JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Dr. Daya Shanker learned counsel for the petitioners learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Rajeshwar Singh learned counsel for one namely Sri Namwar Singh who has filed an impleadment application No. 69886 of 2010. 2. The petitioner claims to have been elected on 15.3.1999 as the Secretary, of the Society Kshetriya Shree Gandhi Ashram Camp Office, Mohamdabad, District Mau registered under the Societies Registration Act and got it renewed from 29.6.2001 for a period of five years. He is aggrieved by the order dated 3.6.2008 (annexure 16 to the writ petition) passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies & Chits, Azamgarh under Section 4 (1) of the Societies Registration Act. 3. According to Dr. Daya Shanker the term of the committee of management was of three years and the petitioner was re-elected on 27.3.2002 for another three years as Secretary of the committee of the management of the society. According to him the petitioner was again elected on 18.3.2005. He states that one Namwar Singh illegally held a meeting on 26.3.2002 and claimed to have been elected as Secretary. The petitioner alleges to have protested against the illegal meeting held by Namwar Singh but the Assistant Registrar did not take any action hence he filed a Writ Petition No. 40408 of 2005 wherein by order dated 18.5.2005 the petitioner was given liberty to make a reference to the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Act. The petitioner alongwith the requisite number of members made a reference which was numbered as Case No. 1 of 2006. The reference was dismissed on 11.8.2006 where against the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 63569 of 2006 and an interim order dated 24.11.2006 was passed. A further interim order dated 17.3.2008 was passed restraining Namwar Singh to function as Secretary and the District Magistrate was directed to take charge which he took on 26.3.2008. 4. It is stated that Sri Namwar Singh illegally held a meeting on 29.3.2008 or 31.3.2008 and elected Bans Gopal Singh respondent No. 2 as Secretary. The respondent No. 2 then filed a Writ Petition No. 20838 of 2008 for a direction to give him charge as Secretary but the petition was dismissed on 23.4.2008. 5. 4. It is stated that Sri Namwar Singh illegally held a meeting on 29.3.2008 or 31.3.2008 and elected Bans Gopal Singh respondent No. 2 as Secretary. The respondent No. 2 then filed a Writ Petition No. 20838 of 2008 for a direction to give him charge as Secretary but the petition was dismissed on 23.4.2008. 5. In the meantime Namwar Singh applied for renewal of registration of the society to which the petitioner filed his objections detailing the entire facts but the Assistant Registrar has passed the impugned order dated 3.6.2008 registering the committee of management of which Bans Gopal Singh respondent No. 2 claimed to be Secretary. 6. Sri Rajeshwar Singh learned counsel for Namwar Singh has filed a counter affidavit. He submits that the petitioner was removed from the society on 6.5.2004 since he was found involved in embezzlement of society funds. He states that the petitioner was elected as Secretary during the period 1999 to 2002 whereafter he was removed from the society. According to him Namwar Singh was elected Secretary for the period 2002-2005 and 2005-2008 and again in the election held on 29.3.2008/31.3.2008 he has been elected Secretary. 7. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records it would be appropriate to understand the provision of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act in its application to the State of U.P. 8. Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act in its application to the State of U.P. reads as under : 4. Annual list of managing body to be filed.—Once in every year, on or before the fourteenth day succeeding the day on which, according to the rules of the Society, the annual general meeting of the society is held, or, if the rules do not provide for an annual general meeting, in the month of January, a list shall be filed with the Registrar of Joint-Stock Companies, of the names, addresses and occupations of the governors, council, directors, committee, or other governing body then entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society. “Provided that if the managing body is elected after the last submission of the list, the counter signature of the old members, shall, as far as possible, be obtained on the list. “Provided that if the managing body is elected after the last submission of the list, the counter signature of the old members, shall, as far as possible, be obtained on the list. If the old office-bearers do not counter-sign the list, the Registrar may, in his discretion, issue a public notice or notice to such persons as he thinks fit inviting objections within a specified period and shall decide all objections received within the said period.” “2. Together with list mentioned in sub-section (1) there shall be sent to the Registrar a copy of the memorandum of association including any alteration, extension or abridgment of purposes made under Section 12, and of the rules of the society corrected up to date and certified by no 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.” 9. From the proviso it appears that the list of names, addresses and occupations of the body entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society is required to be furnished within the time prescribed. Sub-section (2) provides for furnishing of copy of any alteration, extension or abridgment in the memorandum of association. 10. In the present case Section 4(1) is attracted where according to the impugned order Namwar Singh held an election on 31.3.2008 (29.3.2008 according to Dr. Daya Shanker) whereafter he provided the list of members which has been registered by the Assistant Registrar under Section 4(1) of the Societies Registration Act. The objection of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order. It will be seen from the provision of Section 4 proviso that when such a list is submitted the Assistant Registrar is required to also ensure that counter signature of the old members as far as possible is obtained on the list. If the old office bearers do not counter sign the list the Registrar may in his discretion issue a public notice to such persons as he thinks fit for inviting objections within a specified period and shall decide all objections received within the said period. 11. In the present case it is not disputed in the impugned order that the petitioner filed his objection. It is also not disputed that he was elected as Secretary unanimously in the year 1999. 11. In the present case it is not disputed in the impugned order that the petitioner filed his objection. It is also not disputed that he was elected as Secretary unanimously in the year 1999. The dispute is that Namwar Singh claims that the petitioner has been removed from the membership of the society whereas the petitioner claims otherwise. Consequently the Registrar while exercising his jurisdiction under Section 4(1) of the Societies Registration Act was required to decide all such objections (made by old members who have not signed on the list) and then register the list of members under the aforesaid statutory provisions. 12. From a perusal of the impugned order clearly that has not been done by the Assistant Registrar who has in his entire order only detailed the history of dispute between the petitioner Ram Niwas, Namwar Singh and Bansh Gopal Singh. He has not taken into consideration the objection filed by the petitioner after ascertaining his locus standi who was admittedly a Secretary of the society in the year 1999 and admittedly one of the old members although it is alleged that he has been removed. Consequently the Registrar under the proviso of Section 4 was under a legal obligation to decide the objections of the petitioner on their merits if he found that the petitioner has locus standi now to maintain the objection and having not done so the impugned order cannot be upheld. 13. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned order dated 3.6.2008 passed by the Assistant Registrar. Azamgarh is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Assistant Registrar, Azamgarh to consider the plea of the respondents regarding the locus standi of the petitioner to even maintain the objection in view of earlier orders passed in writ petitions referred and the objection of the petitioner to the registration of list of members submitted by Namwar Singh of the alleged election dated 31.3.2008 (29.3.2008 according to Dr. Daya Shanker) if his locus standi is established. While taking a decision the Assistant Registrar is required to strictly comply with the statutory provision and the proviso to Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act and thereafter pass order under Section 4(1) of the Societies Registration Act in accordance with law. 14. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. 15. No order is passed as to costs. —————