JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—The petitioner-Committee through Triloki Nath Pandey, Manager has questioned the impugned order dated 5th February, 2011 passed by the Regional Level Committee through the Joint Director of Education, Chairman, whereby a Prabandh Sanchalak/Authorized Controller has been appointed in the institution with a further direction to hold elections after obtaining the valid list of electoral college, entitled to participate in the elections of the Committee of Management of Sri Jagjeevan Ram Inter College, Asav Nagsar, District Ghazipur. 2. The institution is recognized under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and a scheme of administration has been duly approved under Section 16-A of the said Act. The scheme of administration was amended on 15th February, 1985 which provides for a general body consisting of life members and ordinary members. The ordinary members to retain their membership for a period of three years. The tenure of the Committee of Management is three years. 3. The institution has been established by a parent society known as Gyan Vikasani Samiti. The word “Society” has been defined in the scheme of administration as it was originally approved to mean the said society. 4. The last undisputed elections were held on 19th July, 2005 in which Triloki Nath Pandey was elected as a Manager and the tenure of the said Committee is five years. It is alleged by the petitioners that on 18th November, 2006, the Committee resolved to enroll new members and the said resolution was witnessed by 14 members of the Committee of Management, who did not raise any objection, which also included the respondent No. 5. Accordingly, 82 persons applied for membership after a notice was published in the newspaper, who were thereafter enrolled as members. 5. The respondent No. 5 raised a dispute with regard to this enrolment alleging that the proceedings are invalid and it was further alleged that the petitioner, who was the Manager, has submitted manipulated and forged documents and the proceedings that have been conducted for enrolling of 82 persons should be rejected. This objection was raised by the respondent No. 5, who was the Vice-President, alongwith Shiv Kumar Rai, who was shown to be the President of the Committee of Management. This objection was raised by the respondent No. 5, who was the Vice-President, alongwith Shiv Kumar Rai, who was shown to be the President of the Committee of Management. The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits issued notice to the petitioner-Triloki Nath Pandey and also to the respondents where after Shiv Kumar Rai filed certain affidavits relating to about 15 members that they had never applied for their enrolment of membership and they have no knowledge about the same nor have they signed any receipt of membership. 6. Another resolution was set up on 19th November, 2007 alleging removal through a no confidence motion against the petitioner-Triloki Nath Pandey. The matter was contested before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits and the Assistant Registrar held that the objectors had not filed any original documents to support their Claim. On the contrary, the Assistant Registrar found that a notice was published in the newspaper under the joint signatures of Shiv Kumar Rai and the petitioner-Trilok Nath Pandey president and manager respectively inviting applications for membership to the Society. The Assistant Registrar also found that no objection was filed against the said publication in the newspaper and accordingly, it cannot be believed that the membership drive was not in the knowledge of Shiv Kumar Rai the president. 7. The Assistant Registrar further found that those 15 members who had filed a notary affidavit that they had never applied for any such membership and were denying their enrolment, their membership can be dissolved by returning back their amount of membership fee submitted by them. The Assistant Registrar further disbelieved the proceedings set up by Shiv Kumar Rai allegedly removing the petitioner-Triloki Nath Pandey through a no confidence motion as no original document was produced in this regard and it was further indicated that the alleged resolution was filed much after the objections relating to the enrolment of membership. It was ultimately held that the membership drive was valid and those 15 members who have denied their membership it is for the general body to take a decision with regard to their claim. He further found that the signatures of Shiv Kumar Rai and other objectors were found to be matching with their earlier signatures and, therefore, the allegation that their signatures were forged, is incorrect. The aforesaid order dated 5th June, 2009 passed by the Assistant Registrar had not been challenged. 8. He further found that the signatures of Shiv Kumar Rai and other objectors were found to be matching with their earlier signatures and, therefore, the allegation that their signatures were forged, is incorrect. The aforesaid order dated 5th June, 2009 passed by the Assistant Registrar had not been challenged. 8. The tenure of the Committee of Management, which was five years, was coming to a close in the year 2010, as a result whereof, the petitioner proceeded to hold fresh elections and a request was made for the appointment of an election observer to the District Inspector of Schools, who issued a letter dated 13th July, 2010 appointing the Assistant District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur to Act as an observer. The election programme was advertised in daily Hindi newspaper Aaj and an information was sent to all the members of the general body and an election officer was appointed to hold the elections. 9. One Udai Narain Pandey approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate purporting to lodge a complaint under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Zamaniya, District Ghazipur passed an order on 29th July, 2010 directing to maintain status quo with regard to the elections. A recall application was filed by the petitioner-Triloki Nath Pandey before the Deputy District Magistrate intimating him that he has no jurisdiction to pass any such order or interim order. The Deputy District Magistrate passed an order on 30th July, 2010 withdrawing his earlier order. 10. The District Inspector of Schools had issued an intimation with regard to the said order of status quo. However, after the dissolution of the said order, the election was proceeded with. A Writ Petition No. 37977 of 2005 was filed by some independent members in which no interim order was passed and the same is pending. 11. Another attempt was made, according to the petitioners, to forestall the election process by the respondent group by instituting an Original Suit No. 199 of 2010. A perusal of the pleadings of the said suit indicates that there is a clear admission on the part of the plaintiffs therein Shiv Kumar Rai and Gorakh Nath that the members of the society are the members of the institution, which clearly means that the general body of the society and the institution are one and the same. A perusal of the pleadings of the said suit indicates that there is a clear admission on the part of the plaintiffs therein Shiv Kumar Rai and Gorakh Nath that the members of the society are the members of the institution, which clearly means that the general body of the society and the institution are one and the same. The dispute raised in the suit is with regard to the alleged illegal enrolment of 82 members. 12. The allegations in the plaint also indicate that the Joint Director of Education in relation to the no confidence motion against the petitioners, had passed an order on 23.6.2008 which was challenged in Writ Petition No. 30513 of 2008 and the same was allowed on 9th July, 2008 calling upon the Joint Director of Education to decide the matter afresh. The Joint Director of Education passed an order on 15.12.2008 accepting the no confidence motion on the ground that there were 25 members of the general body and after removal of the petitioner as Manager and Bechan Tiwari as treasurer, the Deputy Manager Gorakh Nath was elected as Manager and his signatures were attested on 27.12.2008. The Regional Level Committee itself set aside the said order on 12th January, 2009 and proceeded to re-hear the matter against which Writ Petition No. 2859 of 2009 was filed and on 27th December, 2001 that was dismissed. Thereafter, a special appeal being Special Appeal No. 337 of 2009 was filed and the same was also dismissed holding that the appropriate forum would be to approach the Civil Court. Accordingly, it appears that a suit was filed as noted above. In the aforesaid background fresh elections were held. 13. The order of the District Inspector of Schools, whereby he had stayed the election process, was challenged in Writ Petition No. 50963 of 2010 by the petitioners. It was held by this Court that the District Inspectors could not have passed such an order. However, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Regional Level Committee to take a decision with regard to the dispute pertaining to the election of the petitioner-Committee of Management. The judgment dated 23.8.2010 is Annexure 19 to the writ petition. 14. The Joint Director of Education issued notices where after the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 also filed their objections. The judgment dated 23.8.2010 is Annexure 19 to the writ petition. 14. The Joint Director of Education issued notices where after the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 also filed their objections. The said dispute pertaining to the electoral college was raised and it was also alleged that the elections were not held in accordance with the scheme of administration. The Regional Level Committee after hearing the parties has held that the enrolment drive of membership of the 82 members was not conducted in accordance with the scheme of administration and, therefore, the elections held are invalid. It has further been held that the entire enrolment of membership has been carried out, which is not according to the scheme of administration and hence the elections cannot be recognized. 15. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order is erroneous, inasmuch as, the impact of the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 5th June, 2009 has been completely ignored and once there was a decision with regard to the issue of membership then in such an event the Regional Level Committee had no authority to overlook the same and take a decision to the contrary. He further contends that the Regional Level Committee has travelled beyond its jurisdiction to appoint an authorized controller on the basis of an invalid finding and, therefore, the order deserves to be set aside. Sri Khare further submits that on a perusal of the provisions of the scheme of administration there is no prohibition for enrolling the members in the year 2007 or in other words prior to six months of the end of the tenure. He, therefore, contends that the impugned order is perverse and is founded on a complete misreading of the provisions. 16. Sri R.K. Ojha, who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 5, submits that he does not propose to file any counter-affidavit in view of the submissions raised and the short controversy which has been raised before this Court. 17. Learned Standing Counsel, who also appears for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 states that he does not propose to file any counter-affidavit and the petition be disposed of finally at this stage itself. 18. 17. Learned Standing Counsel, who also appears for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 states that he does not propose to file any counter-affidavit and the petition be disposed of finally at this stage itself. 18. Sri Ojha submits that so far as the filing of the suit is concerned, the answering respondent is not a party to the same and the dispute relates to the members of the general body of the parent society namely Gyan Vikasani Samiti. His contention is that the procedure for enrolment under the scheme of administration of the institution is different from that of the bye-laws of the society and all the 82 members enrolled being members of the parent society cannot be treated to be the members of the general body under the scheme of administration. He, therefore, contends that the finding recorded by the Joint Director of Education should be understood in that context. Sri Ojha further contends that the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 5th June, 2009 is void being without jurisdiction and he relies on the decision in the case of Shiv Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2005 (2) UPLBEC 1384, to contend that the Assistant Registrar could not have entered into the dispute of membership. Sri Ojha further contends that in law the members of the general body of the parent society cannot be automatically treated to be the members of the general body under the scheme of administration for electing the Committee of Management of the College and hence, not only the enrolment of the members is vitiated but the entire elections are a nullity. 19. Sri Khare invited the attention of the Court to the Government Order dated 21st November, 2008 to urge that the State Government has already expressed its intention that the elections of a Committee of Management should be held by including all members of the parent society as well and that if there is any deficiency in any scheme of administration about the participation of such members then an amendment should be permitted in the scheme to remove any such anomaly. He, therefore, submits that the members of the general body of the society are entitled to participate in the elections for constituting the Committee of Management of the college. 20. He, therefore, submits that the members of the general body of the society are entitled to participate in the elections for constituting the Committee of Management of the college. 20. Sri Ojha replying to the said submission contends that no such amendment has been brought about in the scheme of administration and, therefore, the legal position as it stands today does not allow the members of the general body of the society to participate in the elections of the Committee of Management of the College. 21. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the position that emerges is that the Assistant Registrar passed an order with regard to the enrolment of the members of the general body of the parent society. From the pleadings that were on record either before the Assistant Registrar or before the Regional Level Committee there does not appear to be any plea having been raised to the constitution of the general body. The parties appear to have been contesting on the premise that the general body of the parent society is the same as that of the general body under the scheme of administration. The dispute raised was with regard to the procedure and the manner of enrolment of 82 members. It was not the case of either side before any of the authorities that the members of the general body of the society are not entitled to participate in the elections as members of the general body of the institution under the scheme of administration. On the contrary, the Civil Suit which has been filed by Shiv Kumar Rai and Gorakh Nath recites in paragraph 3 of the plaint categorically that the members of the society are also the members of the general body of the college. 22. Upon having pointed out the aforesaid distinction in the scheme of administration framed for the college under Section 16-A of the Act as amended up to date and the unamended scheme, Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 now contends that in view of the separate legal status of both the bodies, the order of the Regional Level Committee cannot be faulted with. The aforesaid argument of Sri R.K. Ojha has to be rejected, inasmuch as, the Regional Level Committee has not taken notice of this legal distinction as has been pointed out now and has proceeded to decide the dispute only on the manner of the enrolment as being not as per the procedure prescribed. This appears to be clear because of the fact that the contesting respondent never raised this issue of enrolment of members of the general body under the scheme of administration. 23. This might have been so because the contesting respondent himself is sailing in the same boat. The members of the society appear to have participated as members of the general body under the scheme of administration of the college in the previous elections of the year 2005 in which the respondent was elected as the Vice-President. It was also through an electoral college consisting of the members of the parent society and if the argument of the respondent is accepted then even his status as an office-bearer becomes doubtful. On the contrary, the respondents did not dispute the elections that were held on 19th July, 2005. The copy of the objection filed by the respondent is also on record which also does not indicate any such issue being raised that the members of the general body of the society do not form the general body for electing the Committee of Management of the college. The respondents, therefore, cannot raise a new dispute for the first time before this Court which was not raised before the authorities below. 24. The Regional Level Committee has, therefore, completely misdirected itself by ignoring the aforesaid aspect of the matter. The impugned order dated 5th February, 2011 is, therefore, unsustainable and is hereby quashed. 25. It shall now be open to the parties to raise their disputes and the Regional Level Committee shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties. 26. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations. —————