JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The principal relief claimed in all the three writ petitions is for quashing the order dated 22nd July, 2013 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Deputy Registrar’) by which a list of 349 members of the General Body has been finalised for holding an election under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) to constitute the Committee of Management of Sri Dugdheshwar Nath Vidyalaya Society, Rudrapur, District Deoria (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Society’). 2. The order dated 22nd July, 2013 was passed by the Deputy Registrar pursuant to the directions issued by the Court on 29th May, 2013 in the three Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 30017 of 2013, 26556 of 2013 and 26625 of 2013 earlier filed by the petitioners. The Court, by the said judgment, not only set aside the order dated 27th April, 2013 earlier passed by the Deputy Registrar pursuant to the directions issued by the Court on 9th January, 2013 in six connected writ petitions but also issued certain directions to the Deputy Registrar for passing a fresh order and they are as follows : “Let the Deputy Registrar pass a fresh order within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Deputy Registrar alongwith a certified copy of this order on 11.6.2013, on which date the Deputy Registrar shall fix a date for production of the original records by all the three petitioners and for hearing. Neither any adjournment shall be prayed for nor shall be granted. If the petitioners fail to produce the original records, the Deputy Registrar shall be free to take a decision on the issues after drawing adverse inference against the party concerned.” 3. Writ Petition No. 31374 of 2013 filed by the Committee of Management of the Society and Saroj Kumar Jaiswal was also disposed of on 30th May, 2013 with the same directions contained in the aforesaid judgment dated 29th May, 2013 after quashing the order dated 27th April, 2013 passed by the Deputy Registrar. 4. Writ Petition No. 31374 of 2013 filed by the Committee of Management of the Society and Saroj Kumar Jaiswal was also disposed of on 30th May, 2013 with the same directions contained in the aforesaid judgment dated 29th May, 2013 after quashing the order dated 27th April, 2013 passed by the Deputy Registrar. 4. The earlier direction was issued by the Court on 9th January, 2013 while deciding the writ petitions filed to assail the order dated 23rd August, 2011 passed by the Deputy Registrar by which the list of 275 members of the General Body submitted by Badri Narain Shukla was finalised for the purpose of holding the election under Section 25(2) of the Act for constituting the Committee of Management of the Society and the directions are as follows : “In this set of circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to record that the order impugned is in violation of principles of natural justice. The order dated 23.8.2011 passed by Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Meerut is hereby quashed. The Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur is directed to make available the documents which have been filed by the contesting parties to each other on application being made for the purposes. The parties shall be at liberty to file reply to the documents so supplied within Ten days of receipt of the documents. The Deputy Registrar shall fix a date for hearing of the matter afresh and shall decide the issue of membership, preferably within six weeks’ from the date certified copy of this order is filed before him. Neither any un-necessary adjournment shall be asked for by the parties, nor shall be granted. For the purpose of obtaining the copies of the documents filed by either side all the parties are directed to appear before the Deputy Registrar, Meerut alongwith certified copy of this order on 21.1.2013. Next date shall be fixed by Deputy Registrar in their presence. After hearing the parties as aforesaid, if the Deputy Registrar comes to the conclusion that the electoral college as already determined is lawful and valid, he shall proceed to declare the result of the elections already held. If the finding is otherwise, he shall direct holding of fresh elections from the valid electoral college.” 5. After hearing the parties as aforesaid, if the Deputy Registrar comes to the conclusion that the electoral college as already determined is lawful and valid, he shall proceed to declare the result of the elections already held. If the finding is otherwise, he shall direct holding of fresh elections from the valid electoral college.” 5. It is, therefore, seen that the Deputy Registrar had twice earlier determined the electoral college by the orders dated 23rd August, 2011 and 27th April, 2013 for the purpose of holding an election under Section 25(2) of the Act to constitute the Committee of Management of the Society and it is for the third time that the Deputy Registrar has now finalised the list of electoral college by the order dated 22nd July, 2013 that has been impugned in these petitions. 6. Writ Petition No. 43181 of 2013 has been filed by the Committee of Management of the Society together with Ravi Pratap Narain Shukla and Hriday Narain Shukla for not only quashing the order dated 22nd July, 2013 passed by the Deputy Registrar but also for a direction upon the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘’Assistant Registrar’) to register the list of office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Society elected on 21st September, 2011 with Ravi Pratap Narain Shukla as the Manager. 7. Writ Petition No. 43487 of 2013 has been filed by the Committee of Management of the Society through its Joint Secretary Yashoda Nand Srivastava and the Committee of Management of Ramji Sahai Post Graduate College, Rudrapur, Deoria through its Manager Yashoda Nand Srivastava for quashing the order dated 22nd July, 2013 passed by the Deputy Registrar and for a direction upon the Deputy Registrar to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act. 8. Writ Petition No. 43485 of 2013 has been filed by the Committee of Management of the Society and Sushil Kumar claiming himself to the Secretary for quashing the order dated 22nd July, 2013 passed by the Deputy Registrar as also for a direction upon the Deputy Registrar to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act. 9. 9. It transpires from the records of the Writ Petitions that the Society was initially registered on 19th April, 1955 and there have been long drawn litigations in connection with the Management of the Society. 10. With respect to the dispute that had arisen in 1978, the Prescribed Authority, by the order dated 30th April, 1982, passed under Section 25(1) of the Act recognised Badri Narain Jaiswal as the Secretary of the Society. A fresh dispute arose and the Prescribed Authority, by the order dated 3rd November, 1987, recognised Badri Narain Jaiswal as the Secretary of the Society and he got the registration of the Society renewed with effect from on 10th October, 1985 for a period of five years. Dispute again arose with regard to the elections of the office bearers of the Society held on 14th February, 1988 and this time also Badri Narain Jaiswal was recognised as the Secretary by the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 26th February, 1996. Badri Narain Jaiswal also submitted papers before the Assistant Registrar at Gorakhpur for renewal of the registration of the Society on 13th December, 1989 enclosing therein a list of 153 members of the General Body of the Society. 11. The 1992-93 Annual List of office bearers of the Society was registered by the Assistant Registrar at Gorakhpur on 1st February, 1992 with Jamuna Prasad Poddar as the President and Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava as the Secretary and it is said that from 3rd September, 1992 to 15th September, 1992 Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava enrolled 196 life members in the General Body of the Society. It is also said that after the death of Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava in 1994, Yashoda Nand Srivastava was elected as the Secretary for the remaining term and fresh elections for constituting the Committee of Management of the Society were held on 4th June, 1995 in which Jamuna Prasad Poddar was elected as the President and Bina Srivastava as the Manager/Secretary and the Assistant Registrar at Gorakhpur by the order dated 16th March, 1996 renewed the registration of the Society for a period of five years with effect from 10th October, 1995 on the basis of the papers submitted by Bina Srivastava. On 31st May, 1998, fresh elections of the Committee of Management of the Society were held in which Bina Srivastava was elected as the Secretary and the list of office bearers was registered by the Assistant Registrar at Gorakhpur by the order dated 20th December, 1999. The registration of the Society was also renewed for a period of five years from 10th October, 2000 on the papers submitted by Bina Srivastava. 12. A dispute also arose with respect to the election of the Committee of Management of the Society held in March 2010 and the Court declined to entertain Writ Petition No. 1016 of 2011 as the matter was engaging the attention of the Assistant Registrar at Gorakhpur but in view of the agreement arrived at between the parties, the Court directed that the matter shall be examined by the Assistant Registrar at Azamgarh. In Special Appeal No. 604 of 2011, an order was passed by the Court on 26th April, 2011 that the dispute should be transferred to the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits at Meerut. The Deputy Registrar at Meerut then by the order dated 23rd August, 2011 determined the list of 275 members of the General Body for the purpose of holding an election under Section 25(2) of the Act to constitute the Committee of Management of the Society. 13. As noticed hereinabove, this order dated 23rd August, 2011 was set aside by the Court by the judgment and order dated 9th January, 2013 and the Deputy Registrar was directed to pass a fresh order. Fresh order was then passed by the Deputy Registrar on 27th April, 2013 which was again assailed in the three writ petitions earlier filed by the petitioners and by the judgment and order dated 29th May, 2013 the Deputy Registrar was directed to pass a fresh order. The Deputy Registrar has now passed the order dated 22nd July, 2013 which has been assailed in all these three writ petitions. 14. The Deputy Registrar has now passed the order dated 22nd July, 2013 which has been assailed in all these three writ petitions. 14. The High Court in its judgment and order dated 29th May, 2013 rendered in the three petitions earlier filed by the petitioners had directed the Deputy Registrar to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity to the parties within four weeks and the petitioners were also directed to appear before the Deputy Registrar on 11th June, 2013 on which date the Deputy Registrar was directed to fix a date for production of the original records by all the three petitioners. The Court also made it clear that the parties shall not make any prayer for adjournment and nor should the Deputy Registrar grant it and if the petitioners failed to produce the original records, the Deputy Registrar should take a decision on the issues after drawing adverse inference. 15. The Deputy Registrar has noticed in the impugned order dated 22nd July, 2013 that on 11th June, 2013 only Sushil Kumar (petitioner of Writ Petition No. 30017 of 2013), Saroj Kumar Jaiswal (petitioner of Writ Petition No. 31374 of 2013) and Ravi Pratap Narain Shukla (petitioner of Writ Petition No. 26556 of 2013) appeared before him. Hriday Narain Shukla did not appear because of illness and sent his representative Neeraj Shukla and Yashoda Nand Srivastava (petitioner of Writ Petition No. 26625 of 2013) did not appear for the reason that he was ill. The Deputy Registrar has also noted that on 11th June, 2013 he fixed 28th June, 2013 for hearing and also directed the parties to produce the original records. On the said date Sushil Kumar, Hriday Narain Shukla, Yashoda Nand Srivastava and Saroj Kumar Jaiswal appeared but Ravi Pratap Narain Shukla did not appear. The Deputy Registrar has also noted that Yashoda Nand Srivastava and Saroj Kumar Jaiswal filed an application for granting time to file the original documents and subsequently Saroj Kumar Jaiswal submitted the original documents on 4th July, 2013. Hriday Narain Shukla did not submit the original documents and only wanted the documents filed by the other party to be supplied to him. In view of this request, a letter dated 1st July, 2013 was sent to Hriday Narain Shukla to appear on 8th July, 2013 and obtain the copies of the documents but he did not appear on the said date. In view of this request, a letter dated 1st July, 2013 was sent to Hriday Narain Shukla to appear on 8th July, 2013 and obtain the copies of the documents but he did not appear on the said date. Thus, except Saroj Kumar Jaiswal no party submitted the original documents. The Deputy Registrar then considered the representations filed by Hriday Narain Shukla, Saroj Kumar Jaiswal, Yashoda Nand Shukla, Sushil Kumar and Ravi Pratap Narain Shukla. 16. The Deputy Registrar found from the records that Badri Narain Jaiswal was Secretary of the Society between 1982 and 1986 and also thereafter and while seeking renewal of the registration of the Society Badri Narain Jaiswal had submitted documents on 13th December, 1989 including the list of 153 members of the General Body. Hriday Narain Shukla also claims to have submitted a list of 275 members but this was not available in the record. The Deputy Registrar has accepted the said list of 153 members. The Deputy Registrar then noticed that the Annual List of office bearers for the year 1992-93 was registered on 1st September, 1992 in which Jamuna Prasad Poddar was the Manager and Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava was the Secretary. Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava had enrolled 196 new members between 3rd September, 1992 to 15th September, 1992 and in support thereof relevant documents had been submitted. The Deputy Registrar, after observing that Writ Petition No. 40350 of 1992 filed for quashing the order dated 1st September, 1992 was dismissed by the Court on 18th January, 1996, accepted the list of 196 members of the General Body and, accordingly, approved list of 153+196 i.e. 349 members of the General Body of the Society. 17. The Deputy Registrar then noticed that the Assistant Registrar at Gorakhpur had renewed the registration the Society for a period of five years from 10th October, 1995 but had not registered the list of office bearers and, therefore, enrollment of 44 members by Bina Srivastava during this period was not accepted. The Deputy Registrar also noticed that after 1999-2000, the list of office bearers of the Society was not registered by the Assistant Registrar at Gorakhpur. 18. The Deputy Registrar thereafter considered the claim of each of the parties. The Deputy Registrar also noticed that after 1999-2000, the list of office bearers of the Society was not registered by the Assistant Registrar at Gorakhpur. 18. The Deputy Registrar thereafter considered the claim of each of the parties. With respect to the claim of Hriday Narain Shukla, the Deputy Registrar found that though he had appeared on 28th June, 2013 but he did not produce the original records. The Deputy Registrar also found that the name of Hriday Narain Shukla was not included in the list of 153 members submitted at the time of renewal and the claim of Hriday Narain Shukla that he was elected as a member of the General Body between 1992 and 1996 was also not accepted for the reason that his date of birth was 20th March, 1971 and he would be a minor at the relevant time. With respect to the claim of Ravi Pratap Narain Shukla, the Deputy Registrar observed that he did not appear on 28th June, 2013 and nor did he produce any original record in support of his claim. With respect to the claim of Sushil Kumar and Yashoda Nand Srivastava, the Deputy Registrar found that though they appeared on 28th June, 2013 but they did not produce the original records to substantiate their claim. With respect to the claim of Saroj Kumar Jaiswal, the Deputy Registrar observed that the Register produced by him does not indicate the category of the members enrolled by him and nor does it indicate the date on which they were enrolled and the amount of enrollment fees deposited by such members. The claim set up by these persons was, accordingly, rejected. 19. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 43181 of 2013, namely Ravi Pratap Narain Shukla and Hriday Narain Shukla, submitted that on 11th June, 2013 the Deputy Registrar had not fixed any date for hearing which he was obliged under the direction issued by the Court on 29th May, 2013 in the earlier Writ Petition No. 26556 of 2013 filed by the petitioners and, therefore, the order deserves to be set aside. It is also the contention of learned Senior Counsel that the claim of the petitioners could not have been rejected even if they had not produced the original records. It is also the contention of learned Senior Counsel that the claim of the petitioners could not have been rejected even if they had not produced the original records. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that on 28th June, 2013 Hriday Narain Shukla appeared before the Deputy Registrar and had requested for providing the documents submitted by the other side and since the Deputy Registrar refused to give these documents, the petitioners filed an application before the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P., Lucknow for transfer of the dispute to some Deputy Registrar so that justice could be done and, thereafter, the petitioners received the letter dated 1st September, 2013 from the office of the Deputy Registrar at Meerut that the parties should appear before the Registrar on 22nd July, 2013 pursuant to the FAX received from the Registrar on 28th June, 2013 but inspite of the aforesaid communication the Deputy Registrar decided the matter on 22nd July, 2013 which was the date fixed for appearance before the Registrar. It is, therefore, the contention of learned Senior Counsel that the order dated 22nd July, 2013 passed by the Deputy Registrar should be set aside. 20. It is not possible to accept the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. The order passed by the High Court on 29th May, 2013 had made it absolutely clear that the parties had to appear before the Deputy Registrar on 11th June, 2013 on which date the Deputy Registrar had to fix the date for production of the records by the three petitioners and for hearing. The Court also made it clear that the parties shall not seek any adjournment and nor the Deputy Registrar shall grant any adjournment and if the parties failed to produce the original records, an adverse inference shall be drawn. 21. It is not in dispute that on 11th June, 2013 the Deputy Registrar had fixed 28th June, 2013. The contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that 28th June, 2013 was fixed for production of the records only and not for hearing cannot be accepted in view of the categorical statement made by the petitioners in paragraph 30 of the writ petition that on 11th June, 2013, the Deputy Registrar fixed 28th June, 2013 for hearing. 22. The contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that 28th June, 2013 was fixed for production of the records only and not for hearing cannot be accepted in view of the categorical statement made by the petitioners in paragraph 30 of the writ petition that on 11th June, 2013, the Deputy Registrar fixed 28th June, 2013 for hearing. 22. The next contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that as the Deputy Registrar had directed the parties to appear before the Registrar on 22nd July, 2013 in view of the letter dated 1st July, 2013, he could not have decided the dispute on 22nd July 2013 cannot also be accepted. The letter dated 1st July, 2013 was sent to the petitioners for appearance before the Registrar on 22nd July, 2013 for the reason that the petitioners had submitted an application dated 28th June, 2013 before the Registrar for transfer of the case from the Deputy Registrar at Meerut to some other Deputy Registrar. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the Registrar had fixed 22nd July, 2013 for deciding the dispute on merits. 23. Sri K. Shahi, learned counsel for the respondents has placed before the Court the order dated 5th July, 2013 passed by the Registrar by which the representation filed by the petitioners for transfer of the case was rejected for the reason that the Deputy Registrar was deciding the dispute pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court on 29th May, 2013. 24. Sri R.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 43487 of 2013, namely Yashoda Nand Srivastava, submitted that there was no occasion for the Deputy Registrar to rely upon the list of 153 members submitted by Badri Narain Jaiswal when in the judgment and order dated 29th May, 2013 the Court had noticed that various orders passed by the Authority took notice of the fact that Badri Narain Jaiswal had filed three writ petition in which the list consisting of 134, 141 and 137 members was enclosed. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No. 2 Hriday Narain Shukla had appeared before the Deputy Registrar on 28th June, 2013 and produced the original records but he did not accept them. 25. It is not possible to accept the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No. 2 Hriday Narain Shukla had appeared before the Deputy Registrar on 28th June, 2013 and produced the original records but he did not accept them. 25. It is not possible to accept the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners. The Deputy Registrar has noticed in the impugned order that this list of 153 members was submitted by Badri Narain Shukla alongwith other documents on 13th December, 1989 while seeking renewal of the registration of the Society. The Deputy Registrar has also clearly observed in the impugned order that though Yashoda Nand Srivastava appeared before the Deputy Registrar on 28th June, 2013 but he did not submit any documents. The petitioners have not filed any document to show that the original records were actually submitted to the Deputy Registrar on the said date. Infact, the order passed by the Deputy Registrar mentions that on 28th June, 2013 Yashoda Nand Srivastava had filed an application seeking some time to file the original documents. 26. Sri K. Shahi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also submitted that the statement made by the petitioners that on 28th June, 2013 the Deputy Registrar did not accept the original records is not correct. He has further pointed out that in paragraph 48 of the writ petitioner, the petitioners have made an incorrect statement that they had made a request to the Deputy Registrar on 11th June 2013 for fixing another date as the order passed by the Court on 29th May, 2013 had not been uploaded on the Internet. In this connection, learned counsel for the respondents has placed before the Court the authenticated copy of the order passed by the Court which was supplied on 7th June, 2013 which clearly shows that the order had been uploaded on the Internet prior to 11th June, 2013. 27. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Deputy Registrar had refused to accept the original records submitted by Yashoda Nand Srivastava. 28. Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 43485 of 2013 has merely adopted the submissions raised by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 43181 of 2013. These submissions have been dealt with. 29. 28. Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 43485 of 2013 has merely adopted the submissions raised by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 43181 of 2013. These submissions have been dealt with. 29. The elections of the Committee of Management of the Society have to be held under Section 25(2) of the Act. It is for this purpose that the list was finalised by the Deputy Registrar but the petitioners instead of producing the original records before the Deputy Registrar, as was directed by the Court in its judgment and order dated 29th May, 2013, are still agitating about the list finalised by the Deputy Registrar. 30. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 22nd July, 2013 passed by the Deputy Registrar does not call for any interference by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.