ORDER R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - In this writ petition, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that this writ petition may be decided finally at this stage. 2. The facts necessary to follow the subject-matter of dispute in the present writ petition are that Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Society, Maharajganj, Gorakhpur is a registered society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act which runs two Post Graduate Colleges namely : 1. Jawaharlal Nehru Smarak Post Graduate College, Maharajganj, Gorakhpur ; 2. Lal Bahadur Shastri Smarak Degree College, Anandnagar, Gorakhpur. Under the bye-laws of the Society Professor Shibban Lal Saxena continued at helm of the affairs of the society as well as in respect of the management of the aforesaid two colleges. Professor Saxena, however, died on 20th Oct. 1985. The dispute arose between the parties to gain control of the society and through it, the management of the two degree colleges. Sri Narsingh Narayan Pandey and Sri Amar Nath Mishra claimed President and Manager respectively on the basis of the election held on 24-11-1985 for Maharajganj college and 27-11-1985 for Anandnagar college. Respon-dent No. 7, on the other hand, claimed himself as President and Manager of the society and the Managing committees of the two colleges on the basis of a registered Will said to have been executed on 23-4-1985 by Professor Saxena in his favour. The Vice-Chancellor on 18th January, 1986 passed an order recognising the committee of management with Narsingh Narayan Pandey as President and Sri Amar Nath Mishra as Manager. This order of the Vice-Chancellor was challenged before Chancellor who by order dated 13th August, 1986, set aside the order of Vice-Chancellor dated 18th January, 1986 and sent the matter back to Vice-Chancellor for deciding afresh by a speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. Vice-Chancellor in pursuance of the order of Chancellor passed an order on 19th March, 1987 and found that the committee of management elected on 24th Nov. 1985 and 27th Nov. 1985 for the aforesaid two colleges were duly elected and thus rejected claim of respondent No. 7. The order of the Vice-Chancellor was again challenged by means of a representation before Chancellor which too was rejected on 26th October, 1987. 1985 and 27th Nov. 1985 for the aforesaid two colleges were duly elected and thus rejected claim of respondent No. 7. The order of the Vice-Chancellor was again challenged by means of a representation before Chancellor which too was rejected on 26th October, 1987. Challenging the aforesaid orders Writ Petition No. 843 of 1988 was filed in this Court which was disposed of by this Court by a consent order on 23rd Nov., 1988. The operative part of the order is being reproduced below: "In view of the agreement of the parties, as stated above, and also since fresh election of the Committee of Management is long over due, I hereby direct that fresh election of the office bearers of the Committee of Management of the two colleges mentioned above shall be held by and under the supervision of the Director of Education, U.P., Lucknow or by any Addl. Director of Education nominated by him, within a period of six weeks form the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the Director of Education, U.P., Lucknow. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly." 3. The aforesaid order contained an undertaking given by the learned counsel that the respondent No. 7 namely Dr. Balram Bhatt shall not challenge the fresh election of the Committee of Management claiming him self to be the present Manager of the committee of management of the two colleges on the basis of his nomination by Professor Sibben Lal Saxena. This part of the order was sought to be modified and deleted by means of an application, which was allowed by this Court on 16th January, 1989 and the undertaking was deleted. However the rest of the order dated 23rd Nov., 1988 was maintained with a further order that the Director of Education or any Additional Director of Education nominated by him, shall see that the valid members alone are entitled to vote in the election. 4. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of this Court the Director of Education notified the date of election by his order dated 3rd Feb., 1991 and the elections were held on 16th Feb., 1991, which was further challenged by means of another writ petition before this Court. 4. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of this Court the Director of Education notified the date of election by his order dated 3rd Feb., 1991 and the elections were held on 16th Feb., 1991, which was further challenged by means of another writ petition before this Court. As grievance of petitioner was mainly in respect of and the dispute between the parties centered around, the correctness of the list of voters and the grievance was that the same was not prepared after giving them opportunity of the hearing, Writ Petition was decided finally after hearing parties by a consent order on 26th Feb. 1991. The operative part of the order is being reproduced below: "In view of the aforesaid agreed position between the learned counsel for the parties, it is hereby directed that the election held on 15/ 16-2-1991 shall not be given effect to and it shall be ignored for all purposes. The Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits is directed to prepare a list of persons entitled to vote in the election for constituting committees of Management in respect of the institutions, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. This list shall be prepared within two months. The list prepared by the Registrar shall be supplied to the Director of Higher Education who shall supervise the election of the Committee of Management of both the institutions within six weeks there-after. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. There will be no order as to costs." 5. In pursuance of the order of this Court a list of voters was prepared by Assistant Registrar, Gorakhpur on 4th May, 1991 which was forwarded to the Director of Education on 30th May, 1991 and on the basis of the voters list so prepared elections were notified by Director of Education by his order dated 15th June, 1991 which is Annexure 17 to the writ petition. In the order of the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur it has been stated that in view of the Government Order dated 7th January, 1982 and further according to the judgment dated 28th January, 1991 of Lucknow Bench of this Court, the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur has all powers of the Registrar and in fact he is functioning in the Division as Registrar and he has authority to decide the dispute and to prepare a list of voters in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 26th February, 1991. The Director of Education, it appears, on the basis of the aforesaid list prepared by Assistant Registrar held elections on 6th July, 1991. This writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 6th July, 1991 by which Director of Education notified election of the committee of Management in respect of the two institution by separate orders which are Annexures 24 and 25 to the writ petition. The orders dated 11th July, 1991 passed by Vice-Chancellor have also been challenged by which committees of management so elected have been recognised by Vice-Chancellor under the provisions of the State Universities Act. The orders are Annexure 26 and 27 respectively to the writ petition. The orders dated 11th July, 1991 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Ma harajganj by which signatures of respondent No. 7 have been certified, to operate the account, have also been challenged. The orders are Annexure 28 and 29. 6. Petitioners by means of an application dated 5th February, 1992 sought amendment of the writ petition and have sought to add certain grounds and reliefs. Order dated 14th April, 1991 passed by Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, U.P. Lucknow and order dated 4th May, 1991 passed by Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur have been challenged as illegal and without authority and sought to be quashed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on this application and considered the facts and circumstances of the case. In my opinion, it deserves to be allowed. The application is thus allowed and shall be treated as part of the writ petition. 8. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on this application and considered the facts and circumstances of the case. In my opinion, it deserves to be allowed. The application is thus allowed and shall be treated as part of the writ petition. 8. In this writ petition the main grievance raised on behalf of the petitioners is that by order dated 26th February, 1991, passed by this Court only Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P., Lucknow was authorised to decide the dispute by consent of the parties and the Assistant Registrar, Gorakhpur could not legally prepare the voters list for holding election in pursuance of the order passed by this Court. The submission is that the petitioners agreed and consented for conferring authority on Registrar only to finalise the voters list after hearing parties and he could not legally delegate this power to Assistant Registrar as done by him by order dated 14th April, 1991, which is Annexure 1 to the affidavit filed in support of the amendment application. The order dated 14th April, 1991 has been further challenged that it was passed by the Registrar without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and which has caused serious prejudice to them. Petitioners have further referred to various objections raised by them before the respondent No. 4 questioning his jurisdiction to resolve the dispute of preparation of voters list in pursuance of the order dated 26th February, 1991. The objections of the petitioners have been filed as Annexure 13 and 16 to the writ petition. In their objection dated 9th April, 1991 petitioners raised certain allegations of mala fide against the respondent No. 4 which are contained in paragraph Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allegations against respondent No. 4 were such that the respondent No. 3 Registrar was not legally justified to pass order dated 14th April, 1991 without affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It has been stated that the respondent No. 4 himself approached respondent No. 3 with the record and obtained order from respondent No. 3 with the record and obtained order from respondent No. 3. The records contained objections filed by petitioners, which are Annexures 13 and 16 to the writ petition, but the respondent No. 3 without looking to them passed the order which is void and illegal. 9. The records contained objections filed by petitioners, which are Annexures 13 and 16 to the writ petition, but the respondent No. 3 without looking to them passed the order which is void and illegal. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the effect of the orders passed by this Court on 26th February, 1991 was that the petitioners membership could not be disputed. The order has the effect of res judicata. Respondent No. 4 by his order dated 4th May, 1991 illegally held that petitioners Amar Nath Mishra and two others namely Narsing Narain Pandey and Mahesh Chandra Chaudhary, ceased to be members of the society, in view of the resolution dated 13th October, 1985 passed by general body of the members. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a case Forwarding Construction Company v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.) Andheri, reported in AIR 1986 SC p 391. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the election for constituting committee of management have already been held on 6th July, 1991 in pursuance of the voters list finalised by respondent No. 4 which have not been challenged in this writ petition and in view of this, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel has further challenged the maintainability of writ petition on the ground that the petitioners ought to have approached this court immediately after the order of Registrar was passed on 14th April, 1991 and in any case before holding elections. It has been submitted that the orders challenged by petitioner are only consequential orders which followed after elections were held, under the order of this Court. It has also been submitted that fresh elections were held in July, 1992, as term of committee of management expired and in view of this fact, the writ petition has become infructuous and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Learned counsel has submitted that the service of the order dated 15th June, 1991 is not denied by petitioners and they could very well approach this Court and could have challenged action of respondent No. 4. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. 12. Learned counsel has submitted that the service of the order dated 15th June, 1991 is not denied by petitioners and they could very well approach this Court and could have challenged action of respondent No. 4. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance in cases of State of U.P. v. Municipal Board, reported in 1970 ALJ 964, Smt. Shafali Roy v. Hero Jaswant Dass, reported in 1992 AWC 1039 : (1992 All LJ 728) and Nagri Pracharini Sabha v. Vth Addl. District and Sessions Judge (191) Suppl (2) SCC 36. Learned counsel has further submitted that from the order of this Court dated 26th February, 1991 both the views are possible that the dispute regarding preparing the list of voters can be decided by the Registrar, as well as that authority can be delegated to the Assistant Registrar. Under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as applicable to this State all the powers of the Registrar are exercised by Assistant Registrar in his division and once the authority has taken a view it should not be interfered with by this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Reliance has also been placed on the Division Bench judgment dated 28th January, 1991 given in Writ Petition No. 6644 of 1987, Arya Pratinidhi Sabha v. Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on Section 21 of the Societies Registration Act. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his submissions as rejoinder, submitted that the order of the Director of Education was served in the month of June and during that time the court was closed. This Court opened on 8th July, 1991 and by that time the alleged elections were already held. He has referred to his affidavit filed along with amendment application and has submitted that the petitioners knew about order dated 14th April , 1991 only on the service of the counter affidavit on them. Prior to that they had no information that the Registrar, respondent No. 3, passed any order authorising respondent No. 4 to decide the dispute. It has been further submitted that Amar Nath Mishra continued to be the Manager throughout and managed the affairs of the institutions and elections were held on 24th Nov. 1985 and 27th Nov. Prior to that they had no information that the Registrar, respondent No. 3, passed any order authorising respondent No. 4 to decide the dispute. It has been further submitted that Amar Nath Mishra continued to be the Manager throughout and managed the affairs of the institutions and elections were held on 24th Nov. 1985 and 27th Nov. 1985 in which he was elected as Manager and Sri Narsing Narain Pandey was elected as President and in the circumstances the fact that they had ceased to be the members of the society on 13th October, 1985 cannot be believed. The respondent No. 4 accepted the allegations made by respondent No. 7 without applying his mind. 15. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and in my opinion, reply of the question involved in this writ petition, lies in determining as to whether in view of the order dated 26th February, 1991 passed by this Court, the Registrar (respondent No. 3) should have himself finalised the voters' list or could he delegate his authority to respondent No.4, Assistant Registrar. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on Section 21 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, hereinafter referred to as the `Act'. Section 21 of the Act, for better appreciation, is being reproduced below: "21. In this Act, the word `Registrar' means a person appointed as such by the State Government, and includes an Additional Registrar, a Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrar, or Assistant Registrar, on whom all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act are conferred by general or special order of the State Government." 17. From a plain reading of the Section 21 of the Act it is clear that the Assistant Registrar may exercise all or any of the powers of the Registrar under the Act in case such authority is conferred on him by general or special order of the State Government. There is no doubt that the State Government by Notification No. Aud. 402/ IX-605(46) 79 dated 7th January, 1982 conferred all powers of the Registrar on Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar and in view of this the Assistant Registrar within his region may exercise all the powers of Registrar. 18. There is no doubt that the State Government by Notification No. Aud. 402/ IX-605(46) 79 dated 7th January, 1982 conferred all powers of the Registrar on Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar and in view of this the Assistant Registrar within his region may exercise all the powers of Registrar. 18. However the next question connected with the aforesaid is as to whether the preparation of the list of persons entitled to vote in the election for constituting the committee of management, in respect of the institution, for which the Registrar was directed by this Court vide order dated 26th February, 1991, was the power of the Registrar under the Act which was directed by this Court to be exercised or the order of the Court itself was the source of authority for exercising power. In case this power was already with the Registrar and could be exercised in normal discharge of duties under the provisions of the Act. Then by order of this Court that power was only noticed and a direction was given. There is no difficulty in answering the question that it could be exercised by Assistant Registrar by virtue of the power under Section 21 of the Act., However if the source of this power was the order of the Court which was passed with the consent of the parties the answer should bed searched out for the order itself. Under the Act the Registrar has several powers in connection with the regulation of the societies under Sections 3, 3A, 12D, 13A, 17, 19, 22, 24 and 25 of the Act. However a perusal of the aforesiad sections shows that he has no such power to prepare and finalise the voters' list, which in other words may be said to be a list of members of the general body who may be entitled to participate in election for constituting the committee of management. As under the Act no such power existed in favour of the Registrar, it could not be exercised by Assistant Registrar by virtue of Section 21 of the Act. The case relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents namely Arya Pratinidhi Sabha v. Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 28th January, 1991 was in respect of the exercise of powers under Section 25 of the Act. The case relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents namely Arya Pratinidhi Sabha v. Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 28th January, 1991 was in respect of the exercise of powers under Section 25 of the Act. The question before Division Bench was regarding the case of specific powers under the Act itself. Thus the case is clearly distinguishable on the facts and cannot be applied in the facts of the present case. Thus Assistant Registrar, Gorakhpur, respondent No. 4, could not exercise authority of Registrar to finalise voter list which was conferred on him by order of this Court, with the help of Section 21 of the Act or the Government Order dated 7th January, 1992 which were subject matter of consideration before Division Bench noticed above. 19. Now considering the order dated 26th February, 1991 for ascertaining as to whether the power of Registrar could be delegated to Assistant Registrar, it is difficult to find an affirmative answer. The learned counsel for respondents, however, submitted that from order dated 26th February, 1991 both the views were possible but it is difficult to accept this. The order is very specific and clear that the authority was conferred on the Registrar along. The order was passed with consent of the parties and there is no such indication in the order that it was in contemplation of parties or the court that the Registrar could get the compliance of the order done, through such officer subordinate to him. As the source of power was the order itself, the Registrar could not legally direct Assistant Registrar to function in his place. The order of respondent No. 3 dated 14th April, 1991 cannot be justified in any manner. It cannot be denied that the order was passed with a view to resolve the dispute regarding committee of management at an early date. The Registrar could get guidance from the order of this Court dated 23rd Nov. 1988 in which it was specifically mentioned that the Director of Education or any Additional Director of Education nominated by him may hold election. No such indication was given in the order dated 26th February, 1991. The Registrar could get guidance from the order of this Court dated 23rd Nov. 1988 in which it was specifically mentioned that the Director of Education or any Additional Director of Education nominated by him may hold election. No such indication was given in the order dated 26th February, 1991. If the Registrar for want of time or for any other reason was incapable of deciding the dispute himself, he could very well apply to this Court and after obtaining an order could delegate his authority to any other authority subordinate to him. 20. There is yet another reason on account of which the course adopted by respondent No. 3 cannot be approved. As clear from the objection filed by petitioners, they were questioning the authority of respondent No. 4 to resolve the dispute from the very beginning. They had raised certain allegations against him in their objection dated 9th April, 1991 which clearly show that they had some grudge against Assistant Registrar, Gorakhpur. The Registrar ought to have considered these objections before passing his order dated 14th April, 1991. If one party was not agreeable that the Assistant Registrar should function and exercise the authority of Registrar, that party should have been given opportunity of hearing before passing order dated 14th April, 1991. In my opinion, the grievance raised on behalf of the petitioners is justified. The order dated 14th April, 1991 cannot be sustained as it was passed in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice also. 21. As the order dated 14th April, 1991 was illegal and void, all actions of respondent No. 4 as a consequence thereof also become illegal and void including his order dated 4th April, 1991 by which he finalised the list of voters for purposes of election for constituting committee of management. The election held on the basis of such list can also not be legal and valid. 22. The learned counsel for the respondents has, however, submitted that in view of the fact the election was already held on the basis of the voters list prepared and petitioners failed to approach this Court in time, this writ petition should be dismissed. The election held on the basis of such list can also not be legal and valid. 22. The learned counsel for the respondents has, however, submitted that in view of the fact the election was already held on the basis of the voters list prepared and petitioners failed to approach this Court in time, this writ petition should be dismissed. It has been further submitted that the fresh elections were again held in July, 1992 as the term of committee of management expired and in view of the latter development the writ petition has become in fructuous and should be dismissed as such. The learned counsel has placed reliance in cases cited in 1970 ALJ 964 : 1991 AWC 1009: (1992 All LJ 728) and (1991) Suppl. (2) SCC 36. In my opinion, in this case the consequence of order dated 4th May, 1991 is that petitioner Amar Nath Mishra and others ceased to be members of the society. The submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted as the order has already been found to be illegal and void. They were not members of the general body for a fixed term. They were continuing members from the very inception and were promoter members of the society. It was not a case where the term of office expired and thereafter fresh election had taken place. The dispute referred to the Registrar was not regarding office bearers of the committee, in respect of which it could be argued that the term for which election was held has expired and and the fresh election has taken place and thus the dispute regarding previous election lost its relevance. The question referred was regarding finalisation of list of members of the general body which was a necessary link of first step for holding election for constituting committee of management. In my opinion, the cases relied, on behalf of the respondents are clearly distinguishable and cannot be applied in the facts of the present case. 23. In view of the fact that the orders dated 14th April, 1991 and 4th May, 1991 passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively have been held to be illegal and void, in my opinion, it is not necessary to go into the other questions argued by learned counsel. 23. In view of the fact that the orders dated 14th April, 1991 and 4th May, 1991 passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively have been held to be illegal and void, in my opinion, it is not necessary to go into the other questions argued by learned counsel. However, it appears that as the term of committee of management is only for one year and the fresh elections may again fall the due some times in July, 1993, it would be appropriate that the dispute regarding voters list or list regarding members of general body should be finalised by Registrar, respondent No. 3 before next elections. During this period however the management of institution shall not be disturbed and shall be allowed to run smoothly which will be without prejudice to the rights of the parties. 24. For the reasons recorded above, this writ petition is allowed. Orders dated 14th April, 1991 passed by respondent No. 3 and order dated 4th May, 1991 passed by respondent No. 4 are hereby quashed. Respondent No. 3 Registrar. Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P., Lucknow is directed to prepare the list of persons entitled to vote in the election, afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. List shall be prepared within a period of four months. List so prepared shall be forwarded by the Registrar to Director of Higher Education. The elections of the office bearers of the committee of management of the two college mentioned above shall be held by and under the supervision of the vision of the Director of Higher Education or by any other Additional Director nominated by him within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of the voters list from the Registrar. respondent No. 3. It is expected that the parties shall extend their full co-operation in resolving the dispute peacefully and within a period fixed by this order keeping in view the interest of the institutions which should be prime consideration for each of them. It is also expected that after determination of the dispute by the aforesaid higher authorities they will not indulge themselves in unnecessary dispute which may involve unnecessary waste of time and money and may ultimately vitiate the academic atmosphere of the educational institutions run them. There will no order as to costs.