COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, ANJUMAN MADARSA ZEENATUL ISLAM, AMRODHA, TEHSIL BHOGANIPUR, DISTRICT KANPUR DEHAT THROUGH ITS MANAGER/SECRETARY, IQBAL AHMAD NOORI SON OF MUNNA v. STATE OF U. P.
2010-04-27
S.P.MEHROTRA
body2010
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.—The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 13.12.2005 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur (respondent No. 2) whereby the papers submitted by the petitioners regarding the elections allegedly held on 28.11.2004 were disapproved and the papers submitted by the respondent No. 4 regarding the elections allegedly held on 31.7.2004 were approved, and further, for directing the respondents to approve the papers submitted by the petitioners in regard to the election dated 28.11.2004 and to recognize the same. 2. It is, inter alia, averred in the writ petition that in District-Kanpur Dehat, there is a registered society under the name of Anjuman Madarsa Zeenatul Islam (hereinafter also referred to as “the society in question”), which is governed by the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860; and that the said society runs and manages the institution Anjuman Madarsa Zeenatul Islam, Amrodha, Kanpur Dehat; and that the said society has its registered bye-laws in accordance therewith the management of the society is governed. Copy of the bye-laws of the society in question has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 3. A perusal of the said bye-laws shows that the term of the Committee of Management is specified for a period of three years, which may be extended or reduced for a period of six months in special circumstances by the President of the society in question; and that the election of the Committee of Management shall be conducted by the General Body of the society in question, and the maximum number of the office bearers will be ten; and that the President has been given power in special circumstances to convene the meeting of the General Body and the Committee of Management and to adjourn such meeting. Averments in this regard have been made in paragraphs 6,7 and 8 of the writ petition. 4. It is, inter alia, further averred in the writ petition that the elections of the Committee of Management of the society in question took place on 1.6.2001; and that in the said election, the Committee of Management with Mohd. Bachchan (petitioner No. 3) as the President, Mohd. Ibrahim (respondent No. 4) as the Manager and Mohd.
4. It is, inter alia, further averred in the writ petition that the elections of the Committee of Management of the society in question took place on 1.6.2001; and that in the said election, the Committee of Management with Mohd. Bachchan (petitioner No. 3) as the President, Mohd. Ibrahim (respondent No. 4) as the Manager and Mohd. Rizwan as the Treasurer were elected; and that the papers regarding the said election were submitted before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur (respondent No. 2) and based thereon the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) registered the list of office-bearers for the year 2001-02. Copy of the list of office-bearers registered by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits (respondent No. 2) has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 5. It is, inter alia, further averred in the writ petition that Mohd. Bachchan (petitioner No. 3) issued an Agenda Notice on 22.11.2004 for calling a meeting of the General Body for getting the election held on 28.11.2004; and that the Agenda Notice was circulated amongst the 19 Members of the General Body out of 25 members. Copy of the said Agenda Notice dated 22.11.2004 has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 6. The petitioners have, inter alia, further averred in the writ petition that pursuant to the said Agenda Notice circulated amongst the members, the meeting of the General Body was convened on 28.11.2004; and that in the said meeting, the election of Committee of Management of the society in question took place wherein Mohd. Bachchan was elected for the post of President and Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad Noori was elected for the post of Manager/ Secretary; and that in the said election, 19 members of the General Body out of 25 members participated. Copy of the proceedings dated 28.11.2004 has been filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. 7. It is, inter alia, further averred in the writ petition that the papers regarding the aforesaid election held on 28.11.2004 were submitted before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits (respondent No. 2) for being registered. 8. It is, inter alia, further averred in the writ petition that the respondent No. 4 (Mohd. Ibrahim) submitted some forged elections dated 31.7.2004 alleging Mohd. Achchan as the President and himself (Mohd. Ibrahim) as the Manager. 9.
8. It is, inter alia, further averred in the writ petition that the respondent No. 4 (Mohd. Ibrahim) submitted some forged elections dated 31.7.2004 alleging Mohd. Achchan as the President and himself (Mohd. Ibrahim) as the Manager. 9. It is, inter alia, further averred in the writ petition that on the basis of the papers submitted before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits (respondent No. 2), a notice was issued by the Deputy Registrar on 9.12.2004 to both the parties; and that after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 4 (Mohd. Ibrahim), the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) passed an order dated 20.8.2005 directing for registration of list of office-bearers of the election dated 28.11.2004. Copy of the said order dated 20.8.2005 has been filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. 10. It is, inter alia, further averred in the writ petition that against the said order dated 20.8.2005, the respondent No. 4 (Mohd. Ibrahim) filed writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59299 of 2005 before this Court; and that the said writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 7.9.2005 whereby the said writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits (respondent No. 2) for rehearing the same and taking appropriate decision in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to Mohd. Ibrahim as well as Iqbal Noori. Copy of the said order dated 7.9.2005 passed by this Court has been filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. 11. Relevant portion of the said order dated 7.9.2005 is reproduced below : “.............After respective arguments have been heard, factual position which is emerging is to the effect that on 6.1.2005 and 17.1.2005, hearing in the matter was done by Mohd. Jama, the then Deputy Registrar, but before he could pass order, he was transferred and relieved, and new incumbent Sri K.P. Jaiswal was posted in his place, and before him two set of persons came up praying for renewal basing their claims on different date of elections in this fact and background, it was wholly inappropriate on the part of new Deputy Registrar to have passed order without providing opportunity of hearing, as such order dated 20.8.2005 has been passed in utter contravention of the principles of natural justice without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is allowed the impugned order dated 20.8.2005 is hereby quashed. The Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Kanpur Region, Kanpur, is directed to re-hear the matter and take appropriate decision in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to Mohd. Ibrahim as well as Iqbal Noori, within a record of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this Court.” 12. Pursuant to the said order dated 7.9.2005 passed by this Court, the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) passed the order dated 13.12.2005 whereby the papers submitted by the petitioners in regard to the elections allegedly held on 28.11.2004 were disapproved while the papers submitted by the respondent No. 4 in regard to the elections allegedly held on 31.7.2004 were approved. Copy of the said order dated 13.12.2005 has been filed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition. 13. The petitioners have, thereafter, filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs, as mentioned above. 14. Counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, sworn on 12.4.2006, has been filed. The petitioners have filed their rejoinder affidavit, sworn on 11.3.2007 in reply to the said counter-affidavit. 15. Another counter-affidavit, sworn on 13.12.2007, was filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. However, subsequently, an affidavit, sworn on 15.3.2009 by the said Mohd. Ibrahim, has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, inter alia, stating that the said respondents want to withdraw the said counter-affidavit filed on their behalf. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the said affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, are reproduced below : “2. That in the aforesaid writ petition a counter-affidavit has been filed by the deponent namely Mohd. Ibrahim on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 3. That the deponent now does not want to contest the aforesaid writ petition. He wants to withdraw the aforesaid counter-affidavit. 4. That in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is therefore in the interest of justice that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to permit the deponent to withdraw the counter-affidavit, which was filed by him on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4; so that justice be done.” 16.
He wants to withdraw the aforesaid counter-affidavit. 4. That in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is therefore in the interest of justice that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to permit the deponent to withdraw the counter-affidavit, which was filed by him on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4; so that justice be done.” 16. I have heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri G.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, and perused the record. 17. Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel has made the following submissions : 1. The dispute before the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) was between two factions of Management, and the Deputy Registrar could not decide such dispute as such dispute ought to have been referred by the Deputy Registrar to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is submitted that in the present case, there was a bona fide dispute between the two factions of the Management, and the Deputy Registrar in the impugned order has considered the said dispute and upheld the claim of one faction (i.e. respondent No. 4) as against the other (i.e. the petitioners). The Deputy Registrar has no such jurisdiction, and the only course open to him was to have referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Reliance in this regard is placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in All India Council and another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and another, AIR 1988 Allahabad 236. 2. From a perusal of the order dated 20.8.2005 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) shows that the original record was produced before the respondent No. 2. After the said order dated 20.8.2005 was quashed by this Court by its order dated 7.9.2005 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59299 of 2005, the petitioners again produced the original record before the respondent No. 2 on 5.12.2005 alongwith the Written Submissions and the affidavits of 19 members of the General Body.
After the said order dated 20.8.2005 was quashed by this Court by its order dated 7.9.2005 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59299 of 2005, the petitioners again produced the original record before the respondent No. 2 on 5.12.2005 alongwith the Written Submissions and the affidavits of 19 members of the General Body. The original record was not accepted by the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) on the ground that the same had already been placed on the record and the copy of the same was available. Reference in this regard is made to the averments made in paragraphs 25 and 29 of the writ petition. In the circumstances, the recital in the impugned order dated 13.12.2005 passed by the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) regarding non-production of the original record was not correct. 3. The impugned order dated 13.12.2005 has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The said submission has been elaborated as under : (A) The Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) in the impugned order has placed reliance on the written submissions and the documents produced by the respondent No. 4 but no copies of the said documents or the written submissions submitted by the respondent No. 4 were supplied to the petitioners, and the petitioners were not aware of the contents thereof. Reference in this regard is made to the averments made in paragraph 26 of the writ petition. (B) The impugned order dated 13.12.2005 has placed reliance on an enquiry conducted by the Tehsildar and the Deputy District Magistrate, Bhognipur, District-Kanpur Dehat, and the Enquiry Report submitted as a result of the said enquiry. However, no intimation was given to the petitioners in regard to the said enquiry conducted by the said officers, and the entire proceedings were totally ex-parte. Even copy of the said Enquiry Report was not supplied to the petitioners at any point of time. Reference in this regard is made to the averments made in paragraph 30 of the writ petition. 18. In reply, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits as under : 1.
Even copy of the said Enquiry Report was not supplied to the petitioners at any point of time. Reference in this regard is made to the averments made in paragraph 30 of the writ petition. 18. In reply, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits as under : 1. Having regard to the nature of the dispute raised before the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2), the dispute was rightly decided by the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2), and there was no occasion for referring the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 2. Recital in the impugned order dated 13.12.2005 regarding non-production of the original record is correct. No original record was produced on behalf of the petitioners on 5.12.2005 despite having been given time for the purpose on the earlier dates fixed in the matter. Reference in this regard is made to the averments made in paragraphs 7 and 16 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 3. There has not been any violation of the principles of natural justice in the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) wherein the impugned order dated 13.12.2005 has been passed. The documents produced by the rival parties are permitted to be inspected by each other but no copies of the documents are required to be furnished by one party to the other. Reference in this regard is made to the averments made in paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 19. As regards the Enquiry Report submitted on the basis of enquiry conducted by the Tehsildar and the Deputy District Magistrate, Bhognipur, District-Kanpur Dehat, the same has rightly been relied upon by the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) in the impugned order dated 13.12.2005. 20. In rejoinder, Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel has reiterated the submissions made earlier. 21. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 22. Taking up the FIRST SUBMISSION made by Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, it is pertinent to refer to the relevant provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 23.
21. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 22. Taking up the FIRST SUBMISSION made by Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, it is pertinent to refer to the relevant provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 23. Section 1 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 provides that any seven or more persons associated for any literary, scientific, or charitable purpose, or for any such purpose as is described in Section 20 of the said Act, may, by subscribing their names to a memorandum of association, and filing the same with the Registrar form themselves into a society under the said Act. 24. Section 2 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 deals with the memorandum of association and provides as under : “2. Memorandum of association.—The memorandum of association shall contain the following things, that is to say,— the name of the society; the objects of the society; the names, addresses, and occupations of the governors, council, directors, committee, or other governing body to whom, by the rules of the society, the management of its affairs is entrusted. A copy of the rules and regulations of the society, certified to be a correct copy by not less than three of the members of the governing body, shall be filed with the memorandum of association.” 25. Thus, Section 2, inter alia, requires that copy of the Rules and Regulations of the Society, certified to be a correct copy by not less than three of the members of the governing body, shall be filed with the memorandum of association. 26. Sub-section(1) of Section 3 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh, inter alia, provides that upon the memorandum of association and certified copy of the Rules and Regulations of the Society being filed alongwith particulars of the address of the Society’s office, which shall be its registered address, by the Secretary of the Society on behalf of the persons subscribing to the memorandum, the Registrar shall certify under his hand that the society is registered under the said Act. Relevant portion of Section 3 of the said Act, as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh, is quoted as under : “3.
Relevant portion of Section 3 of the said Act, as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh, is quoted as under : “3. Registration and fees.—(1) Upon such memorandum and certified copy being filed alongwith particulars of the address of the Society’s office which shall be its registered address, by the Secretary of the Society on behalf of the persons subscribing to the memorandum, the Registrar shall certify under his hand that the society is registered under this Act. There shall be paid to the Registrar for every such registration a fee of one thousand rupees or such smaller fee as the State Government may notify in respect of any class of societies: Provided that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, increase from time to time the fee payable under this sub-section: Provided further that the Registrar may, in his discretion, issue public notice or issue notices to such persons as he thinks fit inviting objections, if any, against the proposed registration and consider all objections that may be received by him before registering the society......” 27. Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as inserted in the State of Uttar Pradesh, deals with the renewal of certificate of registration. The said Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, in so far as is relevant, is as under : “3A.
Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as inserted in the State of Uttar Pradesh, deals with the renewal of certificate of registration. The said Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, in so far as is relevant, is as under : “3A. Renewal of certificate of registration.—(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), a certificate of registration issued under Section 3 shall remain in force for a period of two years from the date of issue: Provided that a certificate issued before the commencement of the Societies Registration (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter in this section referred to as the said Act), shall remain in force for a period of five years from the date of such commencement on payment of the difference of the fees specified under sub-section (3) and the fees already paid.] (2) A Society registered under Section 3, whether before or after the commencement of the said Act, shall on application made to the Registrar within one month of the expiration of the period referred to in sub-section (1) and on payment of the fee specified in sub-section (3), be entitled to have its certificate of registration renewed for [five years], at a time : Provided that in the case of a society registered before the commencement of the said Act, the Registrar shall refuse to renew the certificate of registration, if after giving it an opportunity of showing cause against such refusal, he is satisfied that any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 3 exist in respect thereof.
(3) There shall be paid to the Registrar with every application for renewal of the certificate of registration - (a) [a fee equal to the registration fee payable under Section 3 or rupees [one hundred], whichever is less], if such application is filed within the period specified in sub-section (2): Provided that the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, increase from time to time the fee payable under this clause subject to the condition that the fee so increased shall not exceed the registration fee payable under Section 3; (b) an additional fee of forty rupees or such higher fee not exceeding one-fifth of the fee payable under clause (a) as may be notified by the State Government, if such application is filed within one month of the date of expiration of the period specified in sub-section (2); and (c) an additional fee at the rate of twenty rupees per month or part thereof, or such higher additional fee per month not exceeding half of the additional fee payable under clause (b) as may be notified by the State Government, if such application is filed beyond one month of the expiration of the period specified in sub-section (2). (4) Every application for renewal of the certificate shall be accompanied by a list of members of the managing body elected after the registration of the society or after the renewal of certificate of registration and also the certificate sought to be renewed unless dispensed with by the registrar on the ground of its loss or destruction or other sufficient cause. (5) & (6).......................” 28. Thus, sub-section (1) of Section 3A lays down that a certificate of registration issued under Section 3 shall remain in force for a period of five years from the date of issue. 29. Sub-section (2) of Section 3A provides that on application made to the Registrar within one month of the expiration of the period referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 3A and on payment of the fee specified in sub-section (3) of Section 3A, a Society registered under Section 3 shall be entitled to have its certificate of registration renewed for five years, at a time. 30. Sub-section (4) of Section 3A provides that every application for renewal of the certificate shall be accompanied by a list of members of the managing body and also the certificate sought to be renewed. 31.
30. Sub-section (4) of Section 3A provides that every application for renewal of the certificate shall be accompanied by a list of members of the managing body and also the certificate sought to be renewed. 31. Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 deals with filing of the annual list of the managing body. The said Section 4, as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh, lays down as under: “4. Annual list of managing body to be filed.—(1) Once in every year, on or before the fourteeth 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, 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 signatures of the old members, shall, as far as possible, be contained on the list. If the old office-bearers do not countersign 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 abridgment 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 preceding year of account.” 32. Sub-section (1) of Section 4, thus, provides that once in every year, on or before the date mentioned in the said sub-section, 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. 33.
Sub-section (1) of Section 4, thus, provides that once in every year, on or before the date mentioned in the said sub-section, 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. 33. Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 lays down that if the managing body is elected after the last submission of the list, the counter signatures of the old members, shall, as far as possible, be obtained on the list. If the old office-bearers do not countersign 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. 34. Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 deals with the disputes regarding election of office bearers, and provides as under : “25. Disputes regarding election of office-bearers.—(1) The prescribed authority may, on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least one-fourth of the members of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, hear and decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such society, and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit: Provided that the election of an office-bearer shall be set aside where the prescribed authority is satisfied : (a) that any corrupt practice has been committed by such office-bearer; or (b) that the nomination of any candidate has been improperly rejected; or (c) that the result of the election in so far as it concerns such office-bearer has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or by any non-compliance with the provisions of any rules of the society.
Explanation 1.—A person shall be deemed to have committed a corrupt practice who, directly or indirectly by himself or by any other person: (i) induces, or attempts to induce, by fraud, intentional misrepresentation, coercion or threat of injury, any elector to give or to refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate, or any person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being, a candidate at the election; (ii) with a view to inducing any elector to give or to refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate, or to inducing any person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at the election offers or gives any money, or valuable consideration, or any place of employment, or holds out any promise of individual advantage or profit to any person; (iii) abets (within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code) the doing of any of the acts specified in clauses (i) and (ii); (iv) induces, or attempts to induce a candidate or elector to believe that he, or any person in whom he is interested, will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure; (v) canvasses on grounds of caste, community, sect or religion; (vi) commits such other practice as the State Government may by rule prescribe to be a corrupt practice. Explanation II.—A promise of individual advantage or profit to a person includes a promise for the benefit of the person himself, or of any one in which he is interested. Explanation III.—The State Government may prescribe the procedure for hearing any decision of doubts or disputes in respect of such elections and make provision in respect of any other matter relating to such elections for which insufficient provision exists in this Act or in the rules of the society.
Explanation III.—The State Government may prescribe the procedure for hearing any decision of doubts or disputes in respect of such elections and make provision in respect of any other matter relating to such elections for which insufficient provision exists in this Act or in the rules of the society. (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 a 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 authorised 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. (3) Where a meeting is called by the Registrar under sub-section (2), no other meeting shall be called for the purpose of election by any other authority or by any person claiming to be an office-bearer of the society. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, the expression ‘prescribed authority’ means an officer or Court authorised in this behalf by the State Government by notification published in the Official Gazette.” 35. Sub-section (1) of Section 25 thus provides that a reference may be made to the Prescribed Authority by the Registrar or by at least 1/4th of the members of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, and on such reference being made, the Prescribed Authority may hear and decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such society, and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit. 36. Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 25, inserted by the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1978, provides that the election of an office-bearer shall be set aside where the prescribed authority is satisfied as regards any of the grounds mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the said proviso. 37.
36. Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 25, inserted by the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1978, provides that the election of an office-bearer shall be set aside where the prescribed authority is satisfied as regards any of the grounds mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the said proviso. 37. Sub-section (2) of Section 25 provides that where by an order made under sub-section (1) of Section 25, 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 a meeting of the general body of such society for electing such office-bearer or office-bearers. Such meeting shall be presided over and be conducted by the Registrar or by any officer authorised by him in this behalf. The provisions in the rules of the society relating to meetings and elections shall apply to such meeting and election with necessary modifications. 38. Sub-section (3) of Section 25 lays down that where a meeting is called by the Registrar under sub-section (2) of Section 25, no other meeting shall be called for the purpose of election by any other authority or by any person claiming to be an office-bearer of the society. 39. It will be noticed from the above-quoted provisions of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 that the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4, as inserted in the State of U.P., deals with the situation where the managing body is elected after the last submission of the list of managing body as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 4. The said proviso lays that if the managing body is elected after the last submission of the list, the counter signatures of the old members, shall, as far as possible, be obtained on the list. If the old office-bearers do not countersign 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. The Registrar shall decide all objections received within the period so specified. 40.
If the old office-bearers do not countersign 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. The Registrar shall decide all objections received within the period so specified. 40. Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as noted above, provides that a reference to the Prescribed Authority by the Registrar or by at least one fourth of the members of the society registered in Uttar Pradesh in regard to “any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such society”. On such reference being made, the Prescribed Authority may hear and decide in a summary manner the said doubt or dispute, and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it thinks fit. On being satisfied as regards the situations contemplated in any of the clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 25, the Prescribed Authority is bound to set aside the election of an office-bearer. 41. The question, therefore, arises as to what is the respective scope of the provisions contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 and the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and what is the inter-relationship between the said provisions. Reference in this regard may be made to certain judicial decisions: In All India Council and another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and another, AIR 1988 All 236 , a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a writ petition directed against the order dated 23.12.1987 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms,Societies and Chits, Varanasi purporting to determine a dispute relating to the election or continuance in office of certain office bearers of the Society. The facts of the case, as mentioned in paragraphs 2,3 and 4 of the said AIR, are as under: “2. Bharat Dharm Mahamandal is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The society has been established for the purpose of promoting Hindu Religious Education in accordance with the Sanatan Dharma. The object disclosed in the memorandum of Association is to defuse the knowledge of Vedas, Puranas and other Hindu Shastras.
Bharat Dharm Mahamandal is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The society has been established for the purpose of promoting Hindu Religious Education in accordance with the Sanatan Dharma. The object disclosed in the memorandum of Association is to defuse the knowledge of Vedas, Puranas and other Hindu Shastras. The management of the Society and the control of its affairs are exercised by All India Pratinidhi Sabha (‘Pratinidhi Sabha’ for short) which is the General Body of the Society. The office-bearers of the Pratinidhi Sabha are (i) President, (ii) Vice President; (iii) Chief Secretary; (iv) Joint Chief Secretary. On 25-10-1986 the office-bearers of the Pratinidhi Sabha were elected for a term of three years. Sri Shiv Nandan Lal Dar was elected as the Chief Secretary and Sri Param Hans Misra as the Joint Chief Secretary. On 15-2-1987 Sri Shiv Nandan Lal Dar submitted his resignation at a meeting of the Pratinidhi Sabha which was accepted and Sri Siva Ram Matre was asked to perform the function and duties of the Chief Secretary for the remaining term. The proceedings of the meeting of the Pratinidhi Sabha held on 15-2-1987 are stated to have been revoked at a meeting held on 24-8-1987 and at another meeting held on 13-9-1987 Sri Dar was persuaded to withdraw his resignation and to continue on the post of the Chief Secretary as before. Sri Param Hans Misra the Chief Secretary, on the other hand, seems to have held a parallel meeting on 3-7-1987 at which the resignation of Sri Dar was accepted and in his place he was himself alleged to have been elected as the Chief Secretary. A further decision to remove Sri Brij Mohan Dixit, the President of All India Council, the executive of the Society is also claimed to have taken at the same meeting. 3. These two parallel meetings and the decisions taken thereat regarding the continuance of Sri Shiv Nandan Lal Dar as the Chief Secretary and the alleged election of Sri Param Hans Misra at the meeting of the 3rd July, 1987 convened by him as the Chief Secretary led to disputes and differences between the parties.
3. These two parallel meetings and the decisions taken thereat regarding the continuance of Sri Shiv Nandan Lal Dar as the Chief Secretary and the alleged election of Sri Param Hans Misra at the meeting of the 3rd July, 1987 convened by him as the Chief Secretary led to disputes and differences between the parties. Both the groups, one represented by the petitioner and the other by Param Hans Misra the respondent 2 seem to have addressed letters to the Assistant Registrar each seeking legitimacy of the action taken by it and both disputing the claim of the other as regards the office of the Chief Secretary of the Pratinidhi Sabha. Upon these letters the impugned order has been passed. 4. By the impugned order, the Assistant Registrar has disposed of two matters, one pertaining to certain amendments of the by-laws of the Society which he has disapproved on the ground that the same travelled beyond the objects of the Society and the other relating to the question whether Sri Dar had a right to continue as the Chief Secretary after the submission of his resignation and whether Sri Param Hans Misra was validly elected as the Chief Secretary of the Pratinidhi Sabha. The Assistant Registrar has held that the resignation of Sri Dar did not require acceptance and consequently he ceased to be the Chief Secretary after his resignation on 15-2-1987. As regards Sri Param Hans Misra the finding is that as the Deputy Chief Secretary he had a right to perform functions of the Chief Secretary for the remaining terra. He has also upheld the election of Shri Param Hans Misra as the Chief Secretary at the meeting convened by Sri Misra for 3-7-1987.” 42. Having noticed the facts of the case, as above, this Court laid down as under (paragraphs 5,6,7 and 8 of the said AIR): “5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute with regard to continuance of Sri Dar as the Chief Secretary and that he was bound to refer the dispute under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act to the Prescribed Authority. 6. The petitioners are clearly right.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute with regard to continuance of Sri Dar as the Chief Secretary and that he was bound to refer the dispute under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act to the Prescribed Authority. 6. The petitioners are clearly right. Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act as amended by the State Legislature enacts a comprehensive code and creates a designated forum or tribunal for adjudication in a summary manner of all disputes or doubts in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such society. It also provides the grounds upon which the election of an office-bearer can be set aside. The procedure to be followed for filling up of the vacancies arising from the decisions rendered by the Prescribed Authority under sub-section (i) of Section 25 has also been laid down (Section 25(2).) 7. It will, therefore, be seen that insofar as disputes or doubts in respect of the election or continuance in office of the office-bearers of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh are concerned, the Legislature has created a specific forum and laid down an exhaustive procedure for determination of the same under Section 25. There is no other provision, express or otherwise, providing for determination of such disputes specifically. It is settled law that where, as here, the Legislature creates a specific forum and lays an exhaustive procedure for determination of a particular class of disputes in respect of matters covered by the statute, such disputes can be determined only in that forum and in the manner prescribed thereunder and not otherwise. If, therefore, a dispute is raised with regard to the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, the same has to be decided only by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) and not by the Registrar, save, of course, to the decision of the Prescribed Authority being subject to the result of a civil suit. 8. Reverting to the facts of the present case, without doubt a dispute had clearly arisen with regard to the election of Sri Param Hans Misra as the Chief Secretary on July 3, 1987 as well as the continuance in the office of Sri Shyam Nandan Lal Dar as the Chief Secretary.
8. Reverting to the facts of the present case, without doubt a dispute had clearly arisen with regard to the election of Sri Param Hans Misra as the Chief Secretary on July 3, 1987 as well as the continuance in the office of Sri Shyam Nandan Lal Dar as the Chief Secretary. The dispute indubitably fell within the four corners of the class of disputes or doubts referred to in Section 25(1). Such a dispute could not, therefore, be decided by the Assistant Registrar.” (Emphasis supplied) 43. After quoting sub-section (1) of Section 4, including proviso thereto, of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, this Court opined as under (paragraph 11 of the said AIR): “11. It was urged that the Registrar derives jurisdiction under this provision to determine the dispute. We are unable to agree. In the first place, the dispute has not arisen in the context of the submission of the annual list of the managing body which is required to be filed under Section 4(1). Secondly, the power of the Registrar to decide objections filed under the proviso to Section 4(1) must be held to operate in a field not covered by Section 25 of the Act. Under the proviso to Section 4(1), the Registrar deals only such matters as may arise in the context of the submission of the annual list of the managing body. Further in the present case we are concerned here not with the election of the managing body but with the election of the office-bearers of the Society. The managing body here is the All India Council which is different from the Pratinidhi Sabha. In any case, insofar as the disputes relating to the election of the office-bearers of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh is concerned, the same has to be decided only in the manner prescribed under Section 25(1) on the principle that the ‘special excludes the general’. This is the only way in which the proviso to Section 4 can be harmanised with Section 25. Consequently if a dispute of the nature covered by Section 25 is raised before the Registrar in connection with the submission of the annual list under Section 4(1) of the Act the same must, in view of the Legislative mandate embodied in Section 25(1), be referred by him to the Prescribed Authority.
Consequently if a dispute of the nature covered by Section 25 is raised before the Registrar in connection with the submission of the annual list under Section 4(1) of the Act the same must, in view of the Legislative mandate embodied in Section 25(1), be referred by him to the Prescribed Authority. The Bench deciding writ petitoner No. 14879 of 1986 referred to above was also of the opinion that the proviso to S.4(1) does not have the effect of whittling down the scope of Section 25(1).” (Emphasis supplied) 44. This decision, thus, lays down that if a dispute of the nature covered by Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is raised before the Registrar in connection with the submission of the annual list under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act, the same must be referred by him to the Prescribed Authority. Such dispute has to be decided by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act and not by the Registrar. However, the decision of the Prescribed Authority is subject to the result of a civil suit. 45. In Khapraha Educational Society, Khapraha Jaunpur and another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Chits & Societies, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and another, 1993 AWC 332, the Assistant Registrar, Firms,Chits & Societies, Varanasi Region, Varanasi passed an order dated 6.8.1992 in purported exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (as amended) and accepted the list of office bearers submitted by the respondent No. 2, and rejected the list submitted by the petitioner No. 1 through the petitioner No. 2. Thereupon, the said petitioners filed Writ Petition before this Court. This Court allowed the said Writ Petition, inter alia, holding as under (paragraphs 9 and 11 of the said AWC): “9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the writ petition, I am of the opinion that in the facts of the present case the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent cannot be accepted.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the writ petition, I am of the opinion that in the facts of the present case the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent cannot be accepted. For deciding the controversy, it will be necessary to determine whether the dispute before the respondent No. 1 was confined only with regards to the names submitted in the list, removing the name of the life member and questions arising therefrom, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, or something more which raises the question regarding some election dispute or a dispute of that nature which calls for a decision under Section 25(1) of the Act. To find an answer to this, it will be pertinent to refer to the objections filed by the petitioner No. 2 before the respondent No. 1. The said objections have been annexed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. A bare perusal of the same would reveal that in paragraphs 1 to 7 the petitioner No. 2 had asserted about the elections of May, 1992 in which he was elected as the Secretary and his committee was elected. In paragraphs 8 to 12 of the said objections the petitioner No. 2 had challenged the membership of the respondent No. 2 and some other members named therein saying that they were not the members of the society and had no right to call a meeting of the general body, hence the alleged meeting of 26.9.1991 was void and inoperative and all the subsequent proceedings were consequently illegal and void. In paragraphs 13 to 16 of the said objections he had referred to the post litigations and the pending proceedings between the parties. From the impugned order, Annexure-8 to the writ petition, it is apparent that the respondent No. 1 had noticed that there were two rival parties before him each of whom was claiming to be the validly elected body and both of whom had submitted their respective lists. Though in the issues framed by the respondent No. 1 he has avoided to frame any issue which could make it appear to be an election dispute but it is obvious that the dispute was not confined to the validity of the lists submitted by the respective parties but went much deeper.
Though in the issues framed by the respondent No. 1 he has avoided to frame any issue which could make it appear to be an election dispute but it is obvious that the dispute was not confined to the validity of the lists submitted by the respective parties but went much deeper. It had ultimately to be decided whether the meeting which was called for removing the petitioner No. 2 or for holding the fresh elections and the consequent elections which were held on 15.12.1991 were validly convened. This dispute, as already seen above had been raised in the objections filed by the petitioner No. 2 though purportedly in reply to a notice sent to that party by the respondent No. 1 under Section 4(1) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the issues framed do not show that the Assistant Registrar was deciding a dispute with regards to any election. It may be so, but it is always open for the Court to lift the veil and see what is the real dispute which had to be decided. As already observed by me, it is apparent that the dispute was not confined to the respective lists submitted by the parties but it touched an election dispute and raised doubts about the membership of certain persons and thus the situation clearly attracted the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Act. In facts of the present case, therefore, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, which have been referred to above, were clearly applicable. I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that as there was no specific prohibition in the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act, the Assistant Registrar could decide the matter himself. If this interpretation is given then the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Act would become infructuous and meaningless. The Court has, therefore, to decide the case on the basis of the provisions as contained in the Act and it is not open to the Court to add something to the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act to enlarge the jurisdiction or scope of the power exercised by the Registrar under Section 4(1) of the Act.
The Court has, therefore, to decide the case on the basis of the provisions as contained in the Act and it is not open to the Court to add something to the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act to enlarge the jurisdiction or scope of the power exercised by the Registrar under Section 4(1) of the Act. The ruling cited by the learned counsel for the respondent in my opinion, does not apply to the facts of the present case and it also does not call for any reference to be made for consideration of the matter by a larger Bench. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 6.8.1992 passed by the respondent No. 1 is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the respondent No. 1 could not decide the dispute himself but had to make a reference to the prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act. The impugned order is, therefore,hereby quashed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, U.P. Varanasi (respondent No. 1) to make a reference of the dispute between the parties regarding the elections by which each of them is claiming to be elected, to the prescribed Authority within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order produced before him and forward alongwith the reference a copy of this order to the prescribed Authority. I further direct the concerned prescribed Authority, to decide the dispute in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the reference from the Assistant Registrar after due notice to both sides and hearing them. Till the decision of the prescribed Authority status quo shall be maintained by the parties and whosoever is in effective actual control will remain till the matter is finally decided by the prescribed Authority. While deciding the dispute the prescribed Authority shall not be influenced in any manner by any observation of this Court made in this order.” (Emphasis supplied) 46. This decision, thus, lays down that it is always open for the Court to lift the veil and see what is the real dispute which is to be decided by the Assistant Registrar under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
This decision, thus, lays down that it is always open for the Court to lift the veil and see what is the real dispute which is to be decided by the Assistant Registrar under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. In case the Court finds that the dispute is not confined to the respective lists submitted by the parties, but it touches an election dispute and raises doubts about the membership of certain persons, then the provisions of Section 25(1) of the said Act are clearly attracted and the Assistant Registrar cannot himself decide such dispute under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act but should refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the said Act. 47. In Committee of Management Raja Tej Singh Vidyalaya Aurandh, Mainpuri and another v. District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri and others, 2000 (2) AWC 1086 , different sets of persons were allegedly elected as office bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the Society in different elections. All submitted their papers to the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Agra under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 for information as well as to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mainpuri for their recognition. This Court held that the dispute between the parties was as to which of the two elections, namely, one held on 3.12.1998 and the other held on 6.12.1998, was valid. This dispute was cognizable by the Prescribed Authority, and the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to decide it. The order of the Assistant Registrar was accordingly quashed, and the Assistant Registrar was directed to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority. 48. One of the points framed for determination in this case was : “What is the role of the Registrar and the Prescribed Authority under the Societies Registration Act? What are their powers as regards each other?”. It was held as under (paragraphs 8,11,12,13 and 14 of the said AWC): “8. Section 25(1) of the Act confers powers and jurisdiction to the Prescribed Authority under the Societies Registration Act. 11. ................A Registrar cannot dissolve a society : a Court does it. He cannot decide a doubt about an election or an election dispute or about continuance of an office bearer in a society.
Section 25(1) of the Act confers powers and jurisdiction to the Prescribed Authority under the Societies Registration Act. 11. ................A Registrar cannot dissolve a society : a Court does it. He cannot decide a doubt about an election or an election dispute or about continuance of an office bearer in a society. The prescribed authority decides it under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act. The Registrar cannot under the garb of exercising other powers, decide the aforesaid dispute indirectly. 12. Every society has a governing body (Committee of Management) entrusted with management of the affairs of the society. This governing body is known by different names in different societies. Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act contemplates that a society has to submit a list of its governing body (Committee of Management) with the Registrar. Section 4(2) of the Societies Registration Act contemplates that the memorandum of a society including alteration, extension or abridgment of purpose should also be filed alongwith the list of governing body; it has to be certified by three members. The proviso to Section 4(1) of the Societies Registration Act states that in case any member in the list of governing body is different from the last submission of the list (which can happen only if a new election has been held), then old office bearers should also countersign the list. The purpose of Section 4 is that the correct list of governing body (Committee of Management) of a society should be maintained and it may not be disputed. Its proviso contemplates that in case old office bearers do not countersign the list then the Registrar may issue public notice inviting objections and decide the same. What is the purpose of such decision? What is the scope of his jurisdiction? 13. The jurisdiction of the Registrar under the proviso to Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act is to see if there is any dispute : whether the dispute is a bona fide dispute or not; whether it is a dispute for the sake of it. But, if there is a dispute, then his jurisdiction ends; the matter has to be referred to the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. He cannot in garb of deciding objections decide dispute within the jurisdiction of the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. 14.
But, if there is a dispute, then his jurisdiction ends; the matter has to be referred to the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. He cannot in garb of deciding objections decide dispute within the jurisdiction of the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. 14. The prescribed authority can neither entertain a dispute by himself nor can he decide a dispute on reference by one member. He can only decide if it is referred by the Registrar, or by 1/4th of the members (i.e., at least two members) of a society. The Legislature thought that in case less than 1/4th of the members of a society are raising a dispute, then it is not a bona fide dispute; not worth investigating. In order to decide if there is a bona fide dispute, the Registrar may also decide : (i) if the persons raising disputes are members of a society or not; (ii) or decide if a person presenting the papers is entitled to present the papers for renewal or not. But he can do so only if he does not have to decide— (i) a doubt, or a dispute about an election; or (ii) continuance of any office bearer. In case he has to decide any doubt or dispute about election, or continuance of an office bearer, it becomes bona fide dispute and his jurisdiction ceases. He has to refer the matter to the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority has pre-emptive jurisdiction in this regard. Secondly, the power of the Registrar to decide objections filed under the proviso to Section 4(1) must be held to operate in a field not covered by Section 25 of the Act. Under the proviso to Section 4(1) the Registrar deals only such matters as may arise in the context of the submission of the annual list of the managing body. Further in the present case we are concerned here not with the election of the managing body but with the election of the office bearers of the society.......In any case insofar as the disputes relating to the election of the office-bearers of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh is concerned, the same has to be decided only in the manner prescribed under Section 25(1) on the principle that the ‘special excludes the general’.
This is the only way in which the proviso to Section 4 can be harmonised with Section 25.” (Emphasis supplied) 50. This decision, thus, lays down that the jurisdiction of the Registrar under the proviso to Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is to see if there is any dispute; whether the dispute is a bona fide dispute or not; whether it is a dispute for the sake of it. 51. It has further been laid down that in case, for deciding the matter under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the Registrar has to decide any doubt or dispute about election, or continuance of an office-bearer, it becomes bona fide dispute and his jurisdiction ceases. He has to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority has pre-emptive jurisdiction in this regard. 52. In Committee of Management of Rashtriya Junior High School (Society) Babhaniyaon v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,Varanasi Region, Varanasi and others, 2005 (61) ALR 74, a Division Bench of this Court held as under (paragraphs 4 and 7 of the said ALR): “4. It is the standard law that if any bona fide dispute as to two rival Committees of Managements is shown to be in existence to the Registrar or Assistant Registrar, a reference by him of the dispute to the Prescribed Authority follows as a matter of course. But a bona fide dispute does come into existence merely because one member, even if he is a founder member, chooses simply to say or assert that he has a rival Committee and therefore, a bona fide dispute as to Management exists. Sufficient prima facie material must be produced before the Registrar before he can validly exercise his jurisdiction of referring the dispute. He must, simply put, be satisfied that there is something to refer and he is not merely sending litigations before the Prescribed Authority, without there being even a shadow of real cause for litigation. 7. It is the well known law that with the proof of a supporting claim by at least a quarter of the members of the Society in the General Body, a reference can be made as of right under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act to the Prescribed Authority directly.
7. It is the well known law that with the proof of a supporting claim by at least a quarter of the members of the Society in the General Body, a reference can be made as of right under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act to the Prescribed Authority directly. On the other hand, as we have mentioned above, the genuine existence of a bona fide dispute might give rise to a reference to the Prescribed Authority through the Registrar. That these courses exist in law, does not mean that we should give liberty to the appellant to avail himself of any of these courses; he cannot avail himself of these courses on the basis of the appeal Court’s liberty; he has to show the existence of a rival body with sufficient clarity before the appropriate authority before he can exercise the rights given to some persons in accordance with law; if the appellant has achieved the status or the support of a group of disputants then only he can dispute, otherwise not.” (Emphasis supplied) 53. This decision, thus, lays down that if any bona fide dispute as to two rival Committees of Managements is shown to be in existence to the Registrar or Assistant Registrar, a reference by him of the dispute to the Prescribed Authority follows as a matter of course. Sufficient prima-facie material must be produced before the Registrar to show existence of a bona fide dispute as to two rival Committees of Managements. In case the Registrar is satisfied regarding the existence of a bona fide dispute, he can validly exercise his jurisdiction of referring the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 54. In Madarsa Arabiya Noorul Olum Gaderua, Azamgarh through its Nazim and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2009 (75) ALR 369 : 2009(3) ADJ 756 , the petitioners challenged the order dated 15.12.2008 passed by the respondent No. 2, Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh. One of the grounds for challenge was that the respondent No. 2 illegally proceeded to decide the dispute of Committee of Management elected by the members of the Society which ought to have been referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section (1) of Section 25 of the Act.
One of the grounds for challenge was that the respondent No. 2 illegally proceeded to decide the dispute of Committee of Management elected by the members of the Society which ought to have been referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section (1) of Section 25 of the Act. The facts of the case, as noted in paragraphs 5,6,7,8 and 9 of the said ALR, are as under : “5. The facts of the case are that Madarsa Arbiya Noorul Olum Gaderua, Azamgarh is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Sri Mukhtar Ahmad, petitioner No. 2 claims himself to be the Nazim i.e., Manager of the Society and petitioner No. 3 claims himself to be the Sadar i.e., President of the Society. According to the bye-laws of the society, the term of the Committee of Management is 5 years and comprises of 9 office bearers i.e., Sadar/President, Nayab Sadar/ Vice-President, Nazim/ Manager, Nayab Nazim/ Deputy Manager, Khajanchi/Treasurer, Auditor and two members. 6. The society was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 28.4.1992 and is said to have been renewed from time to time and its office bearers were also approved by respondent No. 2. 7. It appears that a dispute arose on account of submission of another list of Committee of Management allegedly is said to have been elected by the members of the society wherein one Sri Imtiyaz Ahmad son of Sri Inayatullah claimed himself to be its Manager. The objections alongwith an affidavit dated 17.5.2008 are said to have been filed by the then President by Shri Mohd. Ramzan against the aforesaid list of office bearers of the committee of management submitted for approval showing Sri Imtiyaz Ahmad son of Sri Inayatullah as elected Manager. 8. The society runs an academic institution Madarsa Arabiya Noorul Olum in village Garedua in District Azamgarh. It is alleged that there was some dispute of Committee of Management and under the pressure of the people of the locality the rival factions of the two committees of managements agreed to hold the meeting for resolution of dispute in the larger interest of the Madarsa. Pursuant to thereof, the compromise is alleged to have been arrived at and a new Committee of Management was elected. Thereafter, meeting of the society was held on 27.1.2006. 9.
Pursuant to thereof, the compromise is alleged to have been arrived at and a new Committee of Management was elected. Thereafter, meeting of the society was held on 27.1.2006. 9. It is claimed that in order to facilitate formation of new committee of management by consensus the erstwhile Manager Sri Haji Inayatullah tendered his resignation on 18.10.2006 from his office as Manager and one Sri Imtiyaz Ahmad also relinquished his rival claim of being the Manager. It is stated that newly elected committee of management was headed by petitioner No. 3 as its President and petitioner No. 2 as its Manager. The list of office bearers of the aforesaid newly formed committee of management was submitted before respondent No. 2 and was approved. Having noted the facts of the case, as above, this Court opined as under (paragraphs 22,23,24,25,26,27 and 28 of the said ALR): “22. Admittedly, the list of the office bearers has to be signed by the ex-office bearers of the Committee of Management which was not done in this case. The petitioners claim that their new committee of management was elected on the basis of compromise, which is said to be ‘farji’ by the respondents, and a finding to this effect has also been recorded by the Assistant Registrar. Therefore, basically the dispute, in my considered opinion, is not regarding election but is regarding list of office bearers of the society submitted by the petitioners which is also apparent from paragraph 8 of the writ petition wherein it has been held that - “8. That, however, the dispute arose on account of submission of another list of committee of management allegedly elected by the members of the society wherein one Sri Imtiyaz Ahmad son of Sri Inayatullah was shown to be its Manager.” 23. From aforesaid paragraph 8 it is evident that question of dispute of rival committee of management is not there for being challenged but another list submitted by respondents. 24. When Section 4 of the Act provides for registration of the office bearers of the Committee of Management it means validly elected committee of management in accordance with law. A committee of management is to continue for a period of 5 years or as provided in the bye-laws and is not elected every year.
24. When Section 4 of the Act provides for registration of the office bearers of the Committee of Management it means validly elected committee of management in accordance with law. A committee of management is to continue for a period of 5 years or as provided in the bye-laws and is not elected every year. It is only the list which is to be submitted annually by the said validly elected committee of management showing change if any in the list of office bearers registered earlier. The change may be due to death or recognition etc. of an office bearer or due to any other such reason. This list is to be registered annually in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Act, which provides for signatures of the members of the office bearers of old Committee of Management. 25. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioners claim themselves to be the President and Manager of the society on the basis of an election said to have been held pursuant to a compromise which was got approved by the petitioners on the basis of forged papers whereas the respondents deny any such compromise. 26. Since the dispute pertains to the registration of list of validly elected office bearers of the society, it may also touch the question of election of the office bearers of the Committee of Management. If the dispute is confined only to the list then Section 4 comes into play and the Assistant Registrar has the jurisdiction in the matter but if question of election is dominant question then in that case Section 25(1) of the Act would be attracted. 27. The Courts, therefore, have to be cautious as to what is the predominant dispute as well as the effect of the order passed by the authority. The order impugned in the present writ petition appears to be confined only to the question of validity of list of office bearers, though while deciding the facts the authority may have referred the stand taken by the parties regarding election on the basis of which the parties claim to file their respective lists of office bearers. However, the substantial and dominant question of registration of list of office beareres of the society has been decided by the authority and not the election.
However, the substantial and dominant question of registration of list of office beareres of the society has been decided by the authority and not the election. Moreover, this does not appear to be a bona fide dispute which ought to have been referred by the authority under Section 25(1) of the Act. This is also import the judgment of the Division Bench in Committee of Management, Rashtriya Junior High School (supra). 28. Furthermore, proceedings under Section 4 of the Act pertaining to registration of annual list of managing body as well as the proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Act are summary in nature. Reference of dispute in respect of election can always be referred by the Assistant Registrar to the prescribed authority or by at least 1/4th members of the society registered under the Act, hence, whether any dispute has been decided under Section 4 or under Section 25(1) of the Act, the order is subject to adjudication in a Civil Court being orders arising out of summary proceedings, where parties can adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their cases.” 55. This decision, thus, lays down that if the dispute is confined only to the list of office-bearers then Section 4 of the Act comes into play and the Assistant Registrar has the jurisdiction in the matter, though incidentally such dispute may also touch the question of election of the office bearers of the Committee of Management. However, if the question of election is the dominant question, then in that case Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 would be attracted. The Court must, therefore, examine as to what is the predominant dispute as well as the effect of the order passed by the authority. In case substantial and dominant question of registration of list of office bearers of the society has been decided by the authority and not the election, then the order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 would be valid. 56. It has further been laid down that in order to attract Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the dispute in respect of the election of an office-bearer of the society must be a bona fide dispute. 57.
56. It has further been laid down that in order to attract Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the dispute in respect of the election of an office-bearer of the society must be a bona fide dispute. 57. The decision further lays down that the proceedings under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the proceedings under Section 25(1) of the said Act are summary in nature, and the orders passed in such proceedings are subject to adjudication in a Civil Court. 58. In view of the said propositions, this Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners in the above case. 59. From the propositions laid down in the above decisions, the following principles may be deduced : 1. If the Managing Body of a Society is elected after the last submission of the list of Managing Body, and a list of Managing Body is submitted before the Registrar on the basis of such election, and objections, as contemplated in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, are filed raising issues other than regarding any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such society, then such objections will be decided by the Registrar under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and no reference under Section 25 of the said Act will be required to be made to the Prescribed Authority. It may be added that in some cases, difficulty may arise in determining as to whether the objections raise issues regarding any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer, or raise issues other than any such doubt or dispute. In order to decide as to whether the objections raise issues regarding any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of the Society, or raise issues other than such election dispute, the test of main/primary/ substantial/ dominant dispute/ question and the secondary/incidental/ subsidiary dispute/ question may be applied.
In order to decide as to whether the objections raise issues regarding any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of the Society, or raise issues other than such election dispute, the test of main/primary/ substantial/ dominant dispute/ question and the secondary/incidental/ subsidiary dispute/ question may be applied. Hence if the main/ primary/ substantial/ dominant dispute/ question raised in the objections is other than any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of the society, then the Registrar may decide such dispute/ question even though in deciding the same, the Registrar may have to touch upon the question of election of the Managing Body as a secondary/ incidental/ subsidiary dispute/ question. On the other hand, if the main/ primary/ substantial/ dominant dispute/ question raised in the objections is regarding any doubt/ dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of the society, and other issues raised in the objections are only secondary / incidental/ subsidiary in nature, then the Registrar cannot adjudicate upon the objections and he will have to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 2. When the list of Managing Body of a Society is submitted before the Registrar under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on the basis of the alleged election held since the last submission of the list of Managing Body, and objections, as contemplated in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act, are filed raising any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such Society, but without setting up any rival election, then the Registrar may consider such objections to find out as to whether the doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of the Society as raised in the objections is totally frivolous, unsupported by any material, or the same is bona fide based on relevant material. In case the Registrar finds that such doubt or dispute raised in the objections is totally frivolous, unsupported by any material, then the Registrar may reject such objections and register the list of Managing Body submitted before him.
In case the Registrar finds that such doubt or dispute raised in the objections is totally frivolous, unsupported by any material, then the Registrar may reject such objections and register the list of Managing Body submitted before him. However, in case the Registrar finds that such doubt or dispute raised in the objections is bona fide and supported by relevant material, then the Registrar will not decide such doubt or dispute raised in the objections, and will refer such doubt or dispute to the Prescribed Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Thus, in a case where the objections filed under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 raise any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of the Society without setting up any rival election, then the jurisdiction of the Registrar under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 is limited to examine as to whether such doubt or dispute raised in the objections is frivolous or bona fide. Once the Registrar is satisfied that such doubt or dispute raised in the objections is bona fide and based on relevant material, then the Registrar has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such doubt or dispute raised in the objections, and he is bound to refer such doubt or dispute raised in the objections to the Prescribed Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 25. 3. When the list of Managing Body of a Society is submitted before the Registrar under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on the basis of the alleged election held since last submission of the list of Managing Body, and objections, as contemplated in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act, are filed setting-up a rival election alleged to have been held since the last submission of the list of Managing Body, then the Registrar may consider as to whether the respective claims of elections set-up by the rival parties are totally frivolous, unsupported by any material, or are bona fide and supported by relevant material. 60.
60. If the Registrar finds that the claim of election set-up by one of the rival parties, is totally frivolous and unsupported by any material while the claim of election set-up by the other party is bona fide and valid and is supported by relevant material, then the Registrar may pass appropriate orders under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and reject the claim of election of the first party and accept the claim of election of the second party. 61. However, if the Registrar finds that the respective claims of elections set-up by both the parties are bona fide and supported by relevant material placed by such parties, then the Registrar will not adjudicate upon the validity of the rival claims of elections, and he will refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 62. Thus, in a case where rival elections are set-up by the parties, the jurisdiction of the Registrar under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is limited to examine as to whether such claims are totally frivolous and unsupported by any material or are bona fide and supported by relevant material. Once the Registrar finds that the claims set-up by both the rival parties are bona fide and based on relevant material, then the Registrar has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such claims, and he is bound to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the said Act. 63. Keeping in view the principles mentioned above, let us consider the present case. 64. In the present case, the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) exercising the power of the Registrar under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 has not considered the question as to whether the rival claims of elections set-up by the petitioners and the respondent No. 4 were bona fide and based on relevant material. Instead, the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) has proceeded to examine the claim of elections set-up by the petitioners and the claim of election set-up by the respondent No. 4 on merits and has accepted the claim of elections set-up by the respondent No. 2 as against the claim of election set-up by the petitioners.
Instead, the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) has proceeded to examine the claim of elections set-up by the petitioners and the claim of election set-up by the respondent No. 4 on merits and has accepted the claim of elections set-up by the respondent No. 2 as against the claim of election set-up by the petitioners. The respondent No. 2 was bound to examine the claim of the petitioners regarding the election allegedly held on 28.11.2004 on the basis of the material produced by the petitioners to find-out as to whether the claim of the petitioners was totally frivolous and unsupported by any material or the same was bona fide and based on relevant material. Similarly, the respondent No. 2 ought to have examined the claim of the respondent No. 4 regarding the election allegedly held on 31.7.2004 on the basis of the material produced by the respondent No. 4 to find-out as to whether the claim of the respondent No. 4 was totally frivolous and unsupported by any material or the same was bona fide and based on relevant material. 65. After having undertaken the above exercise, the respondent No. 2 ought to have proceeded in accordance with principle No. 3, mentioned above. Accordingly, in case the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) came to the conclusion that both the claims of elections set-up before him, namely, one by the petitioners and the other by the respondent No. 4, were bona fide and based on relevant material, then the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) ought to have referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. As noted above, the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) has not considered the said aspects, but has proceeded to examine the rival claims of elections set-up before him on merits. The Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) has, thus, not acted in accordance with law. 66. Let us now consider the SECOND SUBMISSION made by Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, namely, that the recital in the impugned order dated 13.12.2005 regarding non-production of original record by the petitioners was not correct. 67.
The Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) has, thus, not acted in accordance with law. 66. Let us now consider the SECOND SUBMISSION made by Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, namely, that the recital in the impugned order dated 13.12.2005 regarding non-production of original record by the petitioners was not correct. 67. Shri Khare in this regard has referred to the averments made in paragraphs 25 and 29 of the writ petition wherein it has, inter alia, been asserted that on 5.12.2005 the petitioners again produced the original record alongwith the Written Submissions and the affidavits of 19 members of the General Body but the original record was not accepted by the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) on the ground that the same had already been placed on the record and the copy of the same was available. 68. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the recital in the impugned order dated 13.12.2005 regarding non-production of the original record by the petitioners was correct. Learned Standing Counsel refers to the averments made in paragraphs 7 and 16 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 wherein it has, inter alia, been asserted that despite time having been granted on various dates, the original record was not produced by the petitioners on 5.12.2005 even though on the said date, 19 affidavits were filed on behalf of the petitioners. 69. It may be mentioned that the averments made in paragraphs 7 and 16 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, have been replied to in paragraphs 6 and 14 of the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners wherein the petitioners have reiterated the averments made in the writ petition. 70. It will, thus, be noticed that it is a disputed question of fact as to whether on 5.12.2005 the petitioners produced the original record before the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) and as to whether the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) returned the said original record on the ground mentioned by the petitioners. Except for making assertions in the writ petition and reiterating the same in the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioners have not placed any material to substantiate the correctness of the stand taken by them in regard to the production of the original record on 5.12.2005.
Except for making assertions in the writ petition and reiterating the same in the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioners have not placed any material to substantiate the correctness of the stand taken by them in regard to the production of the original record on 5.12.2005. It will not be appropriate for this Court to examine such disputed questions of fact in exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The second submission made by Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, therefore, cannot be accepted. 71. Let us now consider the SUBMISSION NO. 3A raised on behalf of the petitioners, namely, that the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice as no copies of the written submissions or the documents submitted by the respondent No. 4 before the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) were supplied to the petitioners, and the petitioners were not aware of the contents thereof. Reference in this regard is made to paragraph 26 of the writ petition wherein the averments to the said effect have been made. 72. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the documents produced by the rival parties are permitted to be inspected by each other but no copies of the documents are required to be furnished by one party to the other. The learned Standing Counsel refers to paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 wherein the averments to the said effect have been made. 73. The averments made in paragraph 17 of the said counter-affidavit have been replied to in paragraph 15 of the rejoinder affidavit wherein the averments made in paragraph 26 of the writ petition have been reiterated. However, no specific reply has been given to the averments in paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit regarding the parties being permitted to inspect the documents submitted by each other. There is no assertion in paragraph 15 of the rejoinder affidavit that the petitioners were not permitted to inspect the documents and the written submissions submitted by the respondent No. 4.
However, no specific reply has been given to the averments in paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit regarding the parties being permitted to inspect the documents submitted by each other. There is no assertion in paragraph 15 of the rejoinder affidavit that the petitioners were not permitted to inspect the documents and the written submissions submitted by the respondent No. 4. In the absence of any specific averment in paragraph 15 of the rejoinder affidavit that the petitioners were not permitted to inspect the written submissions and the documents submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 4, there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the averments made in paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Thus, the petitioners had opportunity to inspect the written submissions and the documents submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 4 before the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2), and there was, thus, no violation of the principles of natural justice on account of non-supply of copies of the written submissions and the documents submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 4 to the petitioners. 74. Let us now consider the SUBMISSION NO. 3B raised on behalf of the petitioners, namely, that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the impugned order has relied upon an enquiry conducted by the Tehsildar and the Deputy District Magistrate, Bhognipur behind the back of the petitioners, and even copy of the Enquiry Report was never supplied to the petitioners. Reference in this regard has been made to paragraph 30 of the writ petition, which is reproduced below : “30. That the impugned order refers the enquiry conducted by the Tehsildar as well as the Deputy District Magistrate, Bhognipur, Kanpur Dehat. However, neither any intimation has been given to the petitioners with regard to the enquiry conducted by the Tehsildar as well as the Deputy District Magistrate, Bhognipur. The entire proceeding is totally ex parte to the petitioners even the copy of the said enquiry report has not been supplied to the petitioners at any point of time.” 75.
However, neither any intimation has been given to the petitioners with regard to the enquiry conducted by the Tehsildar as well as the Deputy District Magistrate, Bhognipur. The entire proceeding is totally ex parte to the petitioners even the copy of the said enquiry report has not been supplied to the petitioners at any point of time.” 75. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel submits that there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order on account of placing reliance on the Enquiry Report submitted by the Tehsildar and the Deputy District Magistrate, Bhognipur. 76. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 77. The averments made in paragraph 30 of the writ petition have been replied to in paragraph 21 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, which is as under : “21. ;g fd ;kfpdk ds izLrj&30 esa of.kZr dFku izfroknh la0&2 ls lacafèkr ughssa gS vr% fdlh fVIi.kh dh vko’;drk ugha gSA” 78. It will, thus, be noticed that the averments made in paragraph 30 of the writ petition have not been denied in paragraph 21 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In the circumstances, there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the averments made in paragraph 30 of the writ petition. It is, thus, evident that the enquiry was conducted by the Tehsildar and the Deputy District Magistrate, Bhognipur, Kanpur Dehat without any intimation to the petitioners, and behind the back of the petitioners. It is further evident that copy of the Enquiry Report was not supplied to the petitioners at any point of time. 79. A perusal of the impugned order dated 13.12.2005 shows that the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) has relied upon the said enquiry conducted by the Tehsildar and the Deputy District Magistrate, Bhognipur, and the Enquiry Report submitted as a result of the said enquiry. 80.
79. A perusal of the impugned order dated 13.12.2005 shows that the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) has relied upon the said enquiry conducted by the Tehsildar and the Deputy District Magistrate, Bhognipur, and the Enquiry Report submitted as a result of the said enquiry. 80. As the said enquiry was conducted without any intimation to the petitioners and behind the back of the petitioners and even copy of the Enquiry Report was not given to the petitioners, the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) has acted in violation of the principles of natural justice in placing reliance on the said enquiry and the Enquiry Report submitted as a result thereof while passing the impugned order. The impugned order dated 13.12.2005 passed by the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) has, thus, been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 81. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 13.12.2005 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) is liable to be quashed, and the matter is liable to be remanded to the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made in this judgment and also keeping in view the developments, if any, subsequent to the passing of the impugned order dated 13.12.2005 after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the petitioners and the respondent No. 4. 82. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.12.2005 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) is quashed, and the matter is remanded to the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 2) for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made in this judgment and also keeping in view the developments, if any, subsequent to the passing of the impugned order dated 13.12.2005 after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the petitioners and the respondent No. 4. ————