JUDGMENT Honble Vineet Saran, J.—This is a petition filed by the Secretary of the society challenging the orders passed by the respondent No. 3, the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chit Funds, Agra whereby he is proceeding to constitute the Committee of Management of the Society as per the terms of the bye-laws of the Society. 2. I have heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner at length as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Shailendra along with Sri Sudhindra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 4 and have perused the record. 3. The brief background of this case is that Shree Anar Devi Khandelwal Mahila Polytechnic Shiksha Samiti is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Admittedly, there has been no proper Committee of Management of the institution run by the Society since the year 1992. The bye-laws provide that the Principal of Shree Anar Devi Khandelwal Mahila Polytechnic, Mathura shall be the Secretary of the Society. The Secretary, alongwith its nominated working President are managing the affairs of the Society since 1992. Under the provisions of U.P. Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962 [Section 22-B (5)], the District Magistrate is said to have been appointed as an Authorized Controller. On resolutions passed by the working President and the Secretary of the Society, applications have been filed for renewal of the Society from time to time. The last renewal of the Society was granted on 13.7.2001, which was for a period of five years, that is upto 12.7.2006. Then, a meeting was convened on 11th June, 2006 by the Secretary/Principal, which was attended only by the nominated working President and the Secretary (who has filed this writ petition) in which it is said to have been resolved that the requisite fee for renewal of the Society be deposited and the Society be got renewed for a further period of five years. On such application having been filed by the petitioner, the Deputy Registrar, respondent No. 3, passed the impugned order dated 22.4.2009 holding that since there has no election of the office-bearers of the Society since 1992 and the signatures of the Members nominated by the Managing Committee of the institution have not been duly attested and the Committee has not been constituted in terms of the bye-laws of the Society, hence under the power conferred by Section 25 (2) of the Act, the Deputy Registrar has taken steps for constituting the Committee of Management. Then, by order dated 14.5.2009, which has also been impugned in this writ petition, the Deputy Registrar has written to the concerned Officers to nominate the Members, as has been required under the bye-laws of the society. By an amendment application filed by the petitioner, another order dated 12.6.2009 passed by the Deputy Registrar has been challenged in which it is stated that five members have been nominated by the parent Society and other officers have been requested to nominate the respective members so that as per the bye-laws, a panel for appointment of President of the Society be sent to the State Government for making appointment of one of them as President. It is these three orders dated 22.4.2009, 14.5.2009 and 12.6.2009, which are under challenge in this writ petition. 4. The main thrust of the argument of Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Registrar could not have passed such orders under Section 25(2) of the Act. It is submitted by Sri Goyal that the Deputy Registrar could have proceeded under Section 25(2) only when an election was required to be conducted for the constitution of the Committee of Management and since in the present case no election is provided in the bye-laws of the Society and it is only nomination, hence the Deputy Registrar has erred in law in proceeding under Section 25(2) of the Act for the constitution of the Managing Committee of the Society. 5. For consideration of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the provisions for constitution of the Committee of Management, as provided under the bye-laws of the Society, may be first noticed. 5. For consideration of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the provisions for constitution of the Committee of Management, as provided under the bye-laws of the Society, may be first noticed. The said bye-laws provide that the Society shall have the following members : 1- v/;{k 2- funskd Ákfof/kd fk{kk m0Á0 dk Áfrfuf/k lnL; 3- lfpo Ákfof/kd fk{kk ifj"kn m0Á0 vFkok mudk Áfrfuf/k tks mi lfpo ls de u gks lnL; 4- lgk;d fk{kk lykgdkj ¼VsDuhdy½ Hkkjr ljdkj fk{kk ,ao lkaLÑfrd ea=ky;] mRrj {ks=h; dk;kZy; dkuiqj vFkok mudk Áfrfuf/k lnL; 5- vky bf.M;k dkamfUly QkWj VsDuhdy ,stwdsku Hkkjr ljdkj fk{kk ,oa lkaLÑfrd ea=ky; ds nks ukfer lnL; 6- eq[; vfHk;Urk lkoZtfud fuekZ.k foHkkx dk Áfrfuf/k tks vf/kkklh vfHk;Urk ls de u gks lnL; 7- jkT; ljdkj }kjk ukfer ,d lnL; 8- Jh pesyh nsoh [k.Msyoky dU;k fo|ky; eFkqjk dh ÁcU/k lfefr }kjk ukfer ik¡p lnL; lnL; 9- Á/kkukpk;Z] Jh vukjnsoh [k.Msyoky efgyk ikyhVsfDud eFkqjk lnL; 6. In response to the order/communication of the Deputy Registrar dated 22.4.2009, the Managing Committee of Chameli Devi Khandelwal Kanya Vidyalaya, Mathura has nominated its five members. The nomination of the remaining members by other officers of the State Government/Council has not been made. The bye-laws provide that the office-bearers would be the President and the Secretary. For selection of the President, a panel of three Members has to be sent by the Committee to the State Government and, in turn, the State Government has to nominate one of them as President for a period of three years. The Secretary of the Society is to be the Principal of Shree Anar Devi Khandelwal Mahila Polytechnic, Mathura. Since the nomination of five members by the Society has been sent, but nominations by the Government officials/Council had not been made, the Deputy Registrar wrote to all the officers that the meeting was being convened on 27.6.2009 for preparing a panel for appointment of the President of the Society and thus a request was made to the officials to nominate the Members so that they could attend the meeting on 27.6.2009. 7. In fact, from the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, it is absolutely clear that the Deputy Registrar is making every endeavour to constitute the Committee of Management in terms of the bye-laws of the Society. 7. In fact, from the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, it is absolutely clear that the Deputy Registrar is making every endeavour to constitute the Committee of Management in terms of the bye-laws of the Society. He has not at any stage passed any order, which is against the provisions of the bye-laws. No such act of the Deputy Registrar has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. All that has been stated is that the Deputy Registrar ought to have proceeded under Section 3 (A) and (B) of the Act and not under Section 25 (2) of the Act. 8. Section 25 (2) of the Act reads as under : “(2) Where by an order made under sub-section (1), an election is set aside or an office-bearer is held no longer entitled to continue in office or where the Registrar is satisfied that any election of office-bearers of a society has not been held within the time specified in the rules of that society, he may call meeting of the general body of such society for electing such office-bearer or office-bearers, and such meeting shall be presided over and be conducted by the Registrar or by any officer authorized by him in this behalf, and the provisions in the rules of the society relating to meetings and elections, shall apply to such meeting and election with necessary modifications.” (emphasis supplied) 9. It is true that the said Section provides for the Registrar to intervene only when he satisfies that the election of office-bearers of the Society has not been made within the time specified in the Rules of the society. It is also true that in the Rules (bye-laws of the society) there is no provision of election for constitution of the Committee of Management, as there are only nominated members, who constitute the Committee of Management. From the reading of the said Section, it is absolutely clear that the duty is cast on the Registrar to ensure that the Committee of Management is constituted as per the Rules or bye-laws of the society. Merely because the term used in the said Section is ‘election’, it would not mean that the Registrar would become helpless in a case where there is provision for nomination of Members for constitution of the Committee of Management. Merely because the term used in the said Section is ‘election’, it would not mean that the Registrar would become helpless in a case where there is provision for nomination of Members for constitution of the Committee of Management. The intention of the Act is to see that the Registrar ensures that the Committee is constituted as per the bye-laws of the society. Though the word used in the Section is ‘election’ but it is clear that the duty of the Registrar is to have the Committee constituted. Here the members are chosen by nomination, and not election. If merely on such technicality, the Registrar is not to proceed in the matter (as is canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner), then the Principal of the institution (as Secretary) and the working President will continue to manage the affairs of the Society for all times to come (as is being done for past 17 years) and will never have the Committee constituted. In fact, in the present case, the Secretary, who has filed this petition, is creating hurdles in the proper constitution of the Committee as per the bye-laws, as he is continuing to hold power. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the petitioner, as Secretary, has made any efforts, whatsoever, in the past 17 years to ensure that the Committee is constituted as per the bye-laws. When the Registrar is now taking steps in furtherance of such object (i.e. constitution of the Committee) this Court would not interfere with the actions taken by the Deputy Registrar. 10. In the present case, it is not disputed that all the actions taken by the Deputy Registrar are in furtherance of the object of constituting the Committee of Management of the society in terms of the bye-laws of the society. In fact, in the opinion of this Court, the Deputy Registrar has very methodically proceeded to constitute the Committee of Management, as he has first written to all the concerned parties including the State Government and Council officials for sending the names of the nominees and when the names had not been sent by some of the officials, a reminder had been sent intimating them that in terms of the bye-laws, the panel for appointment of President was to be sent for which nominees be sent on the particular date fixed. This was done so because the bye-laws provide that the President of the Committee is to be chosen by the State Government from the panel sent by the Committee of the nominated Members. All that the Deputy Registrar has done is to call the meeting for selecting the panel, which was to be sent to the State Government for choosing the President from amongst the panel Members. 11. In a case like this where the Secretary of the society, who has filed this writ petition, has been continuing to function as Committee of Management along with the nominated working President for the last more than 17 years, in my view, the effort taken by the Deputy Registrar for constituting a proper Committee of Management of the society should in fact be appreciated, rather than be interfered with. 12. In support of the submission that the Deputy Registrar could not have proceeded under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Allahabad v. Registrar, Societies, Chits and Firms, U.P., Lucknow, (1998) 1 UPLBEC 399. Perusal of the said judgment shows that the case related to Section 3-A of the Act and the provisions of Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act has neither been considered nor was an issue in the said case. 13. In the present case, the question that whether the Deputy Registrar could proceed under Section 25(2) of the Act has already been considered above and this Court is of the view that in the facts of this case, steps taken by the Deputy Registrar and the orders passed by him are perfectly justified, as they were with the intention to constitute the Committee of Management in terms of the bye-laws of the Society, which is the very purpose of Section 25(2) of the Act. This Court would not be inclined to interfere with the orders of the Deputy Registrar merely on technicalities, as this Court is of the view that the election of the Members would include choosing of such members by nominations, which the Deputy Registrar has been trying to do in the proper manner as provided in the bye-laws of the Society. 14. 14. Accordingly, for the reasons given hereinabove, no interference is called for with the orders impugned in this writ petition. 15. This writ petition is thus dismissed. No order as to costs. ————