This decision examines the scope, power, and jurisdiction of Registrar Societies and Chit Funds, the Prescribed Authority under the Societies Registration Act, and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari in respect of Societies running Junior High Schools. Among these, in a controversy to decide about the recognition of its committee of management, whose decision will override the other? How should the different provisions, relating this controversy, be reconciled? In addition, it is recommended that the state may remove the anomaly between the Societies Registration Act, the Intermediate Education Act, and the first statutes of different Universities under the U. P. State University Act (heading remarks: SECTION 25 OF THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT - SECTION 16-A (7) OF THE INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, AND THE FIRST STATUTES OF THE UNIVERSITIES Paragraphs 30-37 ). Here are the facts FACTs 2. There is a society known as Raja Tej Singh Vidyalaya Aurandh, district Mainpuri (the RTS society ). It runs a Junior High School by the same name (the RTS School ). The governing body (committee of management) of the RTS society also manages the RTS school i. e. committee of management of the RTS society is the committee of management in the RTS school. There is only one election. (Reference to the committee of management of the governing body of the RTS society or election thereto means the governing body of the RTS society or election thereto means the committee of management of the RTS School or election thereto and vice versa in this judgment. 3. Admitted elections to the committee of management of the RTS society were held on 19th November, 1995. In this election one Sri Awadh Kishore and Sri Ravendra Singh were elected as the President and the Manager of the society. Every year, a society is required to submit a list of members of the governing body under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act. Sri Ravendra Singh submitted a list some time in November 1998. In this list instead of Sri Awadh Kishore, some one else was shown as the President. The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra (the AR) issued notices to Sri Awadh Kishore to confirm it. In the meantime fresh elections were held. Sri Ravendra Singh submitted a list some time in November 1998. In this list instead of Sri Awadh Kishore, some one else was shown as the President. The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra (the AR) issued notices to Sri Awadh Kishore to confirm it. In the meantime fresh elections were held. There was dispute among the members - one faction held his election on 3rd December, 1998 electing Sri Lallu Singh as the Manager; second faction held election on 6th December, 1998 electing Sri Satya Pal Singh as the Manager; third faction also held election in which Sri K. K. Singh was elected as Manager. Sri K. K. Singh is no longer in picture and has gone out of contest. Different sets of persons were allegedly elected as office bearers and members of committees of management in these elections. All submitted their papers to the AR under Section 4 of the Society Registration Act for information as well as to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mainpuri (the BSA) for their recognition. 4. The BSA by his order dated 20th January, 1999 recognised Sri Satya Pal Singh as the manager. Sri Lallu Singh filed a writ petition No. 5611 of 1999 (the earlier writ petition) against the order of the BSA dated 20-1-1999. This writ petition was allowed on 24-2-1999 (the earlier order of the High Court) and the BSA was directed to decide the controversy again within 15 days from the production of a certified copy of the order. The BSA has again recognised Sri Satya Pal Singh as the Manager by his order dated 5th April, 1999. Sri Lallu Singh has again filed a writ petition No. 20017 of 1999 (the first writ petition) against the order of the BSA dated 5-4-1999. No interim orders were granted in this writ petition. 5. During pendency of the first writ petition, the BSA passed another order dated 23rd October 1999 for single operation of the accounts under 2nd proviso to the U. P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 (the Payment of Salary Act ). It is on the basis of some letter of the Joint Director of Education (Basic) Agra dated 22nd April 1990. Sri Satya Pal Singh has filed writ petition No. 50966 of 1999 (the second writ petition) against the order dated 23rd October, 1990 directing single operation of accounts. It is on the basis of some letter of the Joint Director of Education (Basic) Agra dated 22nd April 1990. Sri Satya Pal Singh has filed writ petition No. 50966 of 1999 (the second writ petition) against the order dated 23rd October, 1990 directing single operation of accounts. 6. The elections held were of the RTS society and all sides had also submitted their list of committee of management (governing body) to the AR under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act. The AR by his order dated 30th October 1999 has held that the committee of management of Sri Lallu Singh Chauhan was a valid committee of management. Sri Satya Pal Singh has filed writ petition No. 50290 of 1999 (the third writ petition) against this order. There are contradictory orders: the BSA has recognised Sri Satya Pal Singh, and the AR has recognised Sri Lallu Singh as the manager of the committee of management though it is same for the RTS School and the RTS society. POINTS FOR DETERMINATIOn 7. I have heard Sri Ashok Khare counsel for Sri Lallu Singh, Sri K. Ajit counsel for Sri Satya Pal Singh, and the standing counsel for the state officers. 1 Following points arise for determination in these cases: 1. What is the role of the Registrar and the Prescribed Authority under the Societies Registration Act ? What are their powers as regards each other ? 2. What is the source of power of the BSA while recognising any committee of management ? What is its relationship with the Registrar or the Prescribed Authority under the Societies Registration Act ? 3. What was the nature of dispute before the AR ? Who could decide this dispute: the AR, or the Prescribed Authority ? 4. Did the BSA afford reasonable opportunity to Sri Lallu Singh before recognising Sri Satya Pal Singh ? 5. Is the order dated 23-10-1999 passed by the BSA, for single operation of accounts, legal ? 1st POINT: JURISDICTION OF THE REGISTRAR AS REGARDS THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITy Jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority. 1 The second and the third writ petitions were being taken up as fresh cases. Sri Lallu Singh had filed a caveat in the third writ petition; his counsel requested that these writ petitions might be taken up along with the first writ petition. In the first writ petition counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. 1 The second and the third writ petitions were being taken up as fresh cases. Sri Lallu Singh had filed a caveat in the third writ petition; his counsel requested that these writ petitions might be taken up along with the first writ petition. In the first writ petition counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. The counsel for Sri Lallu Singh has stated that he does not wish to file any counter affidavits in the second and the third writ petition and with the consent of the parties the three writ petitions are being decided on merits. 8. Section 25 (1)2 of the Act confers powers and jurisdiction to the Prescribed Authority under the Societies Registration Act. Explanation I.- A person shall be deemed to have committed a corrupt practice who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person- (i) induces, or attempts to induce, any fraud, intentional misrepresentation, coercion or threat of injury, any elector to give or to refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate, or any person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdrawn or not to withdrawn from being a candidate at the election; (ii) with a view to inducing any elector to give or to refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate, or to inducing any person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being, a candidate at the election, offers or gives any money, or valuable consideration, or any place of employment, or holds out any promise of individual advantage or profit to any person; (iii) abets (within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code) the doing of any of the facts specified in clauses (I) and (ii); (iv) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or elector to believe that he, or any person in whom he is interested, will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure; (v) canvasses on grounds of caste, community, sector religion; (vi) commits such other practice as the State Government may prescribe to be a corrupt practice. Explanation II.- A promise of individual advantage or profit to a person includes a promise for the benefit of the person himself, or of any one in whom he is interested. Explanation II.- A promise of individual advantage or profit to a person includes a promise for the benefit of the person himself, or of any one in whom he is interested. He, on a reference made to him by the registrar or by at least 1/4th members of the society, is empowered to hear and decide in a summary manner: (i) any doubt in respect of elections; or (ii) any dispute in respect of the election; or (iii) continuance in office of an office bearer or a society. The first proviso to Section 25 (1) mentions factors on which election of an office bearer can be set aside. Explanations I and II to the Section 25 (1) define corrupt practices. Explanation III empowers the State Government to prescribe procedure of hearing before the Prescribed Authority. Explanation I suggests that only an election in respect of individual may be challenged before the Prescribed Authority, but the use of the word doubt in S. 25 (1) shows that the prescribed authority has jurisdiction to decide, not only about the election of an individual candidate, but is also empowered to decide if there are two competing committees of management. If there are two different elections and two different sets of office bearers, even then the prescribed authority can consider their claim. He can look into a dispute in respect of entire elections. If the two factions claim separate elections, they create doubt in the decision of each other. Such dispute, namely between two competing governing bodies is within the jurisdiction of the Prescribed authority. He has jurisdiction to decide such disputes also u/s. 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act. Powers of the Registrar 2. The relevent portion of Section 25 (1) is as follows: 25. Disputes regarding election of office-bearers.-- (1) The prescribed authority may, on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least one-forth of the members of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, hear and decide in any summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or cintinuance in office or an office-bearer of such society, and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit: Provided that the election of an office-bearer shall be set aside where the prescribed authority is satisfied- a ). that any corrupt practice has been committed by such office bearer;or b ). that any corrupt practice has been committed by such office bearer;or b ). that the nomination of any candidate has been improperly rejected; c ). that the result of the election in so far it concerns such office-bearer has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination or by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote which is void or by any non-compliance with the provisions of any rules of the society. 9. The Registrar under the Societies Registration Act includes Additional, Joint Deputy or Assistant Registrar on whom the powers under the Societies Registration Act are delegated (Section 21 ). The Registrar, under the Societies Registration Act, can - (i) register a society, consider objections against the same (Section 3); (ii) consider change in name and objects of a society (Section 12-B); (iii) cancel the registration of a society (Section 12-D) (iv) apply/refer for dissolution of a society (Section 13 and 13-A); (v) call for information for from a society (section 21); (vi) order for audit of a society (S. 23); (vii) investigate any affair of a society (Section 24); (viii) call for a meeting to hold election in case elected term is over (Section 25 (2); (ix) call for objection and decide the same if the names of governing body is different than the previous one, if not certified by the previous members (Section 4); (x) refer doubt or dispute regarding election to the prescribed authority (Section 25 (1)); Explanation III.- The State Government may prescribe the procedure for hearing a decision of doubts or disputes in respect of such elections and make provision in respect of any other matter relating to such elections for which insufficient provision exists in this Act or in the rules of the society. 10. The Registrar, under the Societies Registration Act, has wide powers. He is the overall incharge - a final authority, except in the following circumstances: (a) When any question arises if a society is to be registered or its registration is to be renewed. He has to refer it to the State Government (Section 3-B ). (b) His order cancelling registration is appealable to the Commissioner (Section 12 (2) ). (c) Only a Court can dissolve a society (Section 13-D ). (d) The registrar can neither decide any doubt, nor dispute regarding an election. He cannot decide continuance of office bearers. He has to refer it to the State Government (Section 3-B ). (b) His order cancelling registration is appealable to the Commissioner (Section 12 (2) ). (c) Only a Court can dissolve a society (Section 13-D ). (d) The registrar can neither decide any doubt, nor dispute regarding an election. He cannot decide continuance of office bearers. It is within the jurisdiction of the prescribed authority (Section 25 (1) ). 11. In this case we will examine the powers of the Registrar particularly under clauses (ix) and (x) of the paragraph 9 and exception (d) of paragraph 10. A Registrar cannot dissolve a society; a Court does it. He cannot decide a doubt about an election or an election dispute or about continuance of an office bearer in a society. The Prescribed Authority decides it under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act. The Registrar cannot under the garb of exercising other powers, decide the aforesaid dispute indirectly. 3 Jurisdiction: The Registrar (Proviso to Section 4) As Regards The Prescribed Authority (Section 25) 3. This is settled law and is supported by following rulings: Muslim Welfare Society, Machhali Shahar Jaunpur v. Assistant Register Firms, Societies and Chits Varanasi, (1991) 2 UPLBEC 1046: ( AIR 1992 ALL 43 ); Abhay Grasth Gramin Jan Sangathan Kusmi Kalan v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits Varanasil (1990) 1 UPLBEC 480; 1987 UPLBEC 60; 1987 UPLBEC 333: (1987 All LJ 920); Vijai Narain Singh v Registrar, 1984 UPLBEC 1069; All India Council v. Assistant Registrar, AIR 1988 All 236 . 12. Every society has a governing body (committee of management) entrusted with management of the affairs of the society. This governing body is known by different names in different societies. Section 44of the Societies Registration Act contemplates that a society has to submit a list of its governing body (committee of management) with the Registrar. Section 4 (2) of the Societies Registration Act contemplates that the memorandum of a society including alteration, extension or abridgement of purpose should also be filed along with the list of governing body; it has to be certified by three members. Section 4 (2) of the Societies Registration Act contemplates that the memorandum of a society including alteration, extension or abridgement of purpose should also be filed along with the list of governing body; it has to be certified by three members. The proviso to Section 4 (1) of the Societies Registration Act states that in case any member in the list of governing body is different from the last submission of the list (which can happen only if a new election has been held) then old office bearers should also countersign the list. The purpose of Section 4 is that the correct list of governing body (committee of management) of a society should be maintained and it may not be disputed. Its Proviso contemplates that in case old office bearers do not countersign the list then the registrar may issue public notice inviting objections and decide the same. What is the purpose of such decision ? What is the scope of his jurisdiction ? 4. Section 4 of Society Registration Act is as follows: 4. Annual list of managing body to be filed.-- (1) Once in every year, on or before the fourteen day succeeding the day which, according to the rules of the society, the annual general meeting of the society is held, or, of the rules di not provide for an annual general meeting in the month of January, a list shall be filed with the (Registrar) of the names, address and occupations of the governors, council, directors, committee, or other governing body then entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society: Provided that if the managing body is elected after the last submission of the list, the counter signatures of the old members, shall, as far as possible, be obtained on the list. If the old office-bearers, shall, as far as possible, be obtained on the list. If the old office-bearers do not countersign the list, the Registrar may, in his discretion issue a public notice to such person as he thinks fit inviting objections received within the said period. If the old office-bearers, shall, as far as possible, be obtained on the list. If the old office-bearers do not countersign the list, the Registrar may, in his discretion issue a public notice to such person as he thinks fit inviting objections received within the said period. (2) Together with list mentioned in subsection (1) there shall be sent to the Registrar a copy of the memorandum of association including any alteration, extension, or abridgement of purposes made under Section 12, and three of the members of the said governing body to be a correct copy and also a copy of the balance-sheet for the preceding year of account. 13. The jurisdiction of the Registrar under the proviso to Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act is to see if there is any dispute; whether the dispute is a bona fide dispute or not; whether it is a dispute for the sake of it. 5but, if there is a dispute, then his jurisdiction ends; the matter has to be referred to the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. He cannot in garb of deciding objections decide dispute within the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. 5. This is supported by two single Judge decisions of this Court: The Committee of Management Naldeo v. The Assistant Registrar, (1997) 30 All LR 601 and committee of Management Sarvodaya Mandal Bararpur v. Assistant Registrar, (1997) 30 All LR 148: (1997 All LJ 937 ). 14. The prescribed authority can neither entertain a dispute by himself nor can he decide a dispute on reference by one member. He can only decide if it is referred by the registrar, or by 1/4th of the members (i. e. at least two members) of a society. 6 The legislature thought that in case less than 1/4th of the members of a society are raising a dispute, then it is not a bona fide dispute; not worth investigating. In order to decide if there is a bona fide dispute, the Registrar may also decide: * if the persons raising disputes are members of a society or not;7 * or decide if a person presenting the papers is entitled to present the papers for renewal or not. 8. In order to decide if there is a bona fide dispute, the Registrar may also decide: * if the persons raising disputes are members of a society or not;7 * or decide if a person presenting the papers is entitled to present the papers for renewal or not. 8. But he can do so only if he does not have to decide - * a doubt, or a dispute about an election; or * continuance of any office bearer. In case he has to decide any doubt or dispute about election, or continuance of an office bearer, it becomes bona fide dispute and his jurisdiction ceases. He has to refer the matter to the prescribed authority. The Prescribed Authority has pre-emptive jurisdiction in this regard. 9 2nd POINT: POWERS - THE BASIC SHIKSHA ADHIKARI, THE REGISTRAR, AND THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITy Powers of the BSa 6. Seven members are necessary to form a society; 1/4th of the total number will always be 2 or more than two. 7. This has been so held in the following cases. Committee of management v. Assistant Registrar, (1995) 2 UPLBEC 1242. Shiksha Parishad Nagwa Ballia v. Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies (1998) 1 UPLBEC 290 8committee of Management v. Deputy Director of Education, (198) 3 UPLBEC 1925. 9this is settled law and has been discussed in paragraph 11 and footnote 3 of this judgement. This is also clear from the following excerpt from the leading case of All India Council v. Assistant Registrar, AIR 1988 All 236 : Secondly, the power of the Registrar to decide objections filed under the proviso to S. 4 (1) must be operate in a field not covered by S. 25 of the Act. Under the proviso to S. 4 (1) the Registrar deals only such matters as may arise in the context of the submission of the annual list of the managing body. Further in the present case we are concerned here not with the election of the managing body but with the election of the office bearers of the society. In any case insofar as the disputes relating to the election of the office-bearers of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh is concerned, the same has to be decided only in the manner prescribed under Section 25 (1) on the principle that the special excludes the general. In any case insofar as the disputes relating to the election of the office-bearers of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh is concerned, the same has to be decided only in the manner prescribed under Section 25 (1) on the principle that the special excludes the general. This is the only way in which the proviso to S. 4 can be harmonised with S. 25. 15. There was no provision conferring any powers to any officer/authority, under the Acts relating to education institutions, to decide rival claims of a committee of management in any school or college though such disputes were often raised. This Court held that as a District Inspector of School (DIOS)10and a Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA)11have to deal with the day to day functioning of educational institutions, therefore they could on administrative level decide which committee of management is entitled to manage them. The legislature, in case of Intermediate Colleges, intervened and inserted Section 16-A (7) in the U. P. Intermediate Education Act empowering the Regional Deputy Director of Education (now Joint Director of Education by a notification) to decide such disputes till decision of a competent Court. But there is no such amendment for Basic and Primary Schools. BSA continues to recognise one or the other committee of management after complying with the principles of natural justice. BSA decides the matter at an administrative level; his decision is subject to statutory determination of the dispute or by decision of a civil Court. Powers of the BSA As Regards-The Prescribed Authority, and The Registrar 10 This has been held in following cases. Committee of Management of Inter College Nonapur v. DIOS, Kanpur, 1979 All LJ 33. Jaswanti Singh v. DIOS, 1980 All LJ 174. Committee of Management of Maharana Pratap Inter College Jaunpur v. DIOS, 1981 UPLBEC 375. Committee of Management of Sarvodaya Inter College v. DDE, 1982 UPLBEC 31. 11 This has been held in the following cases. Committee of Management Sri Pyare Lal Shastri Junior High School Fatepur v. Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Agra, (1990) UPLBEC 1601: (1990 All LJ 509) Committee of Management v. DDE, (1996) 27 All LR 678. 16. The Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act has been specifically entrusted with the powers to decide in a summary way about any doubt or dispute regarding an election. There is no such power with the BSA under any Act. 16. The Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act has been specifically entrusted with the powers to decide in a summary way about any doubt or dispute regarding an election. There is no such power with the BSA under any Act. BSA merely decides on administrative level. In the present case, there is no difference between the committee of Management (governing body) of the RIS Society and committee of management of the RIS School; they are one. The office bearers are one and the same. The decision of the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Act having statutory right to determine an election dispute will override the decision of the BSA. The decision of a BSA permitting one or the other committee of management is till the prescribed Authority under the Societies Registration Act decides the dispute. The BSA has to change and recognise other committee of management if the Prescribed authority upholds the election of rival committee of management. He has to bow to the orders passed by the Prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. Similarly, the Registrar also exercises statutory powers (jurisdiction) and the BSA has to alter its order suitably so as to accord to the order passed by the Registrar under the Societies Registration Act. The Hindu College Case 17. The counsels have cited a decision of a Division Bench in Committee of Management of Hindu Inter College v. DDE, Agra, 1988 UPLBEC 732: (1988 All LJ 831) (the Hindu College case) to show that educational authorities are independent of the Registrar and the Prescribed Authority under the Societies Registration Act. They have pointed out following observations of this Court in the Hindu College case. The Societies Registration Act, on the other hand, deals, inter alia with the resolution of disputes with respect to the election of the office bearers of a registered society. The power of the registrar or the prescribed authority to determine disputes in respect of the election of the office bearers of the society, as distinct from the managing committee of the institution run by that society operates in an altogether different field from that with which the Regional Deputy Director is concerned. The two enactments, namely, the Intermediate Education Act and the Societies Registration Act to our mind, operate in different fields. There is no overlapping between the two. The two enactments, namely, the Intermediate Education Act and the Societies Registration Act to our mind, operate in different fields. There is no overlapping between the two. Even if there is, instant disputes pertaining to the management of a recognised institution or the co-operation of its Committee of Management are concerned, the Deputy Director Education enjoys, in view of the scheme of the Act and the non obstante clause used in Section 16-A (1), and the clear provisions of Section 16-A (7), exclusive powers save to the extent that the decision of the Deputy Director of Education under sub-section (7) shall operate only till a Court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise. Lets consider this if these observations are applicable to the facts of this case. The Hindu College Case was a Case of an Intermediate College-Does Not Apply to a Basic School. 18. A society may run educational institutions at different levels namely Primary, Basic, Intermediate, degree level. A society running an educational institutional has to conform to the Societies Registration Act as well as the Act dealing with that level of education. The intermediate Education Act deals with intermediate Institutions whereas U. P. Basic Education Act and U. P. State University Act deal with Basic and Degree level institutions. The provisions of these Acts are different resulting into different consequences. I have considered differences between an Intermediate College and a degree college in another case and have held12that position of a committee of management of an Intermediate College is different than the position of a committee of management of a degree College. The position of a committee of management running a Basic School is similar to the position of a committee of management running a degree college; same principles apply. Law in respect of committee of management an Intermediate College does not apply to a committee of management of a Basic School. In brief, reasons are as follows. 13 12. Writ Petition No. 51047 of 1999, Committee of Management of A. K. College v. State of U. P. (2000 All LJ 789) decided on the same day (10-1-2000) as this writ petition. 13. For details see the decision in the previous footnote. 19. A society is governed by the Society Registration Act. In brief, reasons are as follows. 13 12. Writ Petition No. 51047 of 1999, Committee of Management of A. K. College v. State of U. P. (2000 All LJ 789) decided on the same day (10-1-2000) as this writ petition. 13. For details see the decision in the previous footnote. 19. A society is governed by the Society Registration Act. Its committee of management is elected and is governed by the Societies Registration Act and the rules of that society: Whereas if that society is also running an intermediate college then it should have a separate scheme of administration for the Intermediate college. This scheme of administration has to conform to the Intermediate Education Act. A committee of management of an intermediate college is elected and is governed by the Intermediate Education Act and the scheme of administration of that college. Often there are two different bodies having different elections under different provisions of law. On the other hand this is not so in a society running a Basic School. In such a society there is one committee of management, which governs the society as well as the Basic school. There is only one election; one office bearers; and election is governed by the rules of that society under the Societies Registration Act. In such a case decision of the authorities under the Societies Registration Act will prevail over the education authorities: * The committee of management of a Basic school and the society running it are the same; * The elections of the committee of management are held under rules of that society and the Societies Registration Act. * The Prescribed authority under the Society Registration Act has been specifically empowered to decide election disputes. 20. In the present case there is no scheme of administration but only rules of the RTS Society under which elections are held. There is only one committee of management, one office bearers, and one set of elections for the committee of management for the RTS School and the RTS Society. The Hindu College case was in respect of an Intermediate College under provisions for the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, which are different. It is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 3rd POINT: PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY HAD JURISDICTION TO DECIDe 21. The Hindu College case was in respect of an Intermediate College under provisions for the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, which are different. It is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 3rd POINT: PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY HAD JURISDICTION TO DECIDe 21. Sri Lallu Singh and Sri Satya Pal Singh claim to be elected in the elections held on 3rd December 1998 and 6th December, 1998. Both of them claim that elections of other are fictitious. They raise doubts about the elections held by each other. This controversy was cognisable by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act and could not be decided by the AR under proviso to Section 4 (1) of the Act. Decisions holding AR had jurisdiction-distinguishable. 22. Sri Khare, counsel for Sri Lallu Singh has cited few decisions to show that the dispute was cognisable by the AR, and the AR had rightly held in favour of his client. These cases are distinguishable. (i) This Court, in Committee of Management Naldeo Kaldeo v. The Assistant Registrar, (1997) 30 All LR 601 and Committee of Management Sarvoday Mandal Baranpur Allahabad v. Assistant Registrar (1997 All LJ 937) held that there should be some dispute before a case can be referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act. If there was no dispute, then there is no occasion for the AR to refer it to the Prescribed Authority. Here, both sides have held elections on separate dates; both sent their papers to the BSA and the Registrar. The BSA decided it one way on two occasions; first time it was set aside by this Court. The AR decided it in favour of the other party. The officers of the State under different Acts have decided differently. To say that there is no dispute--would be an understatement. (ii) In Shiksha Parishad, Ballia v. Deputy Registrar (1998 (1) UPLBEC 290) the dispute was regarding one Sri Nagendra Kumar Pathak. This Court held that the registrar was competent to proceed with the renewal or registration of a society and the dispute regarding Sri Nagendra Kumar Pathak was left to be decided by the Prescribed Authority. 14here there is no dispute for registration for its renewal but for rival committees, which can be decided by the Prescribed Authority alone. 14. This Court held that the registrar was competent to proceed with the renewal or registration of a society and the dispute regarding Sri Nagendra Kumar Pathak was left to be decided by the Prescribed Authority. 14here there is no dispute for registration for its renewal but for rival committees, which can be decided by the Prescribed Authority alone. 14. This is clear from the following excerpt of the decision (paragraph 4): In view of the above, we are of the considered view that so far as registration/renewal of certificate of registration/renewal of certificate of registration of the society in concerned, it can be done only by the Registrar and the Prescribed Authority has nothing to do with it and therefore, the order of the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, in so far as it allowed the proceedings for renewal of the certificate of registration initiated at the behest of Nagendra Kumar Pathak to go on warranted no interference and the learned single Judge committed no illegality in maintaining that order. . . . . . . . . Considering the submission we are of the considered view that the dispute, if any, in respect of Nagendra Pathak being a member or office bearer of the society, if referred by at least one fourth of the members of the society to the Prescribed Authority, the latter shall hear and decide the same in summary manner independently of the observations made in the impugned order and list of the managing body submitted under sub-section (4) of Section 3-A shall be modified/amended accordingly in term of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority without affecting the order of renewal of the certificate of registration of the society. In other words the renewal of the certificate of registration of the society would ensure to the benefit of the office bearers in whose favour the order is ultimately passed by the Prescribed Authority. (iii) In K. K. Chaturvedi v. DIOS, (1995) 3 ESC 166: (1995 AIHC 1958) renewal of certificate was obtained by committing fraud. The registrar withdrew his order, which was obtained by fraud. It was challenged before this Court on the ground that there being dispute between the two rival parties, it ought to have been referred to the Prescribed Authority. The Court held that order of registration was obtained by committing fraud; which vitiates everything. 15this is not the case here. The registrar withdrew his order, which was obtained by fraud. It was challenged before this Court on the ground that there being dispute between the two rival parties, it ought to have been referred to the Prescribed Authority. The Court held that order of registration was obtained by committing fraud; which vitiates everything. 15this is not the case here. Neither registration nor any order is alleged to have been obtained by fraud. 15. This is clear from the following excerpt of the decision (paragraph 6): In the present case, since the objection was that the appellants are not legally elected body and have obtained renewal of certificate of registration by practising fraud, it was well within the jurisdiction and power of the Registrar to entertain such objection and decide the same. . . . We are of the view that the order passed by the Registrar was well within his jurisdiction and the same is appealable under Section 12-D of the Act. (iv) In Shambhu Kumar Tripathi v. Assistant Registrar, AIR 1994 All 209 the AR was concerned with renewal registration of a society under Section 3-A of the Act and had not decided any election dispute. 16 None of the aforesaid cases are applicable to the facts of this case. 16. This is clear from the following excerpt of the decision (paragraph 8): (T)he Assistant Registrar while exercising the power of renewal of the certificate of registration conferred upon him by Section 3-A of the Act, could incidentally examine whether the list of the members of the managing body submitted along with application for renewal of the certificate or required by sub-section (4) was genuine or not. Exercise of such incidental or ancillary power may, in a given case, be considered necessary for effectuating jurisdiction vested in the Assistant Registrar under Section 3-A of the Act. It cannot be said that the Assistant Registrar while incidentally going into the question as to the genuineness of the list of members of the managing body submitted along with the application for renewal of the certificate of registration, has in the present case, actually gone into any dispute or controversy specifically visualised by Section 25 of the Act. 23. It cannot be said that the Assistant Registrar while incidentally going into the question as to the genuineness of the list of members of the managing body submitted along with the application for renewal of the certificate of registration, has in the present case, actually gone into any dispute or controversy specifically visualised by Section 25 of the Act. 23. It is true that the AR, in respect of some of the members of the committee of management of Sri Satya Prakash Singh, has held that they are not members of the RTS society but this is not said for the office bearers. The dispute is essentially a dispute between the two rival committees of management. The question for decision was, which of the two elections, held on 3-12-1998 and 6-12-1998, is valid one? It was a dispute regarding the election itself. The fact that a few are not members of the society, does not take away the nature of controversy before the AR. The dispute is the doubt about the elections. It was the prescribed authority that could decide the dispute and not the AR. In view of this, the order passed by the AR dated 30th October, 1999 is illegal and is quashed. The AR should refer the dispute, within two weeks from receipt of certified copy of this order to the prescribed Authority. The prescribed Authority will decide the case at an early date and if possible within six months from receipt of reference from the AR. 4th POINT: REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO SRI LALLU SINGh 24. The BSA had recognised Sri Satya Pal Singh as manager on 20th January, 1999. This Court in the earlier writ petition set it aside on 24-2-1999 (the earlier order of the Court) and the case was sent back to the BSA to decide within fifteen days. 17 The certified copy of this judgment was filed before the BSA on 17th March, 1999. It is on this that the BSA fixed 23rd March, 1999 and then 30th March, 1999. On 30th March, 1999, Sri Lallu Singh submitted a letter authorised his Assistant Manager Sri Ravendra Singh to appear on his behalf. But on these two dates, the case was not heard, as the BSA was not present. A notice was given to Sri Lallu Singh on 31-3-1999 that the case will be taken up on 31st March 1999. On 30th March, 1999, Sri Lallu Singh submitted a letter authorised his Assistant Manager Sri Ravendra Singh to appear on his behalf. But on these two dates, the case was not heard, as the BSA was not present. A notice was given to Sri Lallu Singh on 31-3-1999 that the case will be taken up on 31st March 1999. On that date Sri Lallu Singh did not appear but Sri Ravendra Singh his Assistant Manager appeared and was heard. Sri Khare, counsel for Sri Lallu Singh, submitted that the notice for appearance on 31-3-1999 was served on 31st March, 1999 itself with no documents and as such no reasonable opportunity was afforded to his clients on the following two grounds: * firstly, Sri Lallu Singh was the manager and he was not heard; * Secondly, no documents were made available to his client. 17 This Court passed the following order: In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned order is accordingly quashed. However, the District Basic Education Officer shall decide afresh the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents expeditiously say, within a period of 15 days from the date of production of a copy of this order after hearing the parties. 25. Sri Lallu Singh had earlier obtained an order from this Court directing the BSA to decide the case within 15 days from the date of filing of the certified copy of the order before him. This Court, in its earlier order, had not permitted relaxation in time. It is for this reason that the BSA fixed early dates. Sri Lallu Singh had authorised Sri Ravendra Singh Assistant Manager to appear on 30th March, 1999. On 23rd March 1999 and 30th March, 1999, Sri Lallu Singh also filed representations. Sri Ravendra Singh appeared on 31st March, 1999 and did not file any representation to fix another date. This shows that he was fully prepared with the case on 31st March, 1999 and was representing Sri Lallu Singh. The impugned order of the BSA cannot be faulted on the first ground. Apart from it, Sri Ravendra Singh is the Assistant Manager in the committee of management of Sri Lallu Singh. He represented him as well as his committee of management. 26. The impugned order of the BSA cannot be faulted on the first ground. Apart from it, Sri Ravendra Singh is the Assistant Manager in the committee of management of Sri Lallu Singh. He represented him as well as his committee of management. 26. In support of his second ground, Shri Khare, counsel for Sri Lallu Singh, pointed out paragraphs No. 35 and 36 of the first writ petition to show that the documents filed by Sri Satya Pal Singh were neither made available to Sri Lallu Singh, nor was Sri Lallu Singh given any opportunity to rebut the same. According to him in view of this no reasonable opportunity was affordable to his client. 27. Sri Ravendra Singh was assistant manager in the committee of management of Sri Lallu Singh. He represented him before the BSA. All documents were placed before the BSA in his presence. He had knowledge about all documents. If he wanted to object to any document he should have objected then and there. Merely because copies of the documents were not given, but the BSA examined them in front of parties; it is sufficient compliance of natural justice in view of the earlier order of this Court, which granted fifteen days time only to decide the case. There was urgency at the instance of Sri Lallu Singh himself. The order of the BSA shows that Sri Ravendra Singh was heard and was present. There is no assertion in the writ petition that this statement by the BSA is incorrect. In these circumstances it cannot be said that reasonable opportunity was not afforded to Sri Lallu Singh. 28. The order of the BSA dated 5th April, 1999 is merely an administrative decision and is subject to decision by a competent authority namely the Prescribed Authority. I have already directed that the election dispute be referred to the Prescribed Authority. He will decide, whether the elections of Sri Satya Pal Singh, or of Sri Lallu Singh are valid. The BSA had complied with the principles of natural justice. He will also abide by the order of the Prescribed Authority, a statutory authority investigating the claim of Sri Lallu Singh. At present Sri Satya Pal Singh is working as a manager; no interim orders were granted in the first writ petition. The BSA had complied with the principles of natural justice. He will also abide by the order of the Prescribed Authority, a statutory authority investigating the claim of Sri Lallu Singh. At present Sri Satya Pal Singh is working as a manager; no interim orders were granted in the first writ petition. No useful purpose will be served in sending the matter to the BSA especially when Sri Lallu Singh has a remedy before the Prescribed Authority. 5th POINT: THE ORDER OF SINGLE OPERATION IS ILLEGAl 29. The BSA had passed the order for single operation on 23rd October 1999 under the second proviso to section 5 of the Payment of Salary Act. This was in pursuance of some letter of the JDE dated 22-4- 1999. It is admitted that neither the copy of the letter of the JDE was supplied to Sri Satya Pal Singh, nor was he heard before passing of the impugned order. He was recognised by the BSA. It is admitted that no order for single operation of accounts can be passed without giving reasonable opportunity to the committee of management. The order of the BSA dated 23-10-1999 for single operation is illegal. It is quashed. REMARKS: SECTION 25 OF THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, SECTION 16-A (7) OF THE INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, AND THE FIRST STATUTES OF THE UNIVERSITIES. 30. I had discussed the Hindu College case in paragraphs 17 to 20 of this judgment and have distinguished it. The observation made in that case are confined to these cases where the committee of management (governing body) of a society is different than the committee of management of college. But apart from it I wish to say few words. 31. It is only a registered society, which can run an educational institution. An unregistered society cannot run a recognised educational institution. One would not like to run an educational institution that is unrecognised such an educational institution would be worthless. Its students cannot get recognised degrees. It cannot get aid from the State. A Committee of management of an educational institution is part of a society. If different authorities under different provisions (Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, Section 16-A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act, and first statutes of different Universities) have independent powers regarding same controversy namely elections, then it is not in the best interest of administering justice. A Committee of management of an educational institution is part of a society. If different authorities under different provisions (Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, Section 16-A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act, and first statutes of different Universities) have independent powers regarding same controversy namely elections, then it is not in the best interest of administering justice. This is not the way to serve Themis. 18 18 Themis is the Greek goddess of justice. She is blind folded and has a pair of scales in one hand and a sword in the other. 32. The question, whose decision will prevail, when elections to the governing body of a society and the committee of management of an educational institution are the same, is not involved in this case. But in a suitable case it may have to be decided whether the decision of the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Act will prevail or that of the DDE under Section 16-A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act or the Vice-Chancellor under similar provisions in the first statutes of different Universities. In such a situation the Hindu College case may not apply. Lets examine the provisions under which educational authorities have power to decide about elections. Section 16-A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act. 33. Section 16a (7) Intermediate Education Act has been subject-matter of interpretation in many cases. The Courts have taken a view that validity of elections may be seen indirectly or incidentally19 Though the question that whether the elections are relevant or not at present has been referred to a larger Bench. 20 Section 16-A (7)21 of the Intermediate Education Act permits the Regional Deputy Director of Education (now the JDE by a notification) to recognise a Committee of management, which is in actual control of its (institutions) affairs. The explanation mentions that the JDE shall consider following factors while deciding the actual control of the affairs of an institution: (i) control over the funds of the institution; (ii) control over the administration; (iii) control over the receipt of income from its properties; (iv) the approved Scheme of Administration; (v) other relevant circumstances. Section 16-A (7) states five factors but does not mention election specifically. Still, should we or rather can we consider validity of elections? 19. Section 16-A (7) states five factors but does not mention election specifically. Still, should we or rather can we consider validity of elections? 19. This has been held in the following cases: Committee of Management, JI College v. DDE 1982 UPLBEC 38; Committee of Management SUM Vidyalaya v. DDE 1985 UPLBEC 241: (1985 All LJ 1005); Maharshi Sukhdeo Vidyalaya v. RDDE 1985 All LJ 471; SP Srivastava v. DDE Gorakhpur 1985 UPLBEC 751; Committee of Management Sri BPKI College v. DDE 1986 AWC 81: (1986 All LJ 236); Committee of Management BV Inter College v. RDDE 1988 UPLBEC 402: (1988 All LJ 1023); Committee of Management Sri Gandhi Inter College v. DDE 1988 UPLBEC 1057 (sic): (1989 All LJ 214); Committee of Management SI College v. DIOS, (1991) 2 UPLBEC 1019 (SJ); Committee of Management, MIG College v. DDE, (1992) 2 UPLBEC 1042 (SJ); Committee of Management DAV Inter College v. DDE, (1993) 1 All WC 412; Committee of Management AV Inter College v. DIOS, (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1541; Committee of Management, Nanigram Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Agra v. Ranvir Singh, (1995) 5 AWC 141; Committee of Management Pt JLKI College v. DDE, (1996) 2 UPLBEC 1245 : (1996 All LJ 1038); Committee of Management Sri KJKI College v. DDE, (1991) 1 UPLBEC 543: (1991 All LJ 416); Committee of Management JSNI College v. DIOS, (1996) 2 UPLBEC 1237. 20. Justice Katju has referred it to larger bench in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35267 of 1992 Committee of Management v. DDE, (1993) 1 UPLBEC 11. It is pending before five judges bench. 21. 16-A. Scheme of Administration.- (1) Notwithstanding anything in any law, document, or decree or order of a Court or other instrument, there shall be a scheme of Administration (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme of Administration) for every institution, whether recognised before or after the commencement of the Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, 1958. The Scheme of Administration shall amongst other matters provide for the constitution of a Committee of Management (hereinafter called the committee of management) vested with authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution. The head of the institution and two teachers thereof, who shall be selected by rotation according to seniority, in the manner to be prescribed by regulations, shall be ex officio members of the Committee of management with a right to vote. The head of the institution and two teachers thereof, who shall be selected by rotation according to seniority, in the manner to be prescribed by regulations, shall be ex officio members of the Committee of management with a right to vote. (2) No member of the Committee of the Management shall either attend a meeting of the committee or exercise his right to vote whenever a charge concerning his personal conduct is under discussion. (3) The Scheme of Administration shall also describe subject to any regulation the respective powers, duties and functions of the head of the institution and Committee of Management in relation to the institution. (4) Where more than one recognised institution is maintained by a body or authority there shall be a separate Committee of Management for each institution unless otherwise provided in the regulation for any class of institutions. 5) The Scheme of Administration of every institution shall be subject to the approval of the Director and no amendment to or change in the Scheme of Administration shall be made at any time without the prior approval of the Director. Provided that where the Management of an institution is aggrieved by an order of the Director refusing to approve an amendment or change in the Scheme of Administration, the State Government, on the representation of the Management, if it is satisfied that the proposed amendment or change in the Scheme of Administration is in the interest of the institution, order the Director to approve of the same, and thereupon the Director shall act accordingly. (6) Every recognised institution shall be managed in accordance with the Scheme of Administration framed under and in accordance with sub-section (1) to sub-section (5) and Sections 16-B and 16-C. (7) Whenever there is dispute with respect to the Management of an institution, persons found by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, upon such enquiry as is deemed fit to be in actual control of its affairs may, for purposes of this Act, be recognised to costitute the Committee of Management of such institution until a Court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise; Provided that the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall, before making an order under this sub- section, afford reasonable opportunity to the rival claimants to make representations in writing. Explanation:- In determining the question as to who is in actual control of the affairs of the institution the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall have regard to the control over the funds of the institution and over the administration, the receipt of income from its properties, the Scheme of Administration as approved under sub-section (6) and other relevant circumstances. 34. Generally dispute arises immediately at the end of term of committee of management when two disputing parties hold separate elections. There is no indication as far as the first three factors are mentioned. In absence of these the Courts have been leaning towards the committee of management whose elections were valid, reading such condition under the fourth and the fifth factors previously mentioned. It is for this reason that the Courts have been insisting that validity of elections can be seen incidentally or indirectly, rather than directly. The scales of Themis22are slanted. They lean towards - what is legal and not that is illegal. Except for this provision, there is no specific provision for looking into validity of elections for Intermediate Colleges; though some times a scheme of administration may also contain the same. But in case of the Degree Colleges there is a specific provision. First Statutes of the Universities. 22. The scales of Themis, the Greek goddess of justice, (sic) her pictures are slanted. 35. The first Statutes of every university under States University Act have been framed. They include a chapter heeded affiliated Colleges. It is normally Chapter XI or XII or XIII in the first statutes of different Universities. Statute. 0523 and 3424 of that chapter empowers a Vice-chancellor to decide individual disputes, and disputes of rival committees of management. The Statute of a University is a subordinate legislation. It cannot be contrary to the Act under which it is framed or any other Act of a competent legislature. The State May Remove the Anomaly 23. For example, the Statute No. 12. 05 of the Agra University is as follows: 12. The Statute of a University is a subordinate legislation. It cannot be contrary to the Act under which it is framed or any other Act of a competent legislature. The State May Remove the Anomaly 23. For example, the Statute No. 12. 05 of the Agra University is as follows: 12. 05: The constitution of the Management of every college shall provide that- (a) The principal of the college shall be ex officio members of the Management, are teachers (including the Principal); (b) Twenty-five per centum of the members of the Management, are teachers (including the principal); (c) The teachers (excluding the principal) referred to in Clause (b) are such members for a period of one year by rotation in order of seniority (d) Subject to the provisions of Clause (c) no two members of the management shall be related to each other within the meaning of the explanation to Section 20; (e) No change in the said constitution shall be made except with the prior permission of the Vice- chancellor; (f) If any question arises whether any person has been duly chosen as, or is entitled to be a member of office-bearer of the management of whether the Management is legally constituted, the decision of the Vice-chancellor shall be final; (g) The college is prepared to place before any person or persons authorised by the Vice-Chancellor or before the Panel of Inspectors appointed by the University all original documents pertaining to income and expenditure of the college including the accounts of the Society, Trust, Board or parent body under which it may be operating; (h) The income from the Endowment Funds referred to in Statute 12. 06 shall be available for the maintenance of the College. 24. For example the statute No. 12. 34 of the Agra University is as follows: 12. 34: Whenever there is a dispute regarding the management of an affiliated college, persons found by the Vice-chancellor to be in actual possession and control of the college properties may, for purposes of the Act and these Statutes be recognised to constitute the Management of such college until a Court of competent jurisdiction orders otherwise; Provided that the Vice-Chancellor shall before making an order under this Statute, afford an opportunity to the rival claimants to make written representations. Explanation: In determining the question as to who is in actual possession and control of the college properties the Vice-Chancellor shall have regard to the control over the funds of the Institution and over the actual administration, the receipt of the income from the property of the Institution and to other relevant circumstances which might have bearing on the question to be determined. 36. The Prescribed Authority under the Societies Registration Act is invested with the powers to decide election disputes whereas the JDS is not specifically so invested. Even if a scheme of administration contains specific provision it is merely a scheme of administration for that college. A Vice-Chancellor may be so invested but that is only under a subordinate legislation. It cannot be contrary to the Act under which it is framed or any other Act of a competent legislature. In a case where elections to a committee of management (governing body) of a society and committee of management are same or one is ex officio the other and elections of a society can be directly seen under Section 25 of the Act, then a difficulty may arise. Apart from it investing different authorities to look into validity of the same elections may not be proper; perhaps it was not intended. The State will do well to intervene and remove this anomaly. This Court May Harmonise 37. This point does not arise in this case. But in a suitable case. (This Court) may, ask the question, If the makers of (these Acts) and themselves (came) across this ruck in the texture how would they straightened it out ? (This Court) must do as they would have done. . . . . (A Court if it can not) alter the material of which the (Acts are woven but can and should iron out (this) crease 25 The Court may and should harmonise Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, Section 16-A of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, and the first statues of the Universities under the State Universities Act. CONCLUSIOn 25. Lord Denning in Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher (1949) 2 All ER 155: (1949) 2 KB 481, 499. 38. The dispute between the parties was which of the two elections namely, one held on 3-12-1998 and the other held on 6-12-1998, is valid. CONCLUSIOn 25. Lord Denning in Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher (1949) 2 All ER 155: (1949) 2 KB 481, 499. 38. The dispute between the parties was which of the two elections namely, one held on 3-12-1998 and the other held on 6-12-1998, is valid. This dispute was cognizable by the Prescribed Authority and the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to decide it. The order of the Assistant Registrar dated 30th Oct. 1999 is illegal and is quashed. The Assistant Registrar will within two weeks from the date of service of certified copy of this order, refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority will expeditiously, if possible within a period of six months, decide the dispute. The writ petition No. 50290 of 1999 (the third writ petition) is allowed. 39. The BSA grants approval to a committee of management as a administrative measure. In the circumstances of the case namely: *the earlier order of this Court, *the fact Sri Ravendra Singh, Assistant Manager was present on behalf of Sri Lallu Singh; reasonable opportunity was afforded to Sri Lallu Singh. The order of the BSA dated 5-4-1999 cannot be set aside on this ground. This order of the BSA is subject to decision of the Prescribed Authority under section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. If the need be, it may be suitably modified to conform with the order of the prescribed authority. The writ petition, No. 20017 of 1999 (the first writ petition) is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. 40. The order of the BSA dated 23rd Oct. 1999 for single operation of accounts has been passed without affording reasonable opportunity to the committee of management. It is illegal and is quashed. The writ petition no. 50966 of 1999 (the second writ petition) is allowed. 1. Let of copy of this judgment be kept on the record of (I) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50966 of 1999 The Committee of Management Raj a Tej Singh Vidyalaya v. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Mainpuri. (II) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50290 of 19 99 Satya Pal Singh Chauhan v. The Assistant Registrar. 2. 1. Let of copy of this judgment be kept on the record of (I) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50966 of 1999 The Committee of Management Raj a Tej Singh Vidyalaya v. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Mainpuri. (II) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50290 of 19 99 Satya Pal Singh Chauhan v. The Assistant Registrar. 2. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the persons mentioned below to consider the difficulty pointed out in the heading remarks: SECTION 25 OF THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, SECTION 16-A (7) OF THE INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, AND THE FIRST STATUTES OF THE UNIVERSITIES (paragraphs No. 30 to 37 ). It will be useful to read it with the heading "2nd PINT; POWER OF THE BASIC SHIKSHA ADHIKARI AS REGARDS THE REGISTRAR AND THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY (Paragraphs No. 15 to 20 ). (I) The Chairman, State Law Commission, Gomit Nagar Lucknow. (II) The Secretary (Legislation), Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. (III) The Legal Remembrancer, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. Order accordingly. .