JUDGMENT : Arun Tandon, J. Kshetriya Sri Gandhi Ashram Shikohabad, District Firozabad is a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act. The society has its own registered bye laws. Undisputed elections of the office bearers of the society took place on 24.02.2004. In the elections Sri Deena Nath Tiwari was elected as the Managing Trustee (Sanchalak) while Devendra Yadav was elected as the Secretary/Manager. For certain reasons, known to Deena Nath Tiwari, he forwarded a letter dated 12.10.2004, addressed to the Secretary, stating therein that for reasons recorded in the letter, the same may be treated to be his resignation and therefore a meeting be convened of the general body for electing a new Managing Trustee. 2. On the strength of the letter so forwarded a meeting is said to have been convened by the Secretary Devendra Yadav under an agenda dated 31.12.2004. On the agenda so circulated, a meeting of the general body is alleged to have been taken place on 15.01.2005, wherein the resignation of Deena Nath Tiwari from the office of Managing Trustee (Sanchalak) was accepted and one Mahaveer Bhai was elected as Sanchalak for the remaining term. 3. A fresh agenda dated 14.01.2005 was circulated by Devendra Yadav qua the meeting of the Committee of Management of the society to be held on 16.01.2005. In the meeting so held of the Committee of Management, Paras Nath Shukla was removed from the primary membership of the society along with 5 other persons. 4. In order to keep the record straight it may be recorded that subsequently a meeting of the Committee of Management is alleged to have been convened by Mahabir Bhai (who was elected as Sanchalak in the meeting dated 15.01.2005) on 04.05.2006. In the said meeting Devendra Yadav was removed from the office of Secretary/Manager and petitioner is stated to have been elected as a Manager/Secretary. 5. Parallel set of proceedings have been pleaded by Paras Nath Shukla-respondent No. 6. According to Paras Nath Shukla a meeting of the general body took place on 24.01.2005 at Lucknow. In the said meeting resignation of Deena Nath Tiwari was accepted and in his place Kalp Nath Singh was elected as Manager Trustee (Sanchalak). On the same day a meeting of Committee of Management took place, in which Devedra Yadav was removed by motion of no confidence and in his place Paras Nath Shukla was elected. 6. In the said meeting resignation of Deena Nath Tiwari was accepted and in his place Kalp Nath Singh was elected as Manager Trustee (Sanchalak). On the same day a meeting of Committee of Management took place, in which Devedra Yadav was removed by motion of no confidence and in his place Paras Nath Shukla was elected. 6. The dispute so risen qua the office bearers of the society, a reference was made by the Assistant Registrar vide order dated 11.02.2005 to the Prescribed Authority u/s 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act. The matter ultimately traveled up to this Court being Writ Petition No. 980 of 2006. The Hon'ble High Court by means of judgment and order dated 09.01.2006 remanded the matter for reconsideration of the dispute to the Prescribed Authority. This order of the Hon'ble Court is stated to have been passed on the basis of an agreement arrived at between Devendra Yadav and Paras Nath Shukla. 7. On remand the Prescribed Authority under the impugned order dated 26.05.2006 has held that; the meetings which took place on 15.01.2005 and 16.01.2005 were in valid, while the meeting dated 24.01.2005, held at Lucknow, set up by respondent No. 6 was held as per the bye laws and therefore valid and accordingly directions have been issued for registration of the list of office bearers as per the meeting held on 24.01.2005. The order so passed is being challenged by means of the present writ petition. 8. Sri H.N. Singh Advocate submits that the order dated 26.05.2006 is an outcome of a settlement arrived at between Paras Nath Shukla and Devendra Yadav. He points out that there has been complete non-application of mind to the registered bye laws of the society, which regulate the convening of the meeting of the general body as well as of the Committee of Management. Meetings which have taken place on 24.01.2005, both general body as well as Committee of Management, are patently illegal having been convened in clear violation of the bye laws by an unauthorized person. 9. Even otherwise it is pointed out that since the resignation of Deena Nath Tiwari was accepted in the meeting dated 15.1.2005 by the general body, there was no occasion for any fresh meeting being convened by Deena Nath Tiwari on 24.01.2005 for his resignation being reconsidered in the said meeting. 9. Even otherwise it is pointed out that since the resignation of Deena Nath Tiwari was accepted in the meeting dated 15.1.2005 by the general body, there was no occasion for any fresh meeting being convened by Deena Nath Tiwari on 24.01.2005 for his resignation being reconsidered in the said meeting. Lastly it is pointed out that in the meeting dated 24.01.2005 (wherein resignation of Deena Nath Tiwari is stated to have been accepted) he himself has presided over the said meeting. 10. Sri Ashok Khare Senior Advocate on the contrary submits that the meeting dated 14.01.2005 and 15.01.2005 had been convened by a person not authorized to do so under the registered bye laws of the society. Such meetings are therefore non est and the claim set up by the petitioner, being based on such illegal meetings, has rightly not been approved by the Registrar. He further clarifies that the meeting dated 24.01.2005 was convened by the Managing Trustee (Sanchalak) namely Sri Deena Nath Tiwari, whose resignation had not been accepted up to that date and by a validly convened general body. The minutes of the meeting dated 24.01.2005 have rightly been approved under the impugned order. 11. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition. 12. The minutes of the meeting dated 24.01.2005 have rightly been approved under the impugned order. 11. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition. 12. For the purposes of appreciating the controversy raised, it is worthwhile to reproduce Clauses 3(2), 10, 15 and 20 of the registered bye laws of the society, which read as follows: 3& laLFkk ds lnL;%&---- 1- ---- 2- fdlh VªLVh dh e`R;q gks tkus vFkok Loa R;kxi= nsdj gV tkus ij tks LFkku fjDr gksxk mldh iwfrZ lekU; lHkk loZ lEefr ls djsxh A 10& laLFkk dh cSBd%& laLFkk ds lnL;ks dh lk/kkj.k cSBd ¼fo'ks"k½ Hkh] tc izcU/kd lfefr pkgs cqyk ldrh gSA ;k laLFkk ds orZeku lnL;ks es ls 1@3 lnL; fdlh ,lh lHkk cqykus dh izkFkZuk djs rks Hkh lapkyd cqyk ldsxs A 15& izCU/kd lfefr dh cSBd %& tc tc t:jh gksxh lapkyd] izcU/kd lfefr dh cSBd ,df=r djsxk] fdlh VªLVh ds dgus ij Hkh lapkyd bl lfefr dh cSBd ,df=r djsxk A 20%& eU=h & izcU/kd lfefr vius vUrZxr lnL;ks es ls fdlh ,d lnL; dks le; le; ij eU=h fu;qDr djsxh tks izcU/kd lfefr dk eU=h gksxk A vkSj mldh cSBdks dks cqyk;k djsxk A rFkk nwljs ,sls lc dk;Z djsxk tks le; le; ij izcU/kd lfefr vius vf/kdkjks es ls mlds fy, fu;r djsxh A 13. From a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, it would be apparently clear that any vacancy, caused due to (resignation etc in the office of the Trustee, has necessarily to be filled in the meeting of the general body to be convened for the purpose by an unanimous resolution. Under Clause 10 a meeting of the general body,! both ordinary as well as special can be convened by following the two procedure (a) a decision being taken in that regard by the Committee of Management (b) a requisition being made by 1/3 members of the general body in writing. The meeting of the Committee of Management of the Society can be convened under Clause 15 by the Managing Trustee/Manager. The Secretary of the Committee of Management is to be appointed in a meeting of the Committee of Management for such periods, as the Committee of Management may decide. 14. The meeting of the Committee of Management of the Society can be convened under Clause 15 by the Managing Trustee/Manager. The Secretary of the Committee of Management is to be appointed in a meeting of the Committee of Management for such periods, as the Committee of Management may decide. 14. In the aforesaid background of the registered bye laws of the society, the Court may examine as to whether the agenda as was published by Devendra Yadav in respect of meeting of the general body dated 14.01.2005 and that for the meeting of the Committee of Management dated 15.01.2005 as well as the agenda published by the Managing Trustee Deena Nath Tiwari for the meeting of general body at Lucknow on 24.01.2005, are in accordance with the registered bye laws of the society or not. 15. There is nothing on record to establish that any earlier meeting of the Committee of Management took place wherein a decision was taken to convene a meeting of the general body either on 15.01.2005 or on 24.01.2005. Further there is no pleading or evidence on record which can establish that any requisition by 1/3 members of the general body was ever made for convening the meeting of general body either on 15.01.2005 or 24.01.2005. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court has no hesitation to record that both the general body meetings, which are said to have taken place on 15.01.2005 and on 24.01.2005 are contrary to the registered bye laws of the society. Both the meetings have not been convened under any decision of the Committee of Management for the purpose or on a requisition made by 1/3 members of the general body. 17. Since the convening of the meetings itself is illegal and contrary to the registered bye laws of the society, any resolution passed therein is of no consequence. It logically follows that resignation of Deena Nath Tiwari has not been accepted in any validly convened meeting of the general body, therefore there can be no election of a fresh Managing Trustee of the Society in place of Deena Nath Tiwari. It is, therefore, held that Deena Nath Tiwari continue to be the Managing Trustee (Sanchalak) even today in the eyes of law. 18. It is, therefore, held that Deena Nath Tiwari continue to be the Managing Trustee (Sanchalak) even today in the eyes of law. 18. Since Deena Nath Tiwari has continued to be the Managing Trustee, the meetings of the Committee of Management, as claimed by the petitioner, which took place on 16.01.2005 wherein Paras Nath Shukla and others are alleged to have been removed as well as meeting of the Committee of Management dated 24.01.2005 wherein Devendra Yadav is alleged to have been removed from the office of the Secretary are illegal, inasmuch as both these meeting have been presided over by a person who had replaced Deena Nath Tiwari as Managing Trustee (Sanchalak). All the meetings of the Committee of Management dated 16.01.2005, dated 24.01.2005 and dated 04.05.2006 are held to be illegal and of no legal consequence. This Court, therefore, records that Devendra Yadav along with Deena Nath Tiwari continue to be the Secretary and Managing Trustee (Sanchalak) of the Society respectively even today. The order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 26.05.2006, which did not take into consideration the aforesaid aspect of matter, therefore cannot be legally sustained and is hereby quashed. 19. Let a meeting of the general body be convened In accordance with registered bye laws of the society either under a resolution of the Committee of Management or on a requisition to be made by 1/3 members of the general body, for consideration of the resignation of Deena Nath Tiwari and thereafter a meeting of the Committee of Management may be held for consideration of the appointment of Secretary in accordance with the registered bye laws of the society. 20. Writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made above.