JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R.M. Saggi, Advocate on behalf of petitioners, Sri S.P. Pandey, Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of other respondents. 2. The dispute pertaining to the office bearers of the society duly registered in the name and style of ‘Kshetriya Viksit Samiti, Sarai Bansi Utraon, Allahabad’ was subject matter of consideration before this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2086 of 1998 and connected Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30519 of 1995. Both the writ petitions were decided under a common judgment and order of this Court dated 5th April, 2004. So far as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30519 of 1995 is concerned, this Court recorded a finding that the same was not maintainable as alternative remedy is being availed of. With regard to Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2086 of 1998, this Court after considering the contention raised on behalf of parties, remanded the matter for decision to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 after formulating three issues to be adjudicated upon by the Prescribed Authority. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the relevant portion of the common judgment and order of this Court dated 5th April, 2004, which reads as follows : “Now the order passed by the Prescribed Authority has to be seen. A perusal thereof reflects that by means of issue No. 1 he has concluded that reference was competent, but rest of the order shows that, Prescribed Authority has, in fact, has not decided or adverted himself in deciding the dispute in respect to election or continuance of office bearers and members of the general body of the society. The Prescribed Authority has totally misdirected himself in the present case, inasmuch as issue of renewal has been mixed up with the issue of election, whereas renewal is for the benefit of each and every members of the general body of the society. Election dispute merely determines as to who are the persons who are to be saddled with the responsibility of running and managing the affairs of the society. Election dispute merely determines as to who are the persons who are to be saddled with the responsibility of running and managing the affairs of the society. List of office bearers and members, which is accepted at the time when registration of the society is done, is merely provisional in nature, and in case any one is aggrieved by acceptance of the list of office bearers and members, the same can be assailed in the proceedings under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act. The Prescribed Authority has noted in his order that dispute is going on in between the parties but at no point of time any endeavour has been made by the Prescribed Authority to go into the question of validity of the election and to see as to who are the members of the general body of the society, and who are entitled to run and manage its affairs. The Prescribed Authority in the present case has totally failed to discharge duty cast upon him. The Prescribed Authority, under law, was obliged to decide the election dispute, once it was raised before him, and while deciding the dispute he ought to have addressed, apart from other questions, on the following three questions, mandatorily, (i) right of person/persons who had convened the meeting and held elections. (ii) validity of electoral college i.e. the persons who had participated in the election and had right to participate in the election by virtue of being valid members of the general body of the society. (iii) election has been held in consonance with the provisions as contained in the bye-laws of the society. In the present case, the Prescribed Authority has not undertaken any of the aforementioned exercise, whatsoever, as such order dated 31.12.1997 passed by the Prescribed Authority deserves to be quashed. In the result, writ petition No. 2086 of 1998 succeeds, and is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.12.1997 passed by the Prescribed Authority is hereby quashed. Writ petition No. 30519 of 1995 is dismissed as is infructuous. The matter is remanded back to the Prescribed Authority for being decided afresh in accordance with law and in light of the observations made in the body of this judgment. Both the parties have agreed to appear before the Prescribed Authority on 12.4.2004. Writ petition No. 30519 of 1995 is dismissed as is infructuous. The matter is remanded back to the Prescribed Authority for being decided afresh in accordance with law and in light of the observations made in the body of this judgment. Both the parties have agreed to appear before the Prescribed Authority on 12.4.2004. Thereafter, the Prescribed Authority shall proceed to decide the dispute as observed above and shall conclude the entire proceedings within three months from that very date.” 3. In compliance of the judgment and order of this Court dated 4th April, 2004 proceedings were re-initiated by the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority, by means of the order dated 17th July, 2004, has recorded a finding that the petitioners were not outgoing office bearers of the society and further that they had no competence to convene the meeting of the society. Therefore, the alleged elections set up by the petitioners are mere paper transactions and cannot be accepted. This order of the Prescribed Authority has been challenged on behalf of the petitioners by means of the writ petition. 4. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that the reference as entertained by the Prescribed Authority itself was incompetent and therefore, the entire orders stands vitiated. According to the petitioners, no dispute was raised in accordance with Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with regard to the election of office bearers of the society. Therefore, the findings recorded under the impugned order are without jurisdiction. 5. I have heard Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition. 6. In the opinion of the Court it is too late for the petitioners to raise such an issue, inasmuch as fresh re-adjudication by the Prescribed Authority was directed under the remand order passed in the writ petition filed by the petitioners itself. If the petitioners had nay doubt qua the competence of the reference as made, they should have objected to the remand on the ground of lack of jurisdiction before the Single Judge or should have challenged the order of remand before the Higher Bench. However, such a course has not been availed of. The petitioner has participated in the proceedings on remand. Now they have lost in the proceedings and now want to challenge the reference itself. Such practice cannot be permitted by this Court. However, such a course has not been availed of. The petitioner has participated in the proceedings on remand. Now they have lost in the proceedings and now want to challenge the reference itself. Such practice cannot be permitted by this Court. If the competence of the reference is permitted to be raised in this petition, it would necessarily involve the re-opening of the judgment of learned Single Judge, which has become final between the parties. 7. Even otherwise, from the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority, it is apparently clear that the petitioners had no competence to convene the meeting, wherein alleged elections set up by the petitioners are said to have been taken place in the year 1994. 8. The competence to convene the meeting for holding elections is a condition precedent for any valid elections being held. 9. Put up this matter tomorrow i.e. 5th May, 2006 for completion of the judgment. 110. With regards to finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority qua the competence of the petitioners to convene a meeting in respect of the elections of year, 1994, Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to successfully assail the said finding. It is settled law that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority are amicable to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in regular civil suit proceedings on being initiated by the aggrieved party. 11. In these circumstances this Court is satisfied that no interference against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority in the facts of the present case is called for. 12. This leads to the issue as to what should be the effective order to be passed in the facts of the present case so that justice may be done between the parties. 13. It is not in dispute that an interim order was operating in favour of the petitioners for last 13 years and they claimed to have held elections in regular intervals. Accordingly to the petitioner four sets of said elections have taken place in between. 14. 13. It is not in dispute that an interim order was operating in favour of the petitioners for last 13 years and they claimed to have held elections in regular intervals. Accordingly to the petitioner four sets of said elections have taken place in between. 14. Respondents on the other hand contends that once writ petition is dismissed, it is to be presumed in the eyes of the law that interim order granted in favour of the petitioners was never granted and therefore respondents alone are lawful office bearers of the society and on that basis it is alleged that the respondents have also held successive elections at regular interval since 1994 onwards. These elections are also run into four in number. 15. The legality of the fresh elections pleaded by the petitioners and the respondents have not been gone into at any stage of proceedings nor their list registered under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act subsequent to the interim order of this Court. Any order of this Court now requiring the authorities to examine the legality of the elections set up by the respondents at this stage of the proceedings i.e. nearly after 13 years, during which the interim order was in continuation, would necessarily require adjudication in four sets of elections held in different years. This would lead to another series of litigation and ultimately it is the society, which shall suffer. 16. In order to bring the litigation to an end between the parties, this Court feels that substantial justice would be done if in the facts of the present case the Assistant Registrar is directed to hold fresh elections under Section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act in a time bound manner. 17. Accordingly, it is directed that Assistant Registrar shall hold fresh elections of the office bearers of the society in accordance with the registered by-laws. For the said purpose the Assistant Registrar shall publish a tentative list of members of the general body entitled to participate in the elections and shall invite objections. The petitioners as well as respondents and any other persons aggrieved shall have liberty to file their objection against the said tentative list. The Assistant Registrar shall finalize the list of members after deciding the objections, if any, by means of a reasoned speaking order. The petitioners as well as respondents and any other persons aggrieved shall have liberty to file their objection against the said tentative list. The Assistant Registrar shall finalize the list of members after deciding the objections, if any, by means of a reasoned speaking order. The said exercise must be completed within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. After finalization of the list of members of the office bearers, as aforesaid, the Assistant Registrar shall hold fresh elections of the office bearers in accordance with the registered by-laws within two months from the date the list is so finalized. List of the office bearers so elected shall be registered under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act and at that stage of proceedings any person aggrieved by the finalization of the list of members entitled to participate in the elections as well as procedure adopted in the elections will have liberty to raise objection before the Assistant Registrar and Assistant Registrar shall consider and decide the same by means of reasoned speaking order, before registering the list of office bearers under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 18. During this period neither the petitioners or the respondents shall incur any major expenditure nor they shall take any policy decision in respect of the society, including registration of new members. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Order Accordingly. ————