JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral):- The petition is to quash the order issued on 19.06.2014 by the 3rd respondent, namely, the District Registrar, placing in abeyance the election schedule ordered on 23.05.2014. The decision of the District Registrar was in response to some objections given by persons claiming to be past members of the society on 10.06.014 that the membership roll had been prepared without including them and that the list was not correct. The list had been published by the petitioners on 13.05.2014 and the notice published in an English daily was that the suggestions, claims and objections were invited from life members upto 17.05.2014. Subsequently on 20.05.2014, yet another publication notice had been made inviting claims/objections and suggestions regarding final voter list of life members and any life member could file his claims, objections or suggestions upto 23.05.2014 in the office of the member of the Saini Degree College. The contention is that any objection regarding membership will have to be seen independently of an objection regarding the voter list and the publication of notice regarding membership itself must be taken to have been finalized on 13.05.2014. If an objection had not been brought before the Registrar within 15 days from the said date, namely, from 13.05.2014 which could have been at best extended for another period of 7 days by the Registrar, the objection given on 10.06.2014 by some of the persons claiming to be members could not be taken as valid to place the election schedule in abeyance. The impugned order was purported to be issued under Section 39(6) of Haryana Registration & Regulation of Societies Act of 2012 (for short, ‘Act of 2012’) and the counsel would argue that the objection to membership came under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act and it could not be taken as an objection which is contemplated under Section 39 (4). The petitioner would, therefore, seek for quashing of the order passed by the District Registrar. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the court had allowed for continuance of the election process after the nomination were filed and scrutiny undertaken, this court had directed some of the objections raised by some persons to be examined by the District Registrar and a report filed in court. The report has also been filed after holding an enquiry which is produced before court as one passed on 12.08.2014. The report has also been filed after holding an enquiry which is produced before court as one passed on 12.08.2014. The report takes up several issues relating to the eligibility of members, who had been admitted, the defects in the constitution of collegium etc. 3. Some of the private respondents, who had been impleaded on their own applications contending that they are also members and they have been left out, have a case to contend that the petitioners on their own extended the time for calling objection on publication and the publication made on 23.05.2014 was still keeping open the issue of life member to file his or her objection and it should therefore be taken as the date from when the objection could be given under Section 39(4). 4. Although there is an issue of age, namely, that in the members enlisted by the petitioners, there are persons, who are less than 21 years of age, which is the minimum eligible age under the Act of 2012, the counsel for the petitioner points out that they had not admitted any new member at the time of re-registration and since under the old Act, the eligibility for membership was only 18 and, therefore, such of those members, who had already been admitted could not be taken to be disqualified, are wrongly admitted under the Act of 2012. 5. To me, the impugned decision ought to be sustained for the following reasons:(i) Section 39 which comes under Chapter 8 relating to the subject of elections contemplates any person or group of persons, who are aggrieved with list of members published under Section 39(3) to file his petition before the Registrar specifying the ground of challenge. Clause 3 states that on the date of election of the society, the governing body shall publish a list of members entitled to vote. A list of members is indeed a list of voters as well. There is no particular disqualification amongst the body of members to require a separate list of voters. If the petitioner had published on 13.05.2014 calling for suggestions, claims and objections from the life members, I would take it that there had been no final list of members made yet. It did not seem so much as information about the final list of members. If the petitioner had published on 13.05.2014 calling for suggestions, claims and objections from the life members, I would take it that there had been no final list of members made yet. It did not seem so much as information about the final list of members. On the other hand, the publication suggests that any life member could make his claim or objection as regards the final voter list of life members again on 20.05.2014. When the reference was made for last date for inviting the claims, objections, suggestions regarding final voter list of life members, it was surely an expression of an attempt to finalize the list after receiving the claims, objections or suggestions. Only if it reads so that it is possible to give meaning to how the petitioner himself qualifies the course of action that ‘the last date for final voter list has been extended’. The question of extension would arise only so long as the list was not completed. It will make no meaning if an objection or suggestion or a claim is allowed to be given by an extended date upto 23.05.2014, if the list had been finalized even on 13.05.2014. 6. Even the notice cannot be taken as a final. In the manner in which it reads, it is doubtful if even the publication on 23.05.2014 could be taken as final date when the list was finalized. The petitioner himself had set down with publication effected that the final publication of the amended voter list was 20.06.2014. I have already observed that the voter list in this context must also be taken to be the list of all members who are eligible voters. There could be no difference in the content of the list of voters or the list of members. So reckoned, if there were objections from the members on 10.06.2014, I would take it that the objections have been brought within time prescribed by law. Sub Section 6 of Section 39 provides that if a petition is filed before the Sub-Registrar under sub-Section 4, the Registrar may, after fulfillment of the conditions specified under sub-section 5, immediately held the election process in abeyance and proceed to conduct an enquiry by himself. I take the enquiry which this court had directed and for which a report had also been filed as an enquiry done under Section 39(6). 7. I take the enquiry which this court had directed and for which a report had also been filed as an enquiry done under Section 39(6). 7. The order passed placing the election under abeyance is, under the circumstances, justified. The petitioner has even a remedy under Section 79 of the Act to prefer an appeal against an order of the Registrar to the Registrar General. The petitioner can defend his own action on the alleged deficiencies pointed out in the report of the District Registrar filed before court as Ex.R1. If the appeal by the petitioner would for any reason be barred by law, the fact that the petitioner had been prosecuting this case could be set forth for exclusion of time and the appellate authority will consider the reasons set forth and condoned the delay as admissible by law. 8. All further election process shall stand in abeyance and the decision to hold an election will follow the ultimate outcome of the petitioner’s objection in the appeal that he may choose to do. If any appeal is filed within time as required in law, the District Registrar shall be competent to undertake a further exercise of hearing objections as regards the membership and conclude the same in accordance with law. If the appeal is filed, the same shall be decided by the State Registrar as expeditiously as possible within a period of 8 weeks. 9. The writ petition is dismissed but with the above observations. ------------------