Judgment : Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri, J. This Mandamus Appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 23rd December, 2010 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P. No. 1619 of 2010. Hon’ble Single Judge disposed of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by directing the Registrar of Firms, Societies and Non-Trading Corporations, West Bengal to decide which annual return for the year 2008-09 between the returns submitted by the petitioners and some other persons will be accepted according to the provisions of the Acts and the rules. In deciding the said matter reasonable opportunity of presenting the respective cases should be given to the parties who submitted the returns in question. A reasoned decision shall be given within three weeks of the date of communication of the order. Other questions in the writ petitions remained open. The appellant, Institute for Indian Labour, a Society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961 under the Presidentship of Protiva Sen alias Protiva Sengupta filed a writ petition bearing No. W.P. 1619 of 2010 against the State of West Bengal through the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Writers Building, Kolkata and Registrar of Societies having office of Societies and Non-Trading Corporation, West Bengal challenging the act of respondent No.2 in accepting annual return for the same financial year of 2008- 09 by issuing receipt number 4692 dated 27th May, 2010. The said authority also accepted a second list of committee members for the year 2009-10 on 27th May, 2010 in spite of the list of committee members for the year 2009-10 having been filed for the financial year 2008-09 by the petitioner. The petitioner requested the respondent/authority to cancel the said receipt and all documents. But the respondent/authority failed to consider the same including the fact that there cannot be any further special annual general meeting for the financial year 2008-09 after the annual general meeting held for the year 2009. It was alleged further that acceptance of return and issuing receipt No. 4692 dated 27th May, 2010 issued towards the filing of purported annual return for the year 2008-09 and purported list of the members for the year 2009-10 are illegal. It was alleged further that acceptance of return and issuing receipt No. 4692 dated 27th May, 2010 issued towards the filing of purported annual return for the year 2008-09 and purported list of the members for the year 2009-10 are illegal. The petitioner also prayed for issuing a restraint order against the respondent No.2 for giving effect to the said receipt as well as for the cancellation of the annual return filed by the said receipt for the year 2008-09. Learned Court disposed of the said writ petition by directing the Registrar i.e. respondent No.2 to decide after giving reasonable opportunity to presenting their case to both the parties as to which annual return for the year 2008-09 between the returns submitted by the petitioner and the added respondent will be accepted according to the laws and rules. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioners have preferred this Mandamus Appeal. Petition has also been filed for adding respondent Paritosh Kumar Mukhopadhyay and Sitaram Gupta as President and Executive Secretary of the Institute as party. In the interest of justice they should be added as party in view of the fact that they are affected by the order and the allegation of the appellant/petitioner is against them. We have heard the respective cases of both the parties and perused the documents including the notes of argument filed by the appellant and respondent Nos.1 and 2 and added respondents. It is the case of the appellant/petitioner that Institute for Indian Labour, a Society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961 was founded by Naren Sen who died on 18th December, 2007. Therefore, petitioner Protiva Sen alias Protiva Sengupta was appointed as President of the petitioner/appellant No.. An annual general meeting was held for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 and annual returns were submitted to the respondent No.2 through petitioner/appellant No.2. Thereafter, annual general meeting was held on 4th May, 2009 for the year 2008-09 and the annual return for the said year along with the list of members for the year 2009-10 was filed to the respondent No.2 on 17th June, 2009 whereby a receipt bearing No.5417 was issued by the respondent No.2. Thereafter, annual general meeting for the year 2009-10 was held on 4th May, 2010 and the annual return for the year 2009-10 was filed to the respondent No.2 on 13th July, 2010. Thereafter, annual general meeting for the year 2009-10 was held on 4th May, 2010 and the annual return for the year 2009-10 was filed to the respondent No.2 on 13th July, 2010. After filing such return assessment order has been passed by Income Tax Authorities. All the annual returns, annual accounts and income tax returns of the appellant No.1 were signed by appellant No.2. The respondent No.2 and other authorities accepted the same. There cannot be special annual general meeting and there cannot be election of members of the executive member for the same period i.e. 2009-10 twice and there cannot be two special annual general meetings on 16.08.2009 and 24.12.2009. The Registrar could not accept the return of the added respondent for the year 2006-07, 2007-08 as well as 2008-09. Therefore, the return filed by the added respondent should be quashed and taken off from the record. The Registrar of Society is duty bound to examine the documents before accepting the same from the added respondent. The Registrar cannot accept a joint return for two years i.e. 2006-07 and 2007-08. He cannot accept the return of 2008-09 from added respondent. According to appellant/petitioner, Hon’ble Single Judge is not justified in directing the Registrar of Society to decide the issue because he has no power to adjudicate upon the rival claims of members to the Society. Moreover, he cannot be vested with adjudicating power which as not been given by the statute. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent No.1 and 2 that dispute relates to the actual control of the management of the petitioner No.1/appellant No.1. It is beyond the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court. Moreover, the Registrar has no power to decide the veracity of such return for the year 2008-09 filed in the office of the Registrar. According to the added respondents, the members in the list filed by the appellant No.2 before the respondent No.2 through annual return for the year 2008-09 were not members of the Executive Board of the petitioner No.1. The added respondents are the members of the petitioner/appellant No.1 for ten years. It is not possible for the Registrar to determine as to who are controlling the management of the Society. The added respondents are the members of the petitioner/appellant No.1 for ten years. It is not possible for the Registrar to determine as to who are controlling the management of the Society. Moreover, the Registrar/respondent No.2 wrote a letter dated 30.06.2010 vide No.5104 that they are recording the file of the return but they are not in a position to approve the contents of the return. Their further case is that the genuineness of the return is to be adjudicated by the Civil Court by adducing evidence. We have carefully scrutinize the materials on record including the written notes of argument and considered the same. According to the appellant/petitioner, annual general meeting was held for the year 2006-07, 2007-08 and annual returns were submitted to the respondent No.2 through petitioner/appellant No.2. Thereafter, annual general meeting was held on 4th May, 2009 for the year 2008-09 and the annual return for the said year along with the list of members for the year 2009-10 was filed on 17th June, 2009 whereby receipt No. 5417 was issued by the respondent No.2. Thereafter, annual general meeting for the year 2009-10 was held on 4th May, 2010 and the annual return for the year 2009-10 was filed to the respondent No.2 on 13th July, 2010. After filing such returns, assessment order has been passed by the income tax authorities. All the annual returns, annual accounts and the income tax returns of the appellant No.1 were signed by appellant No.2. Respondent No.2 and other authorities accepted the same. At the material time appellant No.2 was President of the Institute and the appellant No.2 applied to the income tax authorities for issuance of certificate under Section 197(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in favour of the tenants of the appellant No.1. The income tax authorities from time to time issued such certificates which were made over to the concerned tenants of the appellant No.1. It appears from the record that respondent No.2 accepted the returns for the year 2006-07, 2007-08 filed by appellant No.2. It further appears that annual returns were filed along with the accounts with the respondent No.2. Thereafter those were audited by the statutory auditors. The accounts which form part of the annual return have been submitted with the income tax authorities along with the income tax returns of the appellant No.1. It further appears that annual returns were filed along with the accounts with the respondent No.2. Thereafter those were audited by the statutory auditors. The accounts which form part of the annual return have been submitted with the income tax authorities along with the income tax returns of the appellant No.1. On such returns, assessment orders for the financial year 2007-08, 2008-09 have been passed by the income tax authorities. These annual returns and annual accounts and income tax returns of the appellant No.1 have been signed by appellant No.2 and the respondent No.2 and other authorities accepted the same. In such factual aspect there is no reason as to why the respondent No.2 shall accept the return for the year 2008-09 filed by the added respondent. The filing of the return for the year 2007-08, 2008-09 by the appellant No.2 to the respondent No.2 has not been denied by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. There is no whisper or denial in the notes of argument filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 to that effect. It is evident that annual general meeting was held on 24th November, 2008 and annual return for the financial year 2007-08 was filed with the Registrar of Societies on 5th December, 2008. Subsequently, another annual general meeting was held on 4th May, 2009 for the year 2008-09 and annual return for the year 2008-09 along with the list of members for the year 2009-10 was filed with the respondent No.2 on 17th June, 2009 vide receipt No.5417 vide Annexure ‘C’. The annual return for the financial year 2009-10 was also filed on 13th July, 2010 vide Annexure ‘D’. It is, therefore, evident that respondent No.2 i.e. the Registrar of Firms, Societies and Non-Trading Corporations accepted the return of the previous years i.e. from 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and also 2009-10. The returns with accounts were audited and since the accounts submitted along with the returns form part of the returns and assessment orders were passed by income tax authorities, the respondent No.2 must act upon the same. In that view of the matter, respondent No.2 has no authority to act upon and accept the second annual return for the year 2008-09 vide receipt No.4692 dated 27th May, 2010 from the added respondents. In that view of the matter, respondent No.2 has no authority to act upon and accept the second annual return for the year 2008-09 vide receipt No.4692 dated 27th May, 2010 from the added respondents. The respondent No.2 is, therefore, directed to accept the return which has been filed by the appellant No.2 on behalf of appellant No.1 and act upon the same. The Registrar is further directed not to act and give effect on the return filed by the added respondent vide receipt No. 4692 dated 27th May, 2010. The judgement and order passed by learned Single Judge is, therefore, set aside. The Mandamus Appeal succeeds. No order as to costs. Photostat certified copy of the judgement and order, if applied for, be made over to the parties on usual terms. (Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri, J.) I agree, (Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.)