JUDGMENT Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Short counter-affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 3 is taken on record. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.8.2012 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad (opposite party No. 2), by which opposite party No. 2 quashed the order dated 22.5.2012 passed on merit after hearing both the parties by the then Assistant Registrar and directed to conduct the election of Committee of Management of the Society. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Shiv Mangal Shikshan Sansthan village and post-Sarsi Kham, Patti, Pratapgarh was registered on 24.6.2006 under Society Registration Act 1860 bearing its registration No. 288/2006-07. The petitioner No. 2, being a founder member of the Society and elected Manager, performed his duties and responsibilities as per bye-laws of the Society. First time the election of the Society took place in the year 2006 and opposite party No. 3 was elected as President and petitioner No. 2 elected as Manager. The term of officer bearers was for a period of five years. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further points out that without the knowledge of the petitioners as well as other members of the general body, a mischief was committed by opposite party No. 3 and without calling any meeting of Committee of Management, forged documents were prepared showing that a general body meeting took place on 2.7.2007 and new Managing Committee was formed by opposite party No. 3 removing the petitioner from Managership and placing the petitioner as Deputy Manager and he placed his real brother Sri Vinod Kumar Singh as Manager. The said documents were presented before the Assistant Registrar for registration of a new Managing Committee, which was registered under the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act. 5. On coming to know about the said forgery committed by opposite party No. 3, the petitioner, being a founder Manager of the Society, inspected the file on 22.10.2007 and subsequently an objection was filed on 24.10.2007 with the specific allegation that neither any meeting of the society was called on 2.7.2007 nor it was held and he prayed for cancellation of proceedings dated 2.7.2007. On the said application/objection of the petitioners, the Assistant Registrar, Allahabad issued notice to opposite party No. 3 and after giving full opportunity of hearing to both the parties and taking into consideration the evidence submitted by respective parties, passed detailed order dated 22.5.2012 declaring the proceedings held on 2.7.2007 as illegal. 6. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that after passing the order dated 22.5.2012, the opposite party No. 3 made an application/objection by saying that the order dated 22.5.2012 is an ex parte order without giving any opportunity for submitting the documents. On the said application, the opposite party No. 2 passed an interim order dated 28.5.2012, which was challenged by petitioners by means of Writ Petition No. 4170 (M/S) of 2012. During the pendency of said writ petition, the opposite party No. 2 passed final order on 18.8.2012. As the impugned order dated 18.8.2012 was passed by the opposite party No. 2 without jurisdiction, the petitioners constrained to approach this Court by means of present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submissions placed reliance on the judgment in Fahim Ahmad and another v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2006 (24) LCD 1078, in which it has been held that Registrar does not have any jurisdiction to rescind or modify the order passed by the Deputy Registrar or the Assistant Registrar while discharging the statutory duties. The Registrar does not possess the appellate power under the Act to rescind the decision taken by the Deputy Registrar or the Assistant Registrar as the case may be. It has further been held that it is a settled law that the power of appeal or review or revision are the statutory powers and in the absence of any specific provision under the Act or statute, the authorities have got no jurisdiction to exercise such powers. Relevant paragraph No. 31 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under : “31. The State Government by the notifications dated 20th of July, 1981, 7th of January, 1982, 31st of July, 1985, 24th of January, 1987, 6th of July, 1991 followed by another notification dated 29th of October, 1991 has delegated the work of Registrar to the Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar of the respective regions or district. The State Government by the notifications dated 20th of July, 1981, 7th of January, 1982, 31st of July, 1985, 24th of January, 1987, 6th of July, 1991 followed by another notification dated 29th of October, 1991 has delegated the work of Registrar to the Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar of the respective regions or district. In view of the delegation of power by the State Government in pursuance to the power conferred by Section 21 of the Societies Registration Act, the Deputy Registrar of the Assistant Registrar of the regions or districts or as the case may be, have got power to discharge all the statutory duties provided under the Societies Registration Act. Once the State Government has delegated the power to the Deputy Registrar or the Assistant Registrar of the respective regions or the districts then the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P., Lucknow has got no jurisdiction to interfere with the discharge of statutory duties by the Deputy Registrar or the Assistant Registrar while proceeding with the controversy. The supervisory power vested in the Registrar does not seem to usurp the power of the Deputy “Registrar or the Assistant Registrar. Of course, in case, it is brought into the notice of the Registrar relating to some malpractice, fraud or the corrupt practice by the Deputy Registrar, then in such situation, Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits may transfer the proceeding to some other Deputy Registrar or the Assistant Registrar having the jurisdiction to discharge duties under Section 21 of the Societies Registration Act. Corollary to that the Registrar does not have got jurisdiction to rescind or modify the order passed by the Deputy Registrar or the Assistant Registrar while discharging the statutory duties. The Registrar does not possess the appellate power under the Act to rescind the decision taken by the Deputy Registrar or the Assistant Registrar as the case may be. It is a settled law that the power of appeal or review or revision are the statutory powers and in the absence of any specific provision under the Act or statute, the authorities have got no jurisdiction to exercise such powers.” 8. It is a settled law that the power of appeal or review or revision are the statutory powers and in the absence of any specific provision under the Act or statute, the authorities have got no jurisdiction to exercise such powers.” 8. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order dated 18.8.2012 has been passed by the opposite party No. 2, setting aside earlier order dated 22.5.2012 whereas neither he is an appellate authority nor has jurisdiction to review or recall the order passed by the earlier authority and, as such, the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction as well as against the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860. 9. Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No. 3, while opposing the writ petition, submitted that as the election process has already started, therefore, no interference is required in the matter. He further submits that if petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order, they may file Election Petition subsequently. In support of his submission, learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 placed reliance on the judgments in Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar, 2001 (19) LCD 213 and Gulab Dhar Pandey v. State, 2009(4) ADJ 310 (DB). 10. Heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. 11. The main ground of challenging the impugned order dated 18.8.2012 is that opposite party No. 2 is neither an appellate authority nor has jurisdiction to review or recall the order dated 22.5.2012 passed by the earlier authority and, as such, the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction as well as against the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 and if any one was aggrieved by order dated 22.5.2012, it was open for him to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. 12. On query being made, the learned Standing Counsel as well as Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 fairly admitted that the Assistant Registrar cannot act as an appellate authority as well as he has no power to recall or review the earlier order passed by the erstwhile Officer on the issue. 13. Admittedly, on the application/objection of the petitioners, the Assistant Registrar by means of order dated 22.5.2012 set aside the proceedings dated 2.7.2007, by which fresh election alleged to have been taken place and new committee was elected. 13. Admittedly, on the application/objection of the petitioners, the Assistant Registrar by means of order dated 22.5.2012 set aside the proceedings dated 2.7.2007, by which fresh election alleged to have been taken place and new committee was elected. Apparently, order dated 22.5.2012 has not been challenged by any of the parties and it appears that opposite party No. 3 moved an application against the said order on the basis of which, the issue was reopened and while passing the impugned order dated 18.8.2012, the earlier order dated 22.5.2012 was set aside. Thus, the action of Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad is not in accordance with law and he exceeded his jurisdiction. 14. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. 15. The impugned order dated 18.8.2012 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad is hereby quashed. ——————