JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This bunch of writ petition raise a dispute with regard to the elections of the office bearers of the society duly registered in the name and style of Shri Arya Mahila Hitkarini Maha Parishad, Lahurabir, Varanasi as well as in respect of the Committee of Management of the Degree College as well as Intermediate College established by the said society. 3. It is not necessary to state the facts leading to these petitions. Suffice is to refer to the judgment of this Court dated 23rd November, 2004 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38238 of 2004 wherein this Court recorded that since 1992 no valid elections of the office bearers of the society have taken place and accordingly directed the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits to hold fresh elections of the office bearers of the society in accordance with the registered bye-laws. For the said purpose the Assistant Registrar was required to finalize the electoral college. On a modification application filed in the same petition, the Court under order dated 22nd December, 2004 provided that till the elections by the Assistant Registrar are held the properties of the society shall be maintained by the trustee of the society alone. The Court has been informed that against the said judgment Special Appeal No. 67 of 2006 has been filed. However, no interim order has been granted in the special appeal till date. 4. Since the order of the Court dated 23.11.2004 had not been stayed by the Division Bench, the Assistant Registrar proceeded to hold fresh elections of the office bearers of the Society under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act. The Assistant Registrar by means of his order dated 3.12.2005 (after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned) finalized the list of members of the general body of the society, who were entitled to participate in the elections. The Assistant Registrar also notified the elections schedule under order dated 6.12.2005. 5. At this stage of the proceedings, Shashi Kant Dixit filed Writ Petition No. 76828 of 2005 challenging the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 3.12.2005 finalizing the electoral college as well as the order dated 6.12.2005 notifying the elections schedule. The Assistant Registrar also notified the elections schedule under order dated 6.12.2005. 5. At this stage of the proceedings, Shashi Kant Dixit filed Writ Petition No. 76828 of 2005 challenging the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 3.12.2005 finalizing the electoral college as well as the order dated 6.12.2005 notifying the elections schedule. The writ petition filed by Dixit was entertained by this Court on 19.12.2005 and it was provided that any election held during this period shall abide the final orders of the Court. The elections program was proceeded with accordingly. 6. Certain delegate member of the companies/associations, who claimed to be member of the general body of the society, filed Writ Petition No. 2832 of 2006 challenging the process of elections, initiated by the Assistant Registrar on the ground that their exclusion from participation in the same was not legally justified. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court on 18.1.2006 passed following interim order : “Issue notice to the respondents No. 2 and 3. In addition to the notice being issued by Speed Post for which steps will be taken within 48 hours, the petitioners will also serve both the respondents No. 2 and 3 by Dasti Notice of this petition. Service of Dasti Notice will be effected by 23.1.2006. It is clarified that the dasti notice will be served personally upon the respondents No. 2 and 3 and not upon the clerks in their office. Notice will include a copy of the amendment application filed today. Notice will indicate that this petition will be listed on 30.1.2006 by which time both the respondents No. 2 and 3 may file their counter affidavits. The counter affidavit of respondent No. 3 will be confined to the averments in paragraphs 36 and 39 of the writ petition, read with Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The respondent No. 2 will file complete reply specially dealing in detail with regard to the allegation against him in the petition regarding non-issue of nomination form. Considering the fact that the petitioners in this writ petition are representatives of reasonably big companies and organizations and can therefore expected to act responsibly, we direct that till 6.2.2006 any office bearers declared elected unopposed by the respondent No. 2 will not assume office by virtue of such declaration.” 7. Considering the fact that the petitioners in this writ petition are representatives of reasonably big companies and organizations and can therefore expected to act responsibly, we direct that till 6.2.2006 any office bearers declared elected unopposed by the respondent No. 2 will not assume office by virtue of such declaration.” 7. The first and second phase of election was completed and at that stage Sri Kailash Chand Bhardwaj and Sri Hari Narayan Pandey filed Writ Petition No. 9264 of 2006 alleging therein that their nomination papers, for the post of General President and Chief Secretary respectively, had been illegally rejected by the Election Officer. In the said writ petition on 27.2.2006 following interim order was passed : “.....................On the next date fixed, newly impleaded respondent No. 7 while filling counter affidavit shall give specific details as to whether, at any point of time, any authority letter has been issued in favour of Hari Narain Pandey on 3.1.2006. Needless to say that categorical averments shall come forward in this respect. Division Bench of this Court has already entertained Writ Petition No. 2838 of 2006 questioning the validity of the election process wherein interim order has been passed that any office bearers declared elected unopposed will not assume office by virtue of such declaration, as such no separate order is required to be passed in separate writ petition.” 8. Since the process of elections was not stayed under any order of this Court, the same was brought to its logical end by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits. The election result of Executive Committee was declared on 30th April, 2006 in which 1/3 members of Executive Committee were declared elected by co-option. Lastly on 12th May, 2006 elections of the Executive Committee along with its office bearers was declared. Sri Krishna Tiwari has been elected as Secretary/Manager in the said elections. 9. The Assistant Registrar, while declaring the results of the elections as aforesaid, made a note that the elected office bearers shall not take charge of their respective office in view of the interim order of this Court dated 18.1.2006, passed in Writ Petition No. 2832 of 2006 till the decision of the said petition. This note appended by the Assistant Registrar to the results of the elections, was challenged by Sri Krishna Tiwari by means of Writ Petition No. 32340 of 2006. This note appended by the Assistant Registrar to the results of the elections, was challenged by Sri Krishna Tiwari by means of Writ Petition No. 32340 of 2006. In this petition no interim order was granted. 10. It appears that the Vice Chancellor of the Banaras Hindu University, in accordance with the registered bye-laws of the society appointed two persons as a nominee in the Sub Committee of the Executive Committee constituted under the elections finally declared on 12.5.2006. The Vice-Chancellor, on being informed about the interim order dated 18.1.2006 of this Court, revoked his order appointing the nominees vide letter dated 4.1.2007. This order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 4.1.2007 has been challenged by means of Writ Petition No. 8813 of 2007 filed by Sri Krishna Tiwari, wherein no interim order has been granted. In the order dated 4.1.2007 the Vice-Chancellor also provided that the institution shall be managed by Dr. Shashi Kant Dixit as Trustee. 11. The Assistant Registrar, in compliance of the directions issued by this Court under modification order dated 22.12.2004, issued a letter stating that so long as the issue, as to who is the legal trustee of the society, is not decided, no person shall be permitted to operate the bank accounts. The direction so issued was recalled by the Assistant Registrar under letter dated 24.2.2007. This order of the Assistant Registrar has been challenged by means of Writ Petition No. 12409 of 2007 by Sri Krishna Tiwari. 12. An other Writ Petition No. 9016 of 2007 has been filed by one Sri Satya Narain Pandey against the recognition granted by the Regional Level Committee to the decision of the Executive Committee constituting the Committee of Management of the Intermediate College run and established by the said society. 13. Sri Ashok Khare Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri S. D. Shukla on behalf of faction headed by Dr. Shashi Kant Dixit, in support of Writ Petition No. 76828 of 2005, submits that the list of members of general body finalized by the Assistant Registrar is patently illegal for following reasons : (a) The Assistant Registrar has failed to appreciate that the list of members held to be valid members of the general body under order of the Prescribed Authority dated 12.5.1995 could not have been excluded from the electoral college by the Assistant Registrar, as has been done under the impugned order dated 3.12.2005. It is stated that the said order dated 12.5.1995 has become final between the parties. (b) In various suit proceedings initiated by Sri Krishna Tiwari before the Civil Court, the issue with regard to interpretation of bye-laws No. 7 has already been adjudicated upon. The findings have gone against Sri Krishna Tiwari, therefore, the Assistant Registrar was not justified in excluding such members from the electoral college on the basis of the interpretation placed on clause 7 as contended by Sri Krishna Tiwari. Lastly it is contended that bye-laws No. 4 of the bye-laws has been misread by the Assistant Registrar while rejecting the claim of the valid members represented by Dr. Shashi Kant Dixit in Writ Petition No. 76828 of 2006. 14. Sri Ashok Khare Senior Advocate with all persuasion at his command insisted that this Court may examine the legality of the electoral college notified by the Assistant Registrar under his order dated 3.12.2005, inasmuch as no factual dispute is being raised and only legal question with regard to interpretation of clause 4 and 7 of the registered by bye-laws as well as binding nature of the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 12.5.1995 and of civil Courts has to be examined. 15. Sri Anil Tiwari, Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2832 of 2006, contends that the nominees of the member companies/organizations are entitled to participate in the elections, including the right to contest the same. The Assistant Registrar without assigning any reason refused to issue nomination papers in favour of such nominees. It is, therefore, submitted that the elections process initiated by the Assistant Registrar and conclusion thereto is apparently illegal, inasmuch as valid members of the general body have been barred from participating in the elections. 16. All other writ petitions, noticed herein above, are only based on consequential action taken in pursuance to the elections held by the Assistant Registrar on the basis of the electoral college dated 3.12.2005, final result whereof have been declared on 12.5.2006. 17. 16. All other writ petitions, noticed herein above, are only based on consequential action taken in pursuance to the elections held by the Assistant Registrar on the basis of the electoral college dated 3.12.2005, final result whereof have been declared on 12.5.2006. 17. Therefore, the basic issue up for consideration in all these writ petitions is as to whether the electoral college as notified by the Assistant Registrar in compliance of the judgment and order of this Court dated 23.11.2004 is in accordance with law or not and further as to whether the Assistant Registrar was justified in not issuing nomination papers to the nominees of member companies/organizations (petitioners of Writ Petition No. 2832 of 2006) as well as in rejecting the nomination papers filed by Sri Hari Narayan Pandey and Kailash Chandra Bhardwaj. 18. 18. This Court may record that under the order dated 12th May, 1995 the Prescribed Authority had recorded as follows : mijksDr foospukvksa ds ifjizs{; esa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprk gw¡ fd fnukad 25-2-1992 dks lEiUu gq, pquko esa lfEefyr lnL; }kjk dk;Zdkfj.kh ds inkf/kdkjh dks laLFkk ds ckbZykt ds vUrxZr fu/kkZfjr lnL;rkx.k dk Hkqxrku djuk vkSj ml inkf/kdkjh }kjk laLFkk ds cSad [kkrs esa tek djuk rFkk mUgha lnL;ksa esa ls inkf/kdkjh dk pquk tkuk vkSj ml dk;Zdkfj.kh dks Mh0 Mh0 vkj0 }kjk Hkh ekU;rk iznku djuk rFkk mlh dk;Zdkfj.kh dk fk{kk laLFkkvksa ij izHkkoh fu;a=.k j[kuk ,oa cSad [kkrksa dk lapkyu djuk Lo;eso fl) dj nsrk gS fd fnukad 25-2-1992 dks tks pquko izFke i{k }kjk djk;k x;k Fkk mlesa dksbZ vfu;ferrk ugha gS] ek= fl)kUr :i ls laLFkk dh /kkjk&7 ds izu dks mBk;k x;k gS fd tc fd lnL;rk kqYd fof/kor laLFkk ds ckbZykt ds vk/kkj ij laLFkk esa fofgr inkf/kdkjh }kjk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA ;|fi fo)kUr :i esa /kkjk&7 ds vk/kkj ij Lohd`fr ugha gS ysfdu dk;Zdkfj.kh }kjk O;ogkj ds :i esa Lohd`fr iznku dj nh xbZ gSA vr,oa fnukad 25-2-1992 ds izFke i{k }kjk dk;Zdkfj.kh dk pquko lEiUu djk;k x;k gS blesa fdlh Hkh izdkj dh vfu;ferrk ugha gSA vr% mlesa fdlh Hkh izdkj ds gLr{ksi dh vko;drk ugha gSA vknsk vr% esa ts0 ch0 flag mi ftykf/kdkjh okjk.klh A n0A@fu;r izkf/kdkjh bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapk gw¡ fd bl lanfHkZr izdj.k esa vc fdlh Hkh izdkj ds gLr{ksi dh vko;drk ugha gSA vc pw¡fd bl laLFkk ds dk;Zdkfj.kh dk dk;Zdky fnukad 25-2-1992 dks lekIr gks x;k gS blfy, lgk;d fucU/kd lkslk;Vh bl laLFkk ds Lohd`r ckbZykt ds vk/kkj ij l{ke izkf/kdkjh dh ns[k&js[k esa bl krZ ds lkFk pquko djk;s fd laLFkk Lohd`r ckbZykt dh /kkjk&7 dk mYya?ku u gksA rnuqlkj i=koyh fu.khZr le>h tk,A bldh izfr ds lkFk lgk;d fucU/kd dks i=koyh okil dj nh tk,A -------------------------------dks i=koyh vfHkys[kkxkj esa laxzfgr gksaosA fnukad 12-5-1995^^ 19. The judgment of the Civil Court relied upon by Sri Ashok Khare for the purposes of contending that the interpretation placed by the Assistant Registrar on bye-laws No. 7 has already been repealed by the Civil Court, and in view of such determination, no interpretation to the contrary could have been made for rejecting the claim of valid members of the general body, as has been done under the order of the Assistant Registrar. 20. 20. It is admitted to Sri Khare that all the orders of Civil Court relied upon are orders passed on the temporary injunction application and miscellaneous appeal filed against such order on temporary application. In the opinion of the Court such orders on temporary injunction application are based on prima facie satisfaction only and do not decide the issue finally. Moreover, the orders cannot bind the Assistant Registrar who was admittedly not a party to the said suit proceedings. 21. Whatever may be the persuasive value of such orders has to be examined by the concerned authority. The Court is not inclined to express any final opinion in that regard, inasmuch as this Court feels that since the elections of the society have already conducted by the Assistant Registrar in pursuance to the direction of this Court after finalizing the electoral college, all such issues, including the issue as to whether the electoral college has rightly been determined under the order dated 3.12.2005 or not can be more appropriately examined in proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act. 22. This Court may record that right to participate as a member of general body of a society is basically an issue of fact, which requires consideration of material facts and documents, which may establish that the claim set up in that respect by a person is as per the bye-laws of the society. 23. Similarly, the interpretation to be placed upon the language of Section 7, including the conduct of the members of the general body who may have acted upon various facts as alleged by Sri Ashok Khare, can also be appropriately examined by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act. 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Board of Control for Cricket, India v. Netaji Cricket Club; Case No. 237-239 of 2005, 21820-21822 of 2004, 249 of 2005, decided on 10th January, 2005, in paragraph 83 and 84 has held as follows : “83. We have noticed the contentions raised by the parties herein at some length not because they were absolutely necessary for the purpose of arriving at a decision but with a view to show that the rival contentions necessitate a deeper probe and scrutiny. We have noticed the contentions raised by the parties herein at some length not because they were absolutely necessary for the purpose of arriving at a decision but with a view to show that the rival contentions necessitate a deeper probe and scrutiny. Unfortunately, for the reasons stated hereinafter, we are at this stage not in a position to do so and leave the contentions wide open to be agitated by the parties before the appropriate forums.” 1. On 11th October, 2004 we had, after hearing the Counsel for the parties observed that if a situation arises this Court would go into the validity of the election of the office bearers of the Board held in the meeting dated 29th September, 2004, but, as indicated herein before, we did so under a mistaken belief that the Board would be represented by the new office bearers and, thus, all parties would be before us. However, it now stands admitted that the office bearers either in their personal capacity or official capacity are not before us. They may have notice of the pendency of this proceeding. They may be sitting on the fence and watching the proceedings of this Court. But, unless they are made parties in these proceedings, we would not be in a position to entertain the dispute as regard validity of the meeting of 29th September, 2004 resulting in the election of the office bearers. Giving an opportunity of hearing to the elected members in a dispute of this nature is imperative and not a matter of mere procedure, formality or technicality. The election dispute, therefore, must be adjudicated upon by a proper forum.” 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of I. Nelson and another v. Kallayam Pastorate and others, Civil Appeal No. 4123 of 2006 decided on 14th September, 2006, in paragraph 19 has held as follows : “19. But, for the reasons stated herein before, in our opinion, the High Court in the pending suit could not have done so. It should have relegated the parties to take recourse to such remedies as are available in law for questioning the validity of the election before the appropriate forum(s).” 26. But, for the reasons stated herein before, in our opinion, the High Court in the pending suit could not have done so. It should have relegated the parties to take recourse to such remedies as are available in law for questioning the validity of the election before the appropriate forum(s).” 26. Under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act the Assistant Registrar can also examine the issue as to whether refusal to issue nomination papers to the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 2832 of 2006 as well as rejection of the nomination papers of petitioners of Writ Petition No. 9264 of 2006 by the Assistant Registrar was legally justified or not and further such an action would vitiates the entire selection or not. 27. In view of the aforesaid Writ Petition Nos. 2832 of 2006, 76828 of 2005 and 9264 of 2006 are disposed of with a direction that the Assistant Registrar shall transmit all relevant papers in respect of the elections, final result whereof was declared on 12.5.2006, to the Prescribed Authority by way of reference under Section 25(1) of the Act, preferably within two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. Contesting parties shall be at liberty to file their respective petitions in respect of the illegality of the elections including electoral college before the Prescribed Authority. The matter so received shall be treated to be a reference under Section 25(1) and shall be adjudicated upon by the Prescribed Authority strictly in accordance with law by means of a reasoned speaking order, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, including exchange of documents. 28. So far as the Writ Petition No. 32340 of 2006 is concerned, it may be recorded that the Assistant Registrar, in view of the interim order of this Court dated 18.1.2006 has rightly made a note that so long as the interim order of this Court dated 18.1.2006 continues, elected Executive Committee shall not take charge. In any view of the matter, since the legality of the elections held by the Assistant Registrar has already been referred to the Prescribed Authority on the serious issues raised in various writ petitions referred to above, it is appropriate to direct that the elected office bearers may not be given charge till the legality of the elections is examined by the Prescribed Authority. 29. 29. With regard to the Writ Petition No. 8813 of 2007 it is held that the Vice-Chancellor, realizing that the Executive Committee and its office bearers could not be handed over charge in view of the interim order dated 18.1.2006, has rightly withdrawn the nomination made to the Sub-Committee, constituted by the same Executive Committee. Such orders of the Vice-Chancellor cannot be said to be illegal in any manner so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition No. 8813 of 2007 is therefore dismissed. 30. Writ Petition No. 12409 of 2007 is directed against the order of the Assistant Registrar whereby he had withdrawn his earlier order putting a restrain on the operation of the bank accounts till the dispute is finally decided. 31. In the opinion of the Court, the order of the Assistant Registrar is not in conformity with the direction issued by this Court under the order dated 22.12.2004. The Court only permitted expenditure to be incurred qua the elections purposes only. Therefore once the elections are over, no further expenditure could be incurred by any of the persons, including the persons who claims to be the trustee. The order dated 22.12.2004 has to be read with the direction issued under the original order dated 13.11.2004, meaning thereby that the elected office bearers alone would become entitled to manage the property of the trust and operate the bank accounts once the elections are over. Accordingly, the order passed by the Assistant Registrar is hereby quashed and it is provided that no person shall operate the bank accounts of the society or interfere with the property of the society so long as the legality of the elections held by the Assistant Registrar is finally examined and adjudicated upon by the Prescribed Authority. 32. Since under the interim order dated 18.1.2006 the elected office bearers were restrained from taking charge of the society, there could not have been constitution of the Executive Committee of the society in the eyes of law and therefore the Executive Committee elected in the elections dated 12.5.2006 was not competent to constitute any Sub-Committee under the bye-laws of the society. Consequently, the Regional Level Committee was not justified in recognizing the Sub-Committee as lawful Committee of Management of the institution. The order passed by the Regional Level Committee dated 23.11.2005 is, therefore, hereby quashed. Consequently, the Regional Level Committee was not justified in recognizing the Sub-Committee as lawful Committee of Management of the institution. The order passed by the Regional Level Committee dated 23.11.2005 is, therefore, hereby quashed. Fresh orders shall be passed by the Regional Level Committee subsequent to the legality of the elections held by the Assistant Registrar being examined by the Prescribed Authority as directed above. Till then there shall be single operation of the accounts of the institution. 33. All the writ petitions are decided accordingly. ————