JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—Rajput Patharia Vidyalaya Sabha, Kamal Ganj, Farrukhabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Society’) through its Secretary Kulap Singh and Ashok Kumar, claiming himself to be a member of the General Body of the Society, have filed this petition for setting aside the order dated 10th September, 2007 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Kanpur Region, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Deputy Registrar’). 2. The Society is registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The dispute in the present petition is with regard to the registration of the list of office bearers of the Executive Committee of the Society for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08. It is stated that an application dated 16th April, 2007 was submitted by respondent No. 3-Ashwani Kumar Singh before the Deputy Registrar for registration of the list of the office bearers of the Executive Committee of the Society for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 on the basis of the election held on 6th August, 2006. On receipt of the said papers, the Deputy Registrar issued notices to Kulap Singh, Raja Ram Varma and Ramesh Dayal on 7th May, 2007 to file objections against the said list and as no objections were submitted, the Deputy Registrar registered the list of office bearers submitted by Ashwani Kumar Singh on 4th June, 2007. The case of the petitioners is that they had not received the notice dated 7th May, 2007 sent by the Deputy Registrar and in fact they had submitted a list of office bearers of the Executive Committee of the Society for the year 2007-08 along with the application dated 26th June, 2007 and it is only when the Deputy Registrar informed the petitioners on 29th June, 2007 that the list of office bearers for the year 2007-08 had already been registered at the instance of Ashwani Kumar Singh that the petitioners came to know that Ashwani Kumar Singh had earlier submitted a list to the Deputy Registrar. The petitioners, therefore, filed objections before the Deputy Registrar on 17th July, 2007 but the Deputy Registrar by means of the order dated 10th September, 2007 rejected the objections filed by the petitioners and upheld the election set up by Ashwani Kumar Singh for the reason that the petitioners had not filed any objection against the election set up by respondent No. 3-Ashwani Kumar Singh despite service of the notice dated 7th May, 2007 inviting objections. It is this order dated 10th September, 2007 that has been impugned in the present petition. 3. Earlier, a learned Judge of this Court had dismissed the writ petition on 8th July, 2008 holding that it had become infructuous by lapse of time. This order was assailed by the petitioners in Special Appeal No. 915 of 2008 which has been allowed by judgment and order dated 7th August, 2008 and the writ petition has been restored. The observations are as follows:- “The writ petition as filed by the petitioners-appellants could not be said to have become infructuous. The learned Single Judge for the purpose of examining as to whether the elections pleaded by the rival claimants of the year 2007 had been held by a person competent to hold the said elections or not had to examine the legality of the election dated 6/8/2006. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 8/7/2008 in so far as it hold that the dispute in the writ petition as having become infructuous is legally not correct. So far as the delay in filing the writ petition is concerned, we may record that according to the writ petitioners, they were not served with the notice dated 7/5/2007, therefore, there was no occasion for the appellants-petitioners to file any objections or to challenge the order passed behind their back on the papers submitted by Shri Ashwil Kumar. The averments so made are disputed by Shri B.D. Mandhyan. However, we are not entering into the correctness of the aforesaid allegations at this stage of the proceedings and we leave it open to the learned Single Judge to determine the aforesaid issue also while deciding the writ petition afresh. However, in the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the writ petition suffers from laches so as to be dismissed on the said ground. However, in the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the writ petition suffers from laches so as to be dismissed on the said ground. In view of the above, the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 8/7/2008 is hereby set aside. The writ petition along with the interim application is restored to its original number. Office is directed to list the same before the appropriate Bench in the next cause list. Special appeal is allowed.” 4. This is how the matter has now come up before this Court. 5. Sri P.S. Baghel learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners assisted by Sri Ram Gopal Tripathi submitted that the order dated 10th September, 2007 passed by the Deputy Registrar deserves to be set aside as the notice dated 7th May, 2007 requiring the petitioners to file objections was not served upon the petitioners and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the averments made in paragraph-12 of the writ petition. He has further placed reliance upon the report dated 28th September, 2007 submitted by the Superintendent of Post Office, Farrukhabad that the registered letters had not been received in the post office at Kamal Ganj office for delivery. 6. Sri Mandhyan learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, however, placed reliance upon the averments made in paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit in which the letter dated 16th November, 2007 sent by Rajaram Verma making reference to the notice dated 7th May, 2007 has been made. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 8. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 4 of the Act as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh are as follows : “Section 4. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 8. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 4 of the Act as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh are as follows : “Section 4. Annual list of managing body to be filed.—(1) Once in every year, on or before the fourteenth day succeeding the day on which, according to the rules of the Society, the annual general meeting of the society is held, or, if the rules do not provide for an annual general meeting, in the month of January, a list shall be filed with the Registrar, of the names, addresses and occupations of the governors, council, directors, committee, or other governing body then entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society : Provided that if the managing body is elected after the last submission of the list, the counter signature of the old members, shall, as far as possible, be obtained on the list. If the old office-bearers do not counter-sign the list, the Registrar may, in his discretion, issue a public notice or notice to such persons as he thinks fit inviting objections within a specified period and shall decide all objections received within the said period. (2) Together with list mentioned in sub-section (1) there shall be sent to the Registrar a copy of the memorandum of association including any alteration, extension or abridgement of purposes made under section 12, and of the rules of the society corrected up to date and certified by not less than three of the members of the said governing body to be a correct copy and also a copy of the balance-sheet for the proceeding year of account. “ 9. The provison to Section 4(1) of the Act clearly stipulates that if the old office bearers do not countersign the list, the Registrar has to issue public notice inviting objections within the specified period and he has to decide all the objections. 10. In the present case, the list of office bearers of the Society sent by respondent No. 3 Ashwani Kumar Singh for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 have not been counter signed by the old office bearers. It was, therefore, necessary for the Deputy Registrar to issue notice to the old office bearers. 10. In the present case, the list of office bearers of the Society sent by respondent No. 3 Ashwani Kumar Singh for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 have not been counter signed by the old office bearers. It was, therefore, necessary for the Deputy Registrar to issue notice to the old office bearers. It is this notice dated 7th May, 2007 that was sent by the Deputy Registrar to Kulap Singh, Raja Ram Verma and Ramesh Dayal. The dispute in the present petition is as to whether this notice dated 7th May, 2007 which had been sent by Registered Post was actually served upon them. A specific averment has been made in paragraph 12 of the writ petition that this notice was not served and the report submitted by the Superintendent of Post Office, Farrukhabad mentions that the registered letter has not even been received in the post office for delivery upon the addressees. There is nothing on the record to indicate that this notice was actually served upon them before the order was passed by the Deputy Registrar on 4th June, 2007. 11. Sri Mandhyan learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed reliance upon the letter dated 16th November, 2007 sent by Raja Ram Verma in which he has acknowledged the receipt of the notice dated 7th May, 2007. The said letter merely states that the notice dated 7th May, 2007 had been received by him but it does not states that as to when the notice had been served. This letter, therefore, does not conclusively establish that the notice dated 7th May, 2007 had been received prior to the registration of the list of office bearers by the Deputy Registrar on 4th June, 2007. 12. In view of the aforesaid, it is difficult to hold that the notice dated 7th May, 2008 had actually been served. The petitioners, therefore, have been deprived of their valuable right to file their objections to the list of office bearers submitted by respondent No. 3 Ashwani Kumar Singh before the Deputy Registrar. 12. In view of the aforesaid, it is difficult to hold that the notice dated 7th May, 2008 had actually been served. The petitioners, therefore, have been deprived of their valuable right to file their objections to the list of office bearers submitted by respondent No. 3 Ashwani Kumar Singh before the Deputy Registrar. When the petitioners acquired knowledge of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar earlier on 4th June, 2007 registering the list of office bearers of the Executive Committee of the Society submitted by respondent No. 3-Ashwani Kumar Singh they filed objections but these objections have been rejected on the ground that the petitioners had not filed any objections to the notice dated 7th May, 2007. As it has been found that the said notice dated 7th May, 2007 had not been served, the order dated 10th September, 2007 passed by the Deputy Registrar cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, set aside. 13. The Deputy Registrar shall now consider the objections filed by the petitioners to the list of office bearers of the Executive Committee of the Society submitted by respondent No. 3 Ashwani Kumar Singh and pass an appropriate order expeditiously, after hearing the parties concerned, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Deputy Registrar. 14. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above. 15. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of objections filed by the petitioners, which shall be considered by the Deputy Registrar in accordance with law. ————