ORDER Arun Mishra, J. Petitioners have filed this writ petition for quashment of the order (A.23) dated 1-4-2002 passed by the Registrar of Firms and Societies, the order (A.15) dated 24-8-2001 passed by Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies, the order (A.14) dated 6-8-2001 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies, Rewa, the order (A.16A) passed by the Govt, of India on 20th August, 2001 and the order (A.16) dated 18-9-2001 passed by the Collector, Satna. The facts in brief are that earlier a writ petition No. 5653/2001 was filed before this Court. The matter was remitted to the Registrar for decision on merits of submissions raised and dispute as to election. Thereafter Registrar has passed the impugned order (A.23) dated 1-4-2002. The Ambedkar Adarsh Shiksha Samiti, Satna, is a registered society under M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 which was registered on 19-1-1987. Society has its bye-laws (A.1). Jan Shikshan Sansthan, Satna, is a registered voluntary organization under the aegis of Ambedkar Adarsh Shiksha Samiti, Satna. Jan Shikshan Sansthan, Satna was previously known as Shramik Vidyapeeth. It is receiving grant from Ministry of Human Resources, Govt, of India, New Delhi. The first election took place on 20-3-1987. In the year 1991 the General Body extended the term of the Prabandhkarini Sabha. On 5-5-1993 the President Shri Mahesh Shukla resigned the post of President and in his place Prof. Urmila Prasad Shukla was elected as President. She died on 29-12-1994. It is alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 7 Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh was Industries and Commerce Minister of M.P. and he exerted undue influence on the members to induct his father Shri Shiv Mohan Singh as President of the Samiti which was an illegal act as Shri Shiv Mohan Singh was not even a member of Samiti. The General body meeting was held on 10-5-1995 which protested against the method of inducting Shiv Mohan Singh as President of the Samiti. Letter of protest A.5 was sent on 12-5-95 by the Secretary to the Asstt. Registrar. List A-6 was sent in which Shiv Mohan was shown as President. List of the then members was also sent along with list of the office bearers in the year 1995. There were 19 members of the society. Letter of protest A.5 was sent on 12-5-95 by the Secretary to the Asstt. Registrar. List A-6 was sent in which Shiv Mohan was shown as President. List of the then members was also sent along with list of the office bearers in the year 1995. There were 19 members of the society. It is further averred that on 25-12-2000 general body meeting of Samiti was convened and respondent No. 6 Shri Shiv Mohan Singh was removed from the Presidentship of the Samiti and the fact was informed to the Asstt. Registrar, Firms and Societies as per letter A.8 dated 27-12-2000 and Shri Surender Singh Patel was appointed as incharge President. It was mentioned that Shri Shiv Mohan Singh was not a member and had not deposited the membership fee, hence, the post of President, was declared vacant and Shri Surender Singh Patel was declared as President, List of members was also sent which contained 18 names along with the minutes (A.8) of the meeting dated 25-12-2000. In the minutes A.9 of general body meeting held on 5-10-1999 it was mentioned that respondent No. 6 Shri Shiv Mohan Singh had never obtained membership of the society. It is further averred in the petition that petitioner Shri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla was elected as President of the society in a meeting of General Body held on 25-6-2001. Information (A.11) was sent to the Registrar u/s 27 of Adhiniyam on 3-8-2001. Shri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, the petitioner was elected as President. Shri Surender Singh Patel, petitioner No. 2 was elected as Vice President and Purushottam Lal Tripathi, petitioner No. 3 was elected as Secretary of Ambedkar Adarsh Shiksha Samiti. List of the members (A.11) was sent to Asstt. Registrar. The requisite fee was deposited on 3rd August, 2001 as per the treasury receipts (A. 12 and A. 13). 4-A. Petitioner submits that though information was delivered to the Asstt. Registrar, Firms and Societies on 3-8-2001. However, under the influence of respondents No. 6 and 7 the Asstt. Registrar, Firms and Societies, removed the first Sheet accompanying the information u/s 27 of the Act. The first sheet like other sheets was duly signed by the petitioner and he had also deposited the requisite fees under sections 27 and 28 on 3-8-2001. However, under the influence of respondents No. 6 and 7 the Asstt. Registrar, Firms and Societies, removed the first Sheet accompanying the information u/s 27 of the Act. The first sheet like other sheets was duly signed by the petitioner and he had also deposited the requisite fees under sections 27 and 28 on 3-8-2001. Respondent No. 7 Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh filed a fake and forged minutes and other documents to show as if he had been elected President of the Samiti since the respondent Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh filed the so called information u/s 27 of the Act on 6-8-2001 though it did not accompany the requisite fees required to be deposited u/s 27 and 28 of the Act along with late fee which was also required to be deposited. The requisite fee has not been deposited so far. As per order dated 6-8-2001 (A.14) Asstt. Registrar, Firms and Societies, Rewa showing that information was submitted on 30-7-2001, has taken the list submitted by respondent No. 6, Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh on record. The meeting was allegedly shown to be held on 9-3-2001. It is submitted by the petitioner that order (A.14) is self contradictory as it is mentioned at one place that information was submitted on 30-7-2001 and in later part it is mentioned that it was submitted on 3-8-2001. The Asstt. Registrar has acted under the undue influence of respondents No. 6 and 7, Respondent No. 7 is an influential leader of Ruling party in M.P. an Ex Minister and his father respondent No. 6 is member of Legislative Assembly of M.P. It is further averred in the petition that members can be removed only in accordance with para 8 of the bye-laws. No notice was ever served on the petitioner. Petitioner was never removed from the post of membership of the Samiti. The order A. 15 issued by the Asstt. Registrar, Firms and Societies treating him as removed on 9-3-2001 is bad in law. No meeting was held on 9-3-2001 as claimed. Collector recommended the release of the grant in aid to body headed by respondent No. 7, Govt, of India has passed order A-16A appointing a committee considering the dispute in the managing body and later on the direction has been issued by the Govt. No meeting was held on 9-3-2001 as claimed. Collector recommended the release of the grant in aid to body headed by respondent No. 7, Govt, of India has passed order A-16A appointing a committee considering the dispute in the managing body and later on the direction has been issued by the Govt. of India that nominee of Collector has to operate the Bank account till dispute is resolved with respect to the management. It is further averred in the petition that Shri Shiv Mohan Singh was styling him as President even upto July, 2001. It shows that Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh, his son was not elected as President on 9-3-2001. There are other documents filed to show that Shiv Mohan Singh has put a note in his handwriting that no election had taken place till 4-5-2001. Shri Shiv Mohan/respondent No. 6 has put such a note on A. 18 when the Director had submitted that President has to be elected. Shri Shiv Mohan Singh styling himself as President has put a note that in his own handwriting that till another Chairman is not elected present arrangement has to continue which shows that he himself was continuing as President/Chairman of the society and Shri Shiv Mohan, respondent No. 6 has written letter (A-19) on 16-4-2001 and has signed it as President. The distribution of work order A-20 dated 12-7-2001 was got approved from Shri Shiv Mohan Singh, respondent No. 6, in the capacity of his being President. This was prepared by the Director Shri N.P. Sharma. Thus, respondents cannot contend that Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh was elected in meeting on 9-3-2001. In fact if Rajendra Kumar Singh, respondent No. 7 was elected as President, Shiv Mohan Singh would not have described himself as President. On 16-4-2001 and 11-7-2001 Shiv Mohan was working as Chairman. Same is also evident from letter (A.21) dated 14-5-2001. It is also averred in the petition that list of membership of the Samiti filed by respondent No. 7 to the Asstt. Registrar shows that not even a single old member was shown as member of the Samiti, the new members never made any application to the Prabandh Karini Samiti which is competent body as per bye-laws No. 6 to induct the new members. Shiv Mohan, respondent No. 6 was removed in December. Moreover President or Secretary are not authorised to induct the members. Shiv Mohan, respondent No. 6 was removed in December. Moreover President or Secretary are not authorised to induct the members. None of the old members had participated in meeting dated 9-3-2001. No meeting was held on 9-3-2001. Meeting can be called by Secretary of Prabhandhkarini. It was not convened by Secretary. If Secretary fails to convene the meeting, Registrar has to convene it. The respondent No. 7 has not only withdrawn money from the accounts of JSS but he has also authorised Director, JSS to withdraw the money from the Union Bank of India. Two returns have been filed. One return is styled as return on behalf of the respondents on 8-7-2002 supported by an affidavit of Asstt. Registrar, Firms and Societies. Another return has been filed by respondent No. 7. In the return filed on 8-7-2002 on behalf of the respondents it is contended that Asstt. Registrar had not removed the first sheet of the information submitted. It was received on 6-8-2001. No information was submitted by the petitioner as required u/s 27. The information (R.1) was submitted on 6-8-2001. Respondent No. 7 had submitted the information (R.II and R.III) on 31-7-2001. The order (P.14) was passed on 6-8-2001. There is no illegality committed in taking the list submitted by respondents No. 6 and 7, on record. The order P.23 has been passed by Registrar in due compliance of the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No. 5653/2001. Registrar has rightly refused to take irrelevant documents from petitioners rectifying the previous defects and Registrar has passed order in proper manner. In the return filed by respondent No. 7 it is contended that letter dated 21-7-2001 was issued by respondents No. 2 and 3 as no meeting was held and no information under sections 27 and 28 of the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 was submitted. Thereafter the information was submitted u/s 27 as per R.7(VI). Resolution R.7(IV) was passed on 9-3-2001. Respondent No. 6 Shri Shiv Mohan Singh was in the society for last seven years and has held the post of President also. Respondent No. 6 Shri Shiv Mohan had called the meeting and issued the notice dated 4-3-2001 for the meeting held on 9-3-2001. Resolution R.7(IV) was passed on 9-3-2001. Respondent No. 6 Shri Shiv Mohan Singh was in the society for last seven years and has held the post of President also. Respondent No. 6 Shri Shiv Mohan had called the meeting and issued the notice dated 4-3-2001 for the meeting held on 9-3-2001. In the meeting dated 9-3-2001 Shri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, petitioner was removed from the office of Secretary of the Samiti and respondent No. 7 Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh was elected unanimously as President. Many other members whose application had already been received in the office and who have already paid the subscription of membership were inducted as new members. Information was submitted on 31-7-2001 not on 6-8-2001. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner pointing out that respondent No. 7 Shri Rajendra Singh has filed an affidavit A.24 before the Registrar, Firms and Societies on 21-3-2002 in which he has mentioned that he has submitted an application for membership of Ambedkar Adarsh Shiksha Samiti, Satna and same day on 2nd January, 2001 he was granted membership. The applications filed in January, 2001 by 27 members were entertained by Shri Shiv Mohan, respondent No. 6. The applications are A-25 to A-51. Shri Shiv Mohan respondent No. 6 has himself allowed the application on the same day. It is evident that even according to respondents No. 6 and 7 they were not members of the society in accordance with law. Shri Shiv Mohan Singh was not member before 7-1-2001 and the respondent No. 7 Rajendra Singh was not member of the society before 2-1-2001. List of member A.52 was submitted to the Registrar by respondent No. 7. The act of Shiv Mohan Singh is contrary to bye-laws as only 'managing body' can grant the membership on written application and it has the right to reject also. The matter has not been put up before the managing committee. Thus, respondent No. 6 had no right to induct new members and has tried to usurp entire society by illegally inducting new members. As a matter of fact entire proceedings are farce and illegal and not as per by laws and no meeting has taken place on 9-3-2001. No meeting was called by the Secretary giving 15 days notice. No agenda was distributed for the meeting. The old members were not informed of so called meeting dated 9-3-2001. As a matter of fact entire proceedings are farce and illegal and not as per by laws and no meeting has taken place on 9-3-2001. No meeting was called by the Secretary giving 15 days notice. No agenda was distributed for the meeting. The old members were not informed of so called meeting dated 9-3-2001. An additional return has also been filed by respondents No. 6 and 7 pointing out that petitioners are acting at the instance of the Member of Parliament of the area. Shri Ramanand Singh succeeded in the election defeating the respondent No. 7 Shri Ramanand Singh being a member of some important committee in the HRD Ministry. Shri Ramanand Singh who has influenced the Govt, of India in passing the order not releasing the aid to the society. As an interim measure administrator has been appointed. Nominee of the Collector is operating the account. Petitioner Shri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla was removed from the office of the Secretary on 7-3-2001. The applications submitted by the members for induction have been placed on record. Other documents have also been filed by respondents No. 6 and 7. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner has submitted that it is case where no meeting of General Body of society has taken place on 9-3-2001. In case meeting was held on 9-3-2001, the old members ought to have been noticed which was not done and in case meeting was actually held and Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh, respondent No. 7 was elected as President, The fact ought to have been informed in the month of March to the Asstt. Registrar. Shri Shiv Mohan, respondent No. 6 was describing himself as President and has admitted that no Chairman was elected in the month of May and subsequently also he has shown himself as President in various letters which negates the case that election was held on 9-3-2001. It is also submitted that the applications were submitted for induction of the members in January, 2001 and respondent No. 6 Shri Shiv Mohan Singh alone allowed the applications. The application can be allowed as per bye-law No. 6 only by managing committee. Shri Shiv Mohan Singh firstly was not President as he was removed in December, 2000 from the post of Presidentship. Even otherwise President alone is not competent to induct the members nor Secretary could do it as evinced from certain other documents. The application can be allowed as per bye-law No. 6 only by managing committee. Shri Shiv Mohan Singh firstly was not President as he was removed in December, 2000 from the post of Presidentship. Even otherwise President alone is not competent to induct the members nor Secretary could do it as evinced from certain other documents. No meeting has taken place on 9-3-2001 that is why Shiv Mohan was describing himself as President upto the month of July, 2001. The circumstances are supported by the documentary evidence that no meeting had taken place on 9-3-2001 and attempt has been made to illegal usurp the entire society and it is further submitted that Shri Shiv Mohan was himself not a member. He has inducted Rajendra Kumar Singh, respondent No. 7 for the first time in January. Respondent No. 7 is son of Shiv Mohan, respondent No. 6, Rajendra Kumar Singh was illegally inducted in January, 2001, by Shri Shiv Mohan Singh. Requisite fee u/s 27 has not been deposited as respondents No. 6 and 7 weiled political influence. Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh was Minister of Commerce and Shiv Mohan is a MLA. Thus, the State authorities have sided with them. Registrar has passed order P.23 in an illegal manner in utter violation of the directions issued by this Court in the previous writ petition. The list submitted by the petitioner has been illegally discarded in contravention to the directions issued by this Court which was based on the meeting held by the old members of the societies which ought to have been taken on record. Thus, the impugned orders are bad in law and deserve to be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 6 and 7 has urged that it is a case where Shiv Mohan was earlier the President. He could not have been elected as President in case he was not a member. It is incorrect to submit that he was not a member earlier. He submits that members have been rightly inducted by Shri Shiv Mohan Singh, respondent No. 6 in January, 2001 as he was the President and was not removed in December, 2000 as contended by the petitioners. Petitioner Rameshwar Prasad Shukla who was Secretary was removed on 9-3-2001 the date on which the election had taken place of Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh, He has further submitted that the orders passed by the Asstt. Petitioner Rameshwar Prasad Shukla who was Secretary was removed on 9-3-2001 the date on which the election had taken place of Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh, He has further submitted that the orders passed by the Asstt. Registrar and Registrar are proper and call for no interference. It is also submitted that remedy of filing an appeal is available against the order passed by the Registrar to the State Govt, and petitioners have not arrayed the society as a party, hence, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4 has submitted that the impugned orders are proper and call for no interference. Remedy of filing an appeal before State Govt, is available. Before I advert to various submissions raised at bar, it is clear that as per bye-laws of the society, it is the managing committee which is empowered to induct a new member; as provided in bye-law No.6. In January, 2001, the new members submitted applications to respondent No. 6 Shiv Mohan Singh and he wrote on applications 'allowed'. It is clear that members were not inducted by 'managing committee' which is competent to induct new members. It is also pertinent to mention here that in so called meeting dated 9-3-2001 when election is said to be held for managing body except 3 old members all new members were invited, thus, it is clear that even 9 of members of existing managing committee were not issued any notice of meeting dated 9-3-2001 and as a matter of fact no meeting was held on 9-3-2001 as discussed hereinafter and even if it was held, it was totally an illegal act and cannot be said to be meeting in the eye of law. Connected with above is the question whether Asstt. Registrar has properly taken the list submitted by respondents No. 6 and 7 on record u/s 27 of the Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. The order P.14 was passed by Asstt. Registrar on 6-8-2001. In the order it is initially mentioned that list was submitted on 31-7-2001 later in the same order it is mentioned that list was submitted on 3-8-2001. Be that as it may, if the election was held on 9-3-2001 and in that Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh, respondent No. 7 was elected as member why the list was not submitted immediately has not been explained. Be that as it may, if the election was held on 9-3-2001 and in that Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh, respondent No. 7 was elected as member why the list was not submitted immediately has not been explained. Moreover office bearer enter office from date of election. In the instant case, it is clear that till July, 2001 Shri Shiv Mohan Singh was acting as Chairman and various correspondence was addressed to him after 9-3-2001 as Chairman and he had admitted in note (P.18) dated 9-5-2001 in his own handwriting that Chairman was not yet elected on 9-5-2001. Note has been put by respondent No. 6 in his handwriting that till new Chairman is elected, he has to continue if a new chairman is elected; question of sending name for approval arises. Said Note (P.18) conclusively establishes that stand taken later in July by respondents No. 6 and 7 while submitting list on 31-7-2001 and in the return is incorrect and respondent No. 6 Shiv Mohan has rightly put a note on P.18 in his handwriting that till May, 2001 no election of chairman had taken place which shows that no election was held on 9-3-2001. Secondly in letter A-19 dated 9-4-2001 Shri Shiv Mohan Singh father of respondent No. 7 Shri Rajendra Singh has described himself as chairman of society. He has not mentioned that elections have taken place in March, 2001, thus, stand taken in return is falsified as Shiv Mohan Singh, respondent No. 6, was acting as chairman in April not respondent No. 7 Rajendra Kumar Singh. Thirdly, work distribution order dated 12-7-2001 was placed by Director before chairman for approval. Shri Shiv Mohan Singh has approved, it is capacity of chairman in July, 2001 which negates holding of election in March, 2001 if Shiv Mohan Singh was no more President after 9-3-2001; he would not have signed as President till July, 2001. A letter (A. 21) dated 14-3-2001 written by Director to Secretary, Shri Rameshwar Shukla of society indicates that managing body was not yet constituted on 14-5-2001, Shri Rameshwar Shukla was continuing as Secretary, a copy of letter (A.21) was sent to respondent No. 6 Shiv Mohan Singh also. Information R.7/VI was prepared on 31-7-2001 for being submitted to Asstt. Registrar. A letter (A. 21) dated 14-3-2001 written by Director to Secretary, Shri Rameshwar Shukla of society indicates that managing body was not yet constituted on 14-5-2001, Shri Rameshwar Shukla was continuing as Secretary, a copy of letter (A.21) was sent to respondent No. 6 Shiv Mohan Singh also. Information R.7/VI was prepared on 31-7-2001 for being submitted to Asstt. Registrar. A letter R/II filed by respondents shows that it was mentioned that on 9-3-2001 managing body was constituted and on 9-3-2001 Secretary Shri Rameshwar Shukla was removed. Information was submitted after petitioners elected another 'managing committee' in meeting dated 25-6-2001 on the basis of general body consisting of old members. Thus action was taken by respondents No. 6 and 7 after holding of meeting dated 25-6-2001 of the old managing committee. Along with additional return filed by respondents No. 6 and 7 a copy of letter dated 21-7-2001 of Asstt. Registrar has been filed in which it is mentioned that no return u/s 27 was received till 21-7-2001. In case meeting was held on 9-3-2001 that ought to have seen light of day before 31-7-2001, fact is that no meeting was held on 9-3-2001. In my opinion though no meeting was held on 9-3-2001 even if it was held it cannot be said to be a legal and valid meeting. Firstly as per bye-laws of society. Secretary has to convene a meeting it was not convened by Secretary Shri Rameshwar Shukla. Shri Shiv Mohan Singh respondent No. 6 alone had absolutely no right to induct the new members as per application A. 25 to A.51 submitted in between 2-1-2001 to 8-1-2001 as per bye-law No. 6 managing committee only has the right to induct members. 27 new members were newly inducted and they were allegedly noticed by UPC which is easy to procure now a days. Out of 30 members shown by respondent No. 6 and 7, 27 were newly inducted by Shri Shiv Mohan Singh alone. Thus, meeting dated 9-5-2001 cannot be said to be valid meeting at all of the members of society, in case it was held an effort was made to usurp entire society by forming a parallel body in illegal manner by induction of 90% new members, thus order of Assistant Registrar and Registrar are totally illegal in taking such a list on record. Bye-law (Annexure A.2) provides: As no meeting was held on 9-3-2001 and if it was held it is illegal and void hence it is clear the removal of Shri Rameshwar Shukla in said meeting falls down. He was holding the post of Secretary of existing managing body which was also continuing its function separately. No notice was issued to him of removal. It is also submitted by petitioner that Shri Shiv Mohan Singh was removed in December 2000 from post of President as he was not a member of the society. Fact remains that Shiv Mohan Singh was elected as President on 10-5-1995 by the then 19 members of society. The appointment was objected by petitioner and he wrote letter (A-5) on 12-5-1995 that Shri Shiv Mohan Singh was illegally thrusted over society as he is father of Shri Rajendra Singh who was Minister at relevant time. It is alleged that Shri Shiv Mohan Singh was removed on 25-12-2000 in meeting of General body and Shri Surendra Singh Patel was elected as interim President. Documents in this regard are filed collectively as Annexure A.8 by petitioner along with list of members in 2000 if General council which contains 18 names. Meeting of old committee was held on 25-6-2001; minutes are A.10 and election of managing committee took place. List A. 12 was submitted to Asstt. Registrar on 3-8-2001. Challan receipts of deposits of fees are A.12 and A.13. List submitted by old society was kept pending and list submitted by respondent No. 6 and 7 was unilaterally taken on record by Asstt. Registrar on 6.8.2001 without deciding the dispute. In my opinion, the letter (A.15) dated 24-8-2001 of Asstt. Registrar is illegal and bad in law in which he mentioned that Rameshwar Shukla was removed in meeting dated 24-8-2001 as such he was asked to submit record through new committee of respondent No. 7 Shri Rajendra Singh. As already held above removal of petitioner Shri Rameshwar Shukla is illegal and void and also so called meeting dated 9-3-2001. Consequently communication of Asstt. Registrar dated 24-8-2001 (A.15) falls down. It is clear that in order A. 23 Registrar has totally failed to carry out the directions issued by this Court in order (A.17) passed in W.P. No.5653/2001 (Ambedkar Adarsh Shiksha Samity and others vs. State of M.P. and others) on 5-2-2002. Consequently communication of Asstt. Registrar dated 24-8-2001 (A.15) falls down. It is clear that in order A. 23 Registrar has totally failed to carry out the directions issued by this Court in order (A.17) passed in W.P. No.5653/2001 (Ambedkar Adarsh Shiksha Samity and others vs. State of M.P. and others) on 5-2-2002. This Court in the order A.17 dated 5-2-2002 observed thus : 2. Petitioners submit that election was duly held of the Society in question; list was sent to the Registrar for making entry in the Register as per section 27 of M.P., Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. The names were not taken on record on the hypertechnical ground that the prescribed proforma was not signed by Shri Rameshwar Shukla. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that further information should have been called as per proviso of section 27 of Adhiniyam and the list should have been taken on record. It is also the case of the petitioners that no election was conducted of the petitioners' society on 9-3-2001 as reflected in Annexure P. 14. The person, who claims to be elected as President, is not even the member of the Society. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it is due to influence exercised by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 that these illegal actions have been taken; respondent Nos. 6 and 7 want to illegally usurp management of the society without being the members of the same. Central Government as per order dated 20th August, 2001 (Annexure P.19) through its Ministry of Human Resources Development directed that there appears to be dispute as two persons are claiming to be President; no major financial transaction of Jan Shikshan Sansthan should be done without approval of the Department. The matter is to be decided by the Registrar under M.P. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. The questions raised in the petition involve facts which are to be decided at the first instance by the Registrar after hearing the parties in expeditious manner. It goes without saying that Registrar has to pass order in accordance with law wholly uninfluenced by any person. Let, the Registrar decide the dispute within six weeks after first appearance of the parties before it. Parties are directed to appear before Registrar on 18th February, 2002. No fresh notice is necessary to be issued to the parties as the date is given in presence of the parties. Let, the Registrar decide the dispute within six weeks after first appearance of the parties before it. Parties are directed to appear before Registrar on 18th February, 2002. No fresh notice is necessary to be issued to the parties as the date is given in presence of the parties. This Court has disposed of the petition with the aforesaid directions. It was expected of the Registrar to pass order in accordance with law, however, the order A.23 passed by the Registrar on 1-4-2002 indicates that Registrar has totally failed in duty to rise up the occasion and to render the decision in fair and impartial manner. The perusal of the order passed by the Registrar indicates that in spite of the considering the matter on merits as directed by this Court; only considered the time limit in which order has to be passed but has completely for the reasons best known to him has ignored the substance of the directions issued by this Court to deal with the matter on merits. It is surprising that Registrar even returned the application presented by the petitioner holding that same was not relevant without discussing it. Documents were also refused to be taken on record, simply on the ground that time limit fixed by this Court was going to expire. This is not the method and manner is which Registrar ought to have passed the order and ignored the directions to look into the matter on merits. Registrar has deliberately cut short inquiry. Registrar has clearly failed to make the compliance of the directions issued by this Court quoted above. Even Registrar has mentioned in order P.23 that appeal has not been preferred within 60 days. It appears that Registrar has virtually tried to sit over the directions issued by this Court which may amount to disobedience of direction. The consideration made that no appeal was preferred within 60 days u/s 40 is totally uncalled for observation made by the Registrar which clearly shows that Registrar has scant respect to the directions issued by this Court when this Court had directed Registrar to deal with matter on merits. It was not open to Registrar to give said finding. The consideration made that no appeal was preferred within 60 days u/s 40 is totally uncalled for observation made by the Registrar which clearly shows that Registrar has scant respect to the directions issued by this Court when this Court had directed Registrar to deal with matter on merits. It was not open to Registrar to give said finding. On the one hand Registrar has refused to take the documents on record and has passed the order in flagrant violation of law which shows that either Registrar has very little knowledge or has deliberately passed order P.23 in illegal manner. Whatever that may be, the order A. 23 is clearly illegal order and is liable to be quashed. In the return submitted by respondent No. 7 in para 6 it is submitted that respondent No. 7 Shri Rajendra Singh was elected by newly inducted members. Rajendra Kumar Singh himself was inducted on 2-1-2001 as mentioned by him in affidavit A.24 filed before Registrar. Shiv Mohan Singh had no right to induct new members; Member can be inducted by managing body as per bye-law No. 6. Applications A.25 to A.51 were allowed on same day without consideration by managing committee. List A. 52 submitted by respondents No. 6 and 7 contains 50 names. Agenda for meeting dated 9-3-2001 has not been placed on record in spite of clear challenge by petitioner that no meeting took place hence no agenda was issued. In notice A.53 purpose of meeting dated 9-3-2001 is not mentioned, in list R.7/VIII filed with additional return by respondent No. 7 shows 70 members in society. This list is prepared on 22-9-2002. All are shown to be inducted in 2001 except few members. Respondents No. 6 and 7 with additional return have filed notice dated 4-3-2001 which are at page 49 to 61 filed with additional return but agenda is not mentioned. It has not been filed also. Meeting dated 9-3-2001 is shown to be attended by 29 members, all inducted newly except one or two. No notice was given to existing members. The meeting if any is thus invalid. Information of election was given belatedly to Director on 31-7-2001 which makes meeting dated 9-3-2001 doubtful. Govt, of India was informed on 6-8-2001 (letter at page 81). Meeting dated 9-3-2001 is shown to be attended by 29 members, all inducted newly except one or two. No notice was given to existing members. The meeting if any is thus invalid. Information of election was given belatedly to Director on 31-7-2001 which makes meeting dated 9-3-2001 doubtful. Govt, of India was informed on 6-8-2001 (letter at page 81). Consent was given on 13-7-2001 by Shri Rajendra Singh for being President, though he is shown to be present on 9-3-2001 what was necessity to obtain consent from him. It is just to make up delay which falsify meeting dated 9-3-2001. As I have quashed the so called election and meeting dated 9-3-2001 and list submitted on 31-7-2001 and order (A.14) dated 6-8-2001 of Asstt. Registrar and order of Registrar A.23, action taken after 9-3-2001 by parallel formed new managing committee automatically falls down. It is apparent in the instant case that there is sharp dispute between petitioner and respondents No. 6 and 7. Petitioner claims that respondent No. 6 Shiv Mohan was removed in December, 2000. It appears that respondent No. 6 was not issued any notice of the proposed removal. Respondent No. 6 was continuing as President from 1995. As the fresh election are being directed, this question has to be examined by the Registrar whether respondent No. 6 was a member of the society. Prima facie presumption arises in favour of respondent No. 6 as he was President from 1995, however, the question as to his membership has to be decided by the Registrar. With respect to the election held by the petitioners on 25-6-2001 suffice to say that two parallel bodies were functioning. Dispute about membership was also existing and in the various documents subsequent to 25-6-2001 referred to above Shri Shiv Mohan, respondent No. 6 has been referred to as President, thus, the election proceedings submitted by the petitioner are also clouded and in my opinion it would be just and proper in the circumstances of the case to direct the Registrar to decide within six weeks from today the question as to the valid existing members of the society and let fresh elections be held on the basis of such a list within two months thereafter till then arrangement as order by Collector under Orders of Govt, of India shall be continued. The impugned orders A. 14, A. 15 and A, 23 are set aside. The impugned orders A. 14, A. 15 and A, 23 are set aside. Registrar is directed to finalize the list of the existing members within six weeks from today after hearing the parties. The decision be rendered by the Registrar with respect to the valid and existing members and let fresh election be held. Let direction be carried out punctually. No order as to costs.