrolled by Sri Shiv Raj Singh Atri or who were the members or whether any objections were filed or who disposed of the objections or in what manner the objections were disposed of. It is obvious that Assistant Registrar, Ram agar, played in the hands of the party of Hoshiyar Singh and handed over the charge of enrolling membership and thereby influencing the election to that party. Contrary to this, if there was any legal and valid order of any of the authority under the Act for being office bearer of the society, that was in favour of Gulab Singh dated 27th October, 1979, passed by the Prescribed Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Act. 15. There is another startling factor in this case. Writ Petition No. 1873 of 1980 was filed by the party of Gulab Singh against the order of Prescribed Authority passed on the Review application, by which the order dated 27-10-D79 was stayed. 15. There is another startling factor in this case. Writ Petition No. 1873 of 1980 was filed by the party of Gulab Singh against the order of Prescribed Authority passed on the Review application, by which the order dated 27-10-D79 was stayed. We have earlier referred to the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 27-10-1979 which was in favour of Gulab Singh, holding him to be duly elected Manager of the Society. It is clear that same one made attempt to get the Writ Petition No. 1875 of 1980 dismissed. An application was moved to get the writ petition dismissed and a Bench consisting of Honble the Chief Justice and Honble B. D. Agarwala, J. dismissed the Writ Petition on 18-2-1983. It was a calculated move to clear the deck for election being conducted by the party of Hoshiyar Singh, for showing that Gulab Singh is not the manager of the society. On being informed of the new development, the petitioner of that writ petition moved an application for recalling the order dated 18-2-1983 and the Bench concerned passed the following order : "Heard the counsel for the parties. As many as eight petitioners filed affidavits stating that they had not instructed Sri R. Chandra to state that the Writ Petition was not to be pressed or that any application with that prayer was to be made. In these circumstances the order dated 18-2-1983 is recalled, the Writ Petition would be disposed of in ordinary course and the interim order already passed in the case shall also stand reviewed. df. M.N.S. sd. B.D.A. 17-9-1984" 16. There is one more glaring example of hot-trick played by the party of Hoshiyar Singh in circumventing the order of this Court dated 20th June, 1984 when Writ Petition No. 8001 of 1984 was filed, one of us passed the following interim order s - "Issue notice. Mean while the election to be held tomorrow is stayed." 25-6-1984 sd/ O. P. S." 17. The order on the Writ Petition makes it clear that on 25-6-1984 Shri A. Kumir had put in appearance on behalf of respondents No. 3 to 10. Thus, it was in the knowledge of the respondents that this Court stayed the election scheduled to be held on 26th June, 1984. The order on the Writ Petition makes it clear that on 25-6-1984 Shri A. Kumir had put in appearance on behalf of respondents No. 3 to 10. Thus, it was in the knowledge of the respondents that this Court stayed the election scheduled to be held on 26th June, 1984. It is not difficult for one to reach S. B. J. Higher Secondary School, Bisawar, district Mathura by 8 a. m. next day, if one catches Janta Express or Upper India Express at 5.30 p. m. and 11 p. m. he can reach Bisawarvit Jalisar Road in time. However, this is not so important. The stay order passed by the Court was in presence of opposite parties and they filed application for being implead ad as respondents No. 3 to 10. Thus, we are clear in our mind that the respondents had knowledge of the stay order passed by this court, restraining the respondents not to hold the election of the office bearers fixed for 26th June, 1984. Apart from this, the election of the office bearars of the Society were also stayed in Writ Petition No. 247 of 1983 which was filed by Bhedjit Singh and by which the order dated 5-11-1984 was stayed- 18. Writ Petition No. 247 of 1983 Bhedjit Singh v. Assistant Registrar and 6108 of 1981 - Hoshiyar Singh v. Deputy director of Education, were dismissed on 11-7-1984. Thus, it is clear that even the election o 26th June, 1984 could not have been held in the teeth of the stay order passed in Writ Petition No. 247 of of 1983 which was operative till 11-7-1984. When the Writ Petition was dismissed. 19. The above facts do not speak good about the conduct of the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents cited a Division Bench case of this Court, U. P. Olympic Association v. Registrar Firms, Societies reported in U. P. Local Bodies cases page 91, in support of his contention that since the order dated 31-5-1984 (Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition) having been issued by the Assistant Registrar for holding the election, by exercising his powers under subsection (2) of Section 25 of the Act, inasmuch as, term of earlier election held on 26-6-1978 having been expired, the election held on 26th June, 1984 cannot be set aside. In this case also the term of Executive Committee expired on 15-3-1978. In this case also the term of Executive Committee expired on 15-3-1978. The President fixed 28th and 29th of March, 1^78 as the date for holding election, but no elections were held and dates were changed to 5-4-1981. Even then no elections were held and thereafter by a communication dated 5-5-1981, the President of the Association fixed 1th June, 1981 as the date for holding the election. Since the frequent dates were being changed for holding the election, the Registrar exercised his power under sub-section (2) of Section 2: of the Act on 6-5-1981 and fixed the date for convening the meeting for holding election on the ground that since the elections were not held after expiry of three years and the association changed the dates from time to time, he was justified to convene meeting on 21-6-1981 for holding the election. Consequently the writ petition was dismissed. 20. The facts of the present case are entirely different from the above the case. In fact, the petitioner also placed reliance on this case. The point for our consideration is this as to whether the Registrar should be allowed to hold the election, in view of the fact that term of the office bearers of the Committee of Management of the society had already expired and the election was not held in time and as such whether he can exercise his power under sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is this that the election could not be held on account of various stay orders issued from time to time from this Court in the Writ Petitions referred to above and the petitioner should not be blamed for not holding the election in time. It is true that on account of various stay orders, the elections were not held. The Assistant Registrar by his order dated 5-11-1982 directed Gulab Singh to hold the election, in February, 1983, which was stayed in Writ Petition No. 2 1 of 1983 and earlier to that the matter was stayed by the Prescribed Authority in Review application. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner cannot be blamed for not holding the election in time. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner cannot be blamed for not holding the election in time. However, there is some genuine grievance raised by certain life members of the society that the election should be conducted by an impartial body as two warring parties, one led by Gulab Singh and another led by Hoshiyar Singh are not creating conducive atmosphere for holding a fair election. This grievance seems to be correct and genuine. 21. In view of the above discussion and the fact that Assistant Registrar had no authority to entrust a party to manipulate the result of election under Section 25 (2) of the Act, the impugned orders were liable to be quashed. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the Writ Petition No. 247 of 1983 having been dismissed, the order of the Registrar dated 5-12-1982 has been revived, which has authorised Gulab Singh to conduct the election. Gulab Singh was elected as was held by the Prescribed Authority on 26-6-1977 for a period of three years alongwith other office bearers. It is true that election could not be held on account of numerous litigation's between the parties. We think it just and proper that the election are conducted by an impartial and independent authority. It is true that this Court cannot create any authority than one mentioned in the Statute. Sub-section (2) of Section 25 refers to holding of election in such contingency by the Registrar. The conduct of the Assistant Registrar, Ram Sagar of the Bareilly Region, is not above board. Mis role is clearly partisan and this Court cannot entrust the task of conducting the election of the Society to Sri Ram Sagar, Assistant Registrar, Bareilly Region. In case Sri Ram Sagar has been transferred from Bareilly, even, then it will not be proper to entrust for conducting the election of the Society to the new incumbent also, as we have our doubt about the officer of Assistant Registrar, Bareilly. We, therefore, think it just and proper to direct the Registrar of the Societies, Lucknow to conduct the election of the society. He should see that the members enrolled by Shri Shiv Raj Atri during the period, should be deleted from the electoral college and only these members should be allowed to participate in the election who were there prior to 31st May, 1984. 23. He should see that the members enrolled by Shri Shiv Raj Atri during the period, should be deleted from the electoral college and only these members should be allowed to participate in the election who were there prior to 31st May, 1984. 23. In the circumstances the best course will be that the Registrar himself conducts the election of the office bearers of the S. B. J. Higher Secondary School, Society, Bisawar, Mathura, within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this judgment by him. In case there are same difficulties for the registrar in personally conducting and holding the election, then he should authorise an officer not below the rank of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate or District Inspector of Schools, with clear directions to complete to the election within a period of two months. 24. Coming to the Writ Petition No. 8400 of 1984, which has been filed by Roop Singh and others belonging to the party of Hoshiyar Singh, praying that the election held on 26th June, 19f4 have been validly held, inasmuch as, stay order dated 25th June, 1984 was not served on the Assistant Registrar, Ram Sagar, Sri A. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, cited Mool Raj v. Murli Raghunalhji, AIR 1967 SC 1386 and urged that since the Assistant Registrar had no knowledge of the stay order dated 24th June, 1984 the election so held on 26th June, 1984 cannot be set aside. The fact of this case are entirely different than the present one. In that case the stay order was not brought to the notice of the Sub-Divisional Officer who was dealing with the application under Section 3 of U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 and in absence of the stay order he accorded permission to file the suit. The Supreme Court held that the Sub-Divisional Officer had jurisdiction to decide the application and the stay order granted by the District Magistrate in a transfer application was not placed before him and so he was not divested of f is powers, to fact ultimately the transfer application was also rejected by the District Magistrate. The Supreme Court has held that the court or the authority which has the power to deal with the matter, if is not aware of the stay order, then the proceedings during that period cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has held that the court or the authority which has the power to deal with the matter, if is not aware of the stay order, then the proceedings during that period cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. But the facts of the present case are entirely different as stated above. The party of the petitioner, Roop Singh, who get themselves impugned as opposite parties on 20th June, D84 in Writ Petition No. 8001 of 1984, were in the know of the stay order which was passed in their presence. We need not enter into the facts of this case as all the facts have already been discussed and referred to above. The fact that Sri A. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, appeared on behalf of the petitioners, who were respondents in Writ Petition No. 8001 of 1984, on 2th June, 1984 and in his presence the stay order was passed, staying the election of the office bearers of the Society, fixed for 26th June, 1984 25. It is further stated by Gulab Singh and others that the stay order was served on Sri Ram Sagar on 26th June, 1984 at 10 a. m. which we accept to be correct. Thus we are satisfied that the Assistant Registrar, Ram Sagar and Roop Singh ete. were in the know of the stay order and inspire of the stay order they conducted the election in hush hush manner and, as staled by them, completed the same by 11 a. m. whereas the time and schedule fixed by the Assistant Registrar for completing the election was upto 5 p. m. 26. During the course of arguments in this Writ Petition various facts were revealed, as referred to above, which were brought to our notice by the learned counsel for Gulab Singh and others. It was in such a situation that Shri A. Kumar took a dramatic turn and submitted that the Writ Petition of Roop Singh and other (Writ Petition No. 480.) of 1984) may be dismissed as not pressed. Since lengthy arguments were already advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and enough material was provided by the counsel for the respondents, we are not inclined to dismiss this petition as not pressed and it is also being decided and dismissed on merits. 27. Since lengthy arguments were already advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and enough material was provided by the counsel for the respondents, we are not inclined to dismiss this petition as not pressed and it is also being decided and dismissed on merits. 27. Before we part with the case, we cannot restrain ourselves from deprecating the role of Sri Ram Sagar, Assistant Registrar, Bareilly region and we direct this fact must be brought to the notice of the authorities concerned. 28. In view of the above discussion, Writ Petition No. 8001 of 1984 is allowed with costs and Writ Petition No. 8400 of 1984 is dismissed with costs.