JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pradeep Kant, J.—These are three special appeals which arise out of three writ petitions decided by a common order dated 22.8.08. 2. Writ Petition No. 1446 (MS) of 2003 was filed by Committee of Management and Dinesh Singh, claiming himself to be Manager of the institution challenging the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Societies, Firms and Chits, Faizabad dated 19.4.03; writ petition No. 2736 (MS) of 2002 was filed by Jokhan Lal Singh, the present appellant, challenging the order dated 7.8.2002 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Sultanpur, by means of which he recalled the order dated 3.3.2002, by means of which the District Inspector of Schools had verified the signatures of Jokhan Lal Singh as Manager; and writ petition No. 533 (MS) of 2003 was also filed by Jokhan Lal Singh challenging the order dated 6.2.03 saying that at present there is no Manager in the institution and the Manager would be recognised only after the decision of the Registrar. In writ petition No. 2736 (MS) of 2002 filed by Jokhan Lal Singh, an interim order of stay was passed staying the order of recall dated 3.3.2002 by means of which verification of signatures of Jokhan Lal Singh done by the District Inspector of Schools was recalled. 3. So far the writ petition No. 533 (MS) of 2003 is concerned, the order dated 6.2.2003 under challenge in that writ petition was kept in abeyance by the Court vide order dated 18.2.2003 but later on Smt. Girja Singh, the then District Inspector of Schools was transferred and her successor complied with the order of this Court and allowed Jokhan Lal Singh to function as Manager of the institution. The writ petition filed by Jokhan Lal Singh against the order cancelling his verification of signatures and also putting the office of Manager in abeyance has been dismissed as infructuous by the learned Single Judge, in view of the fact that the writ petition filed by Dinesh Singh has been allowed and consequently he has been recognised as Manager. 4. The writ petition filed by Jokhan Lal Singh against the order cancelling his verification of signatures and also putting the office of Manager in abeyance has been dismissed as infructuous by the learned Single Judge, in view of the fact that the writ petition filed by Dinesh Singh has been allowed and consequently he has been recognised as Manager. 4. The facts relevant for the purpose are as under : A Society, namely, Jai Khaki Baba Vidyalaya was initially registered on 21.2.1981 through the then Manager Mahant Bahadur Singh but during the intermittent period, renewal of the Society could not be made and on 5.12.2006 in the general meeting of the Society, Mahant Bahadur Singh, the Manager, tendered his resignation, which was accepted. As a result of resignation of Mahant Bahadur Singh being accepted, the office of the Manager became vacant and, therefore, for looking after the work and affairs of the Society, a meeting was again held on 10.1.1997 under the Presidentship of Chandra Bhan Singh, wherein it was resolved that Dinesh Singh,, respondent No. 1 be allowed to function as Manager. Since Dinesh Singh admittedly was not a member of the general body of the Society, therefore, an objection was raised that he cannot be appointed as Manager. In these circumstances, it was decided that Dinesh Singh will deposit the membership fee and will get himself enrolled as member of the Society. 5. As per the case of the appellant, the respondent No. 1 never became a member of the general body, despite he being required to do so repeatedly in pursuance of the resolution dated 10.1.1997 but on the other hand, he submitted forged resignation letters of the members/office bearers for the years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 for getting the list of members of 2000-01 registered by the Registrar. 6. Further case is that because of the actions of the respondent No. 1 contrary to the interest of the institution and the fraudulent behaviour, he was removed from the office of the Manager, by means of a resolution dated 20.11.2001. 6. Further case is that because of the actions of the respondent No. 1 contrary to the interest of the institution and the fraudulent behaviour, he was removed from the office of the Manager, by means of a resolution dated 20.11.2001. On his removal from the office of the Manager, a general body meeting was held on 24.2.2002, in which Jokhan Lal Singh was elected as Manager of the Society, who applied for renewal of registration on 21.3.2002 before the Deputy Registrar, Faizabad and he also filed objections against the list of members approved by the Deputy Registrar in the year 2000-01 on the ground that it was a fraudulent act of respondent No. 1, which has resulted into accepting the said membership. 7. On the alleged plea of fraud being committed by the respondent No. 1 in the matter of membership, namely, submitting forged resignation letters of the members, whose membership was not in dispute at all, but for the resignation, the Deputy Registrar, Faizabad, after affording opportunity to the parties concerned, passed an order dated 19.4.2003, cancelling the membership list of 2000-01, and declared it invalid. It was this order dated 19.4.2003, which was under challenge in Writ Petition No. 1446 (MS) of 2003 filed by Dinesh Singh. 8. The case as set up by the appellant in the writ petition as well as in the special appeal has been strongly refuted by Dinesh Singh, who, in response, submitted that, in fact, Jokhan Lal Singh was never elected as Manager and that he is the Manager of the institution. He further submitted that the plea of appellant that he has conducted the elections is self contradictory as he has alleged that the term of the Committee of Management was five years according to the scheme of administration, whereas according to bye-laws of the Society, the term was three years and the elections were being held after a period of three years. He also submitted that the elections said to have been conducted by the appellant on 21.1.2007 were concocted and that at no point of time, the elections were ever held after a period of five years. In fact, Dinesh Singh has levelled the charges of fraud being committed by the appellant in the matter of elections and in moving the application for renewal and has justified his own action of getting the renewal certificate. 9. In fact, Dinesh Singh has levelled the charges of fraud being committed by the appellant in the matter of elections and in moving the application for renewal and has justified his own action of getting the renewal certificate. 9. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition after holding that any proceedings under Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act, which provides for renewal of the certificate of registration of Society has nothing to do with the resolving of any dispute or doubt in respect of the election or continuance in office as an office bearer of a Society, whereas the Deputy Registrar in the instant case, under the garb of renewal has settled the dispute of election and continuance of office bearers which for the reasons given in the judgment was not permissible. Finding that the Deputy Registrar has travelled beyond his jurisdiction, the learned Single Judge has set aside the order dated 19.4.2003.The learned Single Judge also mentioned that after expiry of the term of the registration of the Society, the renewal was applied on 6.2.2002 by Dinesh Singh and the alleged elections dated 24.2.2002 pursuant to which the appellant claims himself to be Manager, applied for renewal, clearly establishes that there was some dispute existing. The learned Single Judge was of the view that such a dispute could not have been settled by the Registrar while considering the question of renewal of the Society under Section 3-A. 10. The learned Single Judge was of the view that such a dispute could not have been settled by the Registrar while considering the question of renewal of the Society under Section 3-A. 10. In special appeals, the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been assailed mainly on the following grounds, by the appellants : (1) The respondent Dinesh Singh was having no locus standi to apply for renewal of the certificate under Section 3-A as he was never enrolled as a member of general body of the Society, he not being a member of the general body, was totally a stranger and, therefore, any action taken by him or elections said to have been conducted by him or under his supervision, were absolutely non est, though no such elections were actually held; (2) Against the order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 19.4.03, the respondent could have gone before the competent Court of law, namely, the civil Court for getting his rights declared and the writ petition for the purpose was not maintainable as Deputy Registrar has cancelled the list of members accepted by him for the year 2000-01 because of fraud committed by respondent No. 1. Since fraud vitiates all proceedings howsoever solemn they might be and, therefore, cancellation of the said registration or declaring the list as invalid was not beyond the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar but in fact, he only accepted the genuine membership of the Society; (3) Once the allegation of fraud was placed before the Deputy Registrar with material proof and it being established that the resignation letters of the members, who were admittedly the genuine members were forged, there was no option for the Deputy Registrar but to cancel his earlier order; and (4) If the learned Single Judge was of the view that there was some dispute regarding the elections or elections having not been legally held then the matter should have been referred to the Registrar under Section 25 or liberty should have been given to the aggrieved party to approach the Registrar under the said provision but by quashing the order dated 19.4.03 and allowing the writ petition in toto, the said right has been taken away with the result that the appellants are remedyless against the illegal action of respondent No. 1. 11. 11. At the outset it may be put on record that Sri S.C. Shukla, appearing for respondent No. 1, very fairly stated that so far the remedy under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act is concerned, that cannot be blocked nor it can be said that such a remedy has been blocked under the judgment of the learned Single Judge. His submission is that even though the learned Single Judge has not given any such liberty but if the law permits, the aggrieved party can still go to the Registrar for getting the elections held or for deciding the election dispute, as the case may be. 12. It was vehemently urged on behalf of the appellant and it has also been specifically pleaded that Dinesh Singh was never enrolled as a member of the general body nor he took any steps for becoming member, despite the resolution dated 10.1.1997 despite several opportunities and reminders being given to him for becoming member, therefore, all the proceedings initiated by him or the elections said to have been conducted by him are non est. Submission is that the Deputy Registrar could not have acted upon the list of members furnished by such a stranger, apart from the fact that it was fraudulent and forged list of members. It has also been urged that despite there being a clear challenge to his status as member of the general body, the respondent No. 1 in the rejoinder affidavit or in any of the affidavits even before this Court or at any point of time before the learned Single Judge, did not bring on record the proof of his membership or he being enrolled as a member of the general body. 13. The pleadings in this regard were brought to the notice of this Court, from which it is apparent that though there was specific plea on behalf of the appellants about the respondent No. 1 Dinesh Singh not being a member of the general body of the Society, but the respondent did not choose to bring anything on record to establish the said fact even before this Court, rather, it has been stated that it is not necessary for the respondent to prove his membership and answer this allegation again and again. 14. The question regarding the renewal of certificate of the Society under Section 3-A was to be considered by the Deputy Registrar. 14. The question regarding the renewal of certificate of the Society under Section 3-A was to be considered by the Deputy Registrar. If a fraud has been committed by either of the parties and in pursuance of that fraudulent action, such a party has obtained any order, may be for recognition of the list of members submitted by him, the Deputy Registrar would not loose his authority to rectify the mistake, which has occurred because of the fraudulent act of the said party. 15. Fraud vitiates all proceedings and the order obtained by fraud can neither operate as res judicata nor can be a bar for annulling the same. Fraudulent action or an order passed on fraudulent representation, cannot be allowed to stand and has to be set aside. The authority before whom fraud has been committed is fully competent to undo the fraud and consequently to undo the order or the action, which has been taken in pursuance of such a fraudulent transaction. 16. Apparently, it was not a case for deciding that which elections were properly held or who is the person, who has conducted the elections nor it can be termed as an election dispute, as renewal of the certificate can only be done when the person claiming to be the Manager, who has submitted the list of members, has a locus standi to do so. 17. If a person is not a member of general body, normally such a person would be a stranger to the Society and will have no locus standi to entermeddle with the affairs of the Society. 18. In the instant case, it could not be disputed that the respondent was inducted as Manager by virtue of a resolution of the general body said to have been passed on 10.1.1997, wherein objection was raised that he cannot be appointed as Manager, since he was not the member of the general body, upon which consensus was arrived that he should get himself enrolled as member of the general body.The membership of Dinesh Singh was thus, a question which was required to be considered by the learned Single Judge but the same has not been done. 19. In the case of A.P. Aboobaker Musaliar v. Distt. Registrar (G), Kozhikode and others, (2004) 11 SCC 247 , it has been held as under : “3. 19. In the case of A.P. Aboobaker Musaliar v. Distt. Registrar (G), Kozhikode and others, (2004) 11 SCC 247 , it has been held as under : “3. In the order passed by the District Registrar, he has indicated reasons for accepting the list of members of the governing body filed by E.K. Aboobaker stating that he was filing the lists for the earlier years and, if the appellant was claiming on the basis that he was competent to file, he has to establish the same. Learned Single Judge has taken the view that under Section 4, the District Registrar has no power to adjudicate the controversy. The Division Bench of the High Court, in the impugned judgment, has observed thus : “Thus, in the case of a dispute when more than one return is filed, the Registrar has got the power to find out as to which one he should accept. There may not be an elaborate enquiry. Prima facie he has to satisfy as to which return is to be accepted. In this case, we find that the list given by the appellant was accepted, because it had the support of Court orders and also it was being followed for a large number of years. No doubt, such an enquiry made by the Registrar and the decision taken from it does not become final. The party can take up the matter before a competent Court as to who are the members of the governing body.” It is clear from what is stated above by the Division Bench that the enquiry made by the Registrar and the decision taken did not become final and the party could take up the matter before a competent Court as to who were the members of the governing body. When there were two lists, the District Registrar, prima facie, on being satisfied, accepted the list filed by E.K. Aboobaker as he was filing the lists for the previous years also. The District Registrar has only taken into consideration the limited question of accepting the list of members of the governing body. The Division Bench of the High Court was right in taking the view that the list accepted by the District Registrar did not become final; if the appellant was aggrieved, it was open to him to establish his claim in a competent court/forum. The Division Bench of the High Court was right in taking the view that the list accepted by the District Registrar did not become final; if the appellant was aggrieved, it was open to him to establish his claim in a competent court/forum. To us, it appears even the District Registrar did not adjudicate any dispute as such. It was only a question of accepting, prima facie, the list of members of the governing body. If the appellant’s claim was right and justified, merely because the District Registrar accepted the list of the governing body of members given by E.R. Aboobaker, it did not prevent him from establishing his claim in a competent Court. Be that as it may, the controversy relates to accepting the list of the governing body members for the year 1990-91, thereafter, every year such list must have been submitted to the Registrar as required under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. To us, it appears that the controversy raised in this appeal has become academic as of today. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal.” 20. A perusal of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge reveals that, in fact, he has not entered into the controversy raised in the writ petition at all and has simply after stating the legal position with respect to the provision of Section 3-A of Societies Registration Act and assuming that there was an election dispute or a dispute relating to continuance of office bearer of the Committee of Management, which could not be adjudicated upon under Section 3-A, has set aside the order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 19.4.2003. The issue in question, namely, whether the registration certificate could have been renewed on the instance of respondent No. 1 and for that matter the ancillary questions as to whether elections said to have been conducted were valid elections or that Dinesh Singh was ever enrolled as a member of the general body or not and in the alternative even in the absence of being a member of general body, could he be taken to be validly elected Manager so as to apply for registration and also the question as to whether the appellant was competent to move the application for registration of the Society, were all such questions, which required consideration by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge also did not address himself on the question that the Deputy Registrar has cancelled the order/declared the list furnished by respondent, invalid on the plea of fraud raised by the appellant. This finding also requires consideration by the learned Single Judge as in the absence of any address on these issues, the controversy remained untouched though the writ petition has been allowed. 21. The legal position with respect to authority of the Registrar/Deputy Registrar while exercising power under Section 3-A does not require any further examination in view of the legal position enunciated above. Since the learned Single Judge has not addressed the issues involved at all, the order passed by him cannot be sustained. The matter requires to be reconsidered by the learned Single Judge. 22. We, therefore, set aside the orders dated 22.8.08 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions No. 1446 (MS) of 2003, 2736 (MS) of 2002 and Writ Petition No. 533 (MS) of 2003 and remit the matter to the learned Single Judge having jurisdiction to decide the petitions afresh. 23. Before parting, we may clarify that we have not addressed ourselves on the claim of either parties and any observation made in this regard would be treated only for the purpose of consideration of special appeals and the learned Single Judge would decide the controversy as per his discretion, as per law. 24. Looking to the controversy involved and in the interest of the institution so that functioning of the Society as well as running of the institution may not be hampered because of the individual self-interest of rival contesting parties, we direct that till the disposal of the writ petitions, the affairs of the Committee of Management of the institution shall be managed and looked after by the District Inspector of Schools or by an officer, nominated by him, not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate. The District Inspector of Schools or his nominee shall not incur any financial liability or any encumbrances upon the institution nor shall make any regular appointment but shall look after the work on day-to-day basis. 25. We, therefore, further direct that the writ petitions in which affidavits have already been exchanged, be listed for hearing before the learned Single Judge in the month of December, 2008, with request to the learned Single Judge to decide the petitions expeditiously. 25. We, therefore, further direct that the writ petitions in which affidavits have already been exchanged, be listed for hearing before the learned Single Judge in the month of December, 2008, with request to the learned Single Judge to decide the petitions expeditiously. Registry is directed to keep the matters on board by repeating it on regular intervals till they are finally disposed of. 26. The special appeals are allowed with no order as to costs. ————