JUDGMENT Rajan Roy, J. 1. Heard Shri Gajendra Pratap, learned senior Counsel assisted by Shri Pranav Kumar Srivastava for the petitioners and Shri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3. By means of Writ Petition No. 57510 of 2010 the petitioners have challenged the order dated 31.7.2010 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi, by which he has decided the membership dispute of the general body of the Society, known as Hindu High School Zamania Station, District Ghazipur (hereinafter called "the Society") and has declared the list of 63 members as valid while the list of 104 members submitted by petitioner No. 22 Sudarshan Singh Yadav (deceased) as invalid. Writ Petition No. 58206 of 2010 challenges the orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools consequential to the order dated 31.7.2010 impugned in Writ Petition No. 57510 of 2010. 2. Writ Petition No. 57510 of 2010 has been heard as the leading writ petition and its facts have been mentioned hereinafter. 3. This Court while entertaining the writ petition had stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 31.7.2010 vide its order dated 24.9.2010, therefore, the same has not been implemented. 4. Shri Gajendra Pratap, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, assailed the aforesaid order on the ground firstly, there was no 'lis' existing for issuance of notice by the Assistant Registrar for deciding a membership dispute; secondly, in any case, the Assistant Registrar did not have any authority under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter called as "Act of 1860") to decide the membership dispute of the general body of the Society; and thirdly, the petitioner No. 22, who alone had been issued notice, was not afforded due opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. The affected parties, i.e., petitioner Nos. 1 to 21 were not issued any notice by the Assistant Registrar and were not heard. The affected parties, i.e., petitioner Nos. 1 to 21 were not issued any notice by the Assistant Registrar and were not heard. He also submitted that the election of office bearers which was held on 30.5.2004, in which the petitioner No. 22 was elected, was not challenged by the respondent No. 3 nor was the subsequent election held on 23.2.2009 challenged, thus there being no challenge to the elections of office bearers of the society by him, there was no question of reference of any dispute pertaining to office bearers by the Assistant Registrar to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act 1860, consequently there was no question for considering any membership dispute in this context, even incidentally, in exercise of such power of reference nor under Section 4 i.e., at the time of submission/registration of annual list of office bearers after the 'renewal of registration of the society' by the order dated 30.5.2009. 5. The order dated 30.5.2009 was challenged by the respondent No. 3 before the Court by means of Writ Petition No. 46567 of 2009. It was dismissed on the ground that the said order was only an order of renewal of the society and it did not confer any right upon the rival parties claiming management of the society and that the said dispute pertaining to its office bearers could be raised separately. This Court did not issue any direction to the Assistant Registrar/Registrar, therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent No. 3 to submit an application dated 16.9.2009 to the Assistant Registrar for compliance of the judgment of this Court dated 2.9.2009, but surprisingly, based on the aforesaid, the Assistant Registrar issued notice to the petitioner No. 22 (as is evident from the impugned order itself) and proceeded to decide the membership dispute as also the validity of the list of members of the general body of the society. As there was no 'lis' existing prior to the issuance of the notice and no lis had been raised by the application dated 16.9.2009, the same could not be allowed to be raised thereafter by the Assistant Registrar. The Assistant Registrar did not have any power under Section 15 of the Act 1860 to decide a membership dispute or validity of the list of members of the general body of the society. The Assistant Registrar did not have any power under Section 15 of the Act 1860 to decide a membership dispute or validity of the list of members of the general body of the society. He relied upon a division bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Allahabad and another v. Registrar, Societies, Chits and Firms, U.P. Lucknow and others, (1998)1 UPLBEC 399, and a Single Judge judgment in the case of Shiv Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2005 (2) UPLBEC 1384 . 6. The original petitioner No. 22 informed the Assistant Registrar about his inability to appear before him to present his case despite this the matter was decided behind his back in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Shri Gajendra Pratap informed the Court that in October 2013, Section 4(b) was inserted in the Act of 1860 which requires submission of a list of members of the general body at the time of registration/renewal of a society as also any change in the same within one month thereof. He also submitted that it is only the respondent No. 3, who has tried to raise a dispute, other members have not raised any such dispute. 7. On the other hand, Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submitted that from a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that a lis regarding membership of the general body did exist and several founding members had filed their affidavits before the Assistant Registrar disputing the list of members submitted by the petitioner No. 22. The fact that the petitioner No. 22 appeared before the Assistant Registrar and filed a list of 104 members was indicative of the existence of a lis and also that the Assistant Registrar had the power to decide the same. Petitioner No. 22 by appearing before the Assistant Registrar had acceded to his jurisdiction. He further submitted that since there is a dispute, there has to be a forum to decide the same, and the authorities under the Act of 1860 are competent to decide the same. Petitioner No. 22 by appearing before the Assistant Registrar had acceded to his jurisdiction. He further submitted that since there is a dispute, there has to be a forum to decide the same, and the authorities under the Act of 1860 are competent to decide the same. In this regard, he placed reliance upon division bench decisions rendered in Committee of Management, Kisan Shiksha Sadan, Banksahi, District Basti and another, 1995(2) UPLBEC 1242, Jamia Razjviya Merajul Uloom, Chilmapur, Gorakhpur and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (10) ADJ 84 ; Shri Babu Ram Shiksha Prasar Samiti (PEG Society), District Etah and another v. Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Regional Office, Agra and others, 2007(9) ADJ, 262; Sri Shankar Prasar Samiti, Sirsani and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2009 (7) ADJ 49; and Committee of Management, Gyan Bharti Shiksha Sadan, Karvi, Chitrakoot and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2014(3) ESC 1506 (All). According to him, the Registrar/Deputy Registrar had the authority to decide dispute of membership of the general body of the society. He also submitted that not only the lis existed but, as, after renewal of registration of a society, a list of office bearers is required to be submitted under Section 4 of the Act of 1860, therefore, an objection was raised by the respondent No. 3 at this stage which was decided under Section 15 of the Act of 1860. So far as denial of opportunity of hearing was concerned, learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner No. 22 deliberately avoided to appear with mala fide intention. 8. In rejoinder, Shri Gajendra Pratap submitted that the eventualities mentioned in Section 4 of 1860 Act were not at all attracted, therefore, the application submitted by the respondent No. 3 dated 16.9.2009 could not be read with reference to the said provision. The order impugned was passed under Section 15 as specifically mentioned in its last line. 8. In rejoinder, Shri Gajendra Pratap submitted that the eventualities mentioned in Section 4 of 1860 Act were not at all attracted, therefore, the application submitted by the respondent No. 3 dated 16.9.2009 could not be read with reference to the said provision. The order impugned was passed under Section 15 as specifically mentioned in its last line. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 are those where there was a dispute relating to office bearers under Section 4 or a challenge to the election of the officer bearers for which the matter was required to be referred to the prescribed authority under Section 25 and in this process the Registrar was entitled to apply his mind so as to ascertain as to whether the dispute being raised was a genuine dispute or not and in that context he could examine the membership of the office bearers incidentally, without any finality being attached to his findings in this regard but the appropriate forum for raising such membership dispute was the civil Court and not the authorities under the Act of 1860. The respondent No. 3 had set up his own election allegedly on 30.3.1999 which was discarded by the respondents while passing the order of renewal dated 30.5.2009, therefore, the respondent No. 3 had no locus in the matter to raise a membership dispute. He was not a member of the society in the year 2001-02 when the dispute and lis of office bearers surfaced for the first time; he had not challenged the subsequent elections under Section 25 of the Act, and as his alleged election was discarded, he could not raise an election dispute, therefore, he very cleverly tried to raise a membership dispute in a circuitous manner. 9. Learned Standing Counsel supported the impugned order and submitted that the Assistant Registrar had the power to decide the membership dispute of a society. 10. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. From the perusal of the order dated 30.5.2009, it is evident that by the said order the renewal of the registration of the society was allowed with the observation, inter aia, that membership dispute can be raised separately for resolution; a dispute pertaining to membership of a society and that relating to its renewal are two separate disputes. 12. 11. From the perusal of the order dated 30.5.2009, it is evident that by the said order the renewal of the registration of the society was allowed with the observation, inter aia, that membership dispute can be raised separately for resolution; a dispute pertaining to membership of a society and that relating to its renewal are two separate disputes. 12. The dispute in this case had arisen in the context of renewal of the registration of the society and registration of office bearers of the managing committee way back in the year 2002 when Shri Gorakh Nath submitted an application dated 7.6.2002, claiming himself to be the Manager of the institution, requested for registration of list of office bearers of society. Likewise, a similar application was submitted by Shri Kuber Nath Jaiswal on 8.5.2004. Thereafter, original petitioner No. 22 Shri Sudarshan Singh Yadav submitted an application on 5.10.2005, claiming himself to be Secretary/Manager of the institution of the society based on the election held on 30.5.2004, and requested for renewal of the registration certificate accordingly. Shri Kuber Nath Jaiswal also submitted an application, seeking renewal of the registration of the society on 29.10.2005. Thus, earlier the contest was between Shri Gorakh Nath and Shri Kuber Nath Jaiswal and subsequently it became a contest between the petitioner No. 22 and Shri Kuber Nath Jaiswal. While the proceedings were going on before the concerned authority, the respondent No. 3 Shri Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal moved an application on 29.5.2007, claiming himself to be the Secretary, based on an election alleged to be held on 30.3.2007, seeking renewal of the registration of the society. This dispute was decided by the Assistant Registrar, Varanasi vide order dated 30.5.2009, already referred hereinabove. The renewal of registration of society was ordered accepting the claim of Shri Sudarshan Singh Yadav (original petitioner No. 22), however, with the observation that if there is any dispute relating to membership, it could be raised separately. This dispute was decided by the Assistant Registrar, Varanasi vide order dated 30.5.2009, already referred hereinabove. The renewal of registration of society was ordered accepting the claim of Shri Sudarshan Singh Yadav (original petitioner No. 22), however, with the observation that if there is any dispute relating to membership, it could be raised separately. The order dated 30.5.2009 was challenged by the respondent No. 3 by means of a writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 46567 of 2009, which was dismissed on 2.9.2009 subject to the observation that the order dated 30.5.2009 is restricted to the renewal of registration of the society and the observations made by the Assistant Registrar regarding the post of Manager or Secretary of the Committee of Management of the institution or the Society or at whose behest the renewal could have been done, shall not enure to the benefit of any of the parties. A perusal of the judgment dated 2.9.2009 leaves no doubt that the High Court did not issue any direction to any authority for taking any action under the Act of 1860. On 16.9.2009, the respondent No. 3 submitted an application to the Registrar, seeking compliance of the judgment and order of the High Court dated 2.9.2009. The said application read as under: ---Hindi--- 13. Based on the aforesaid application, the Assistant Registrar issued notices to the concerned party on 3.10.2009 for placing their version in the context of the judgment and order of the High Court dated 2.9.2009. 14. In my view, as there was no direction by the High Court in its judgment and order dated 2.9.2009 for deciding any dispute, the application of the respondent No. 3 dated 16.9.2009 was misconceived. It appears that the said application was moved on a conjoint reading of the judgment and order dated 2.9.2009 in the light of the observations of the Assistant Registrar in the order dated 30.5.2009 for raising the membership dispute separately, and under the impression that the latter was under an obligation to decide the said dispute, as per observations made by the High Court. Even if it was so, in my view, the application dated 16.9.2009,considering its contents, rather the lack of it, such application could not be made the basis for raising any dispute pertaining to the membership of the general body of the society nor for deciding the same. Even if it was so, in my view, the application dated 16.9.2009,considering its contents, rather the lack of it, such application could not be made the basis for raising any dispute pertaining to the membership of the general body of the society nor for deciding the same. The said application was bereft of relevant details necessary for raising such a dispute. It did not even mention the name of the members who were wrongly enrolled in the society. Any such membership dispute could not be raised in such a casual manner. The Assistant Registrar on his part erred in taking cognizance of such an application by issuing notice to the parties based thereon, as also, in proceeding to decide the alleged dispute. The dispute, if any, had to exist prior to the issuance of the notice, and could not be allowed to be raised, evolved and developed as the proceedings went on. In my view, no 'lis' can be said to have been in existence prior to the issuance of the notice, based on the application of the respondent No. 3 dated 16.9.2009. The entire proceedings are thus unsustainable in law. 15. As far as the question of jurisdiction and authority of the Assistant Registrar under the Act of 1860 to decide such a dispute is concerned, I am of the view that Section 15 of Act 1860 does not empower him to decide such a dispute. Section 15 reads as under: "15. Member defined disqualified members.--(1) For the purposes of this Act a member of a society shall be a person who, having been admitted therein according to the rules and regulations thereof, shall have paid a subscription, or shall have signed the roll or list of members thereof, and shall not have resigned in accordance with such rules and regulations; but in all proceedings under this Act no person shall be entitled to vote or be counted as a member whose subscription at the time shall have been in arrears for a period exceeding three months. (2) Every society shall maintain a register of members giving such particulars as may be prescribed." This provision only defines membership and the entitlement of a person to participate in the proceedings under the Act, to vote and be counted as member. 16. (2) Every society shall maintain a register of members giving such particulars as may be prescribed." This provision only defines membership and the entitlement of a person to participate in the proceedings under the Act, to vote and be counted as member. 16. The aforesaid provision was considered by this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2005(2) UPLBEC 1384, wherein, this Court held as under: "14. The order dated 18.3.2004 is an order passed without any authority of law inasmuch as under Section 15 of the Societies Registration Act there is no power conferred upon the Assistant Registrar to determine the list of members of the general body. Section 15 reads as follows: "15. Member defined.--(1) For the purposes of this Act a member of a society shall be a person who, having been admitted therein according to the rules and regulations thereof shall have paid a subscription, or shall have signed the roll or list of members thereof and shall not have resigned in accordance with such rules and regulations." 15. The Assistant Registrar is not authorized to decide any dispute with regard to membership of the general body under Section 15of the Societies Registration Act. As such the order passed by the Assistant Registrar dated 18.3.2004 in alleged exercise of power under Section 15 of the Act, is wholly without jurisdiction and this Court cannot permit such an order to stand. 16. In such circumstances both the orders passed by the Assistant Registrar dated 2.9.2004 and 18.3.2004 are illegal and do not require to be acted upon. Both the orders are declared inoperative in the eyes of law." 17. The decision in Shiv Kumar Singh case (supra) applies on all its fours to the case at hand. I see no reason for taking a different view in the matter. 18. All the decisions cited by Shri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 justifying the exercise of power by the Assistant Registrar, relate to cases, where either there was a challenge to the list of office bearers under Section 4 or a challenge to the election of the office bearers under Section 25 of the Act of 1860. 18. All the decisions cited by Shri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 justifying the exercise of power by the Assistant Registrar, relate to cases, where either there was a challenge to the list of office bearers under Section 4 or a challenge to the election of the office bearers under Section 25 of the Act of 1860. In this context it was held that the Registrar, before referring the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 could look into the issue of membership (of the office bearers) to ascertain whether the dispute was a genuine one or not. If he found that the office bearer was not even a member of the society, then there was no question of referring the matter to the Prescribed Authority, however, the findings recorded in this process, were not to be conclusive. Reference may also be made in this context to the judgments reported in 1995(2) UPLBEC 1242 and 1998(1) UPLBEC 399. The case at hand stands on a different footing. In this case there was no challenge to the election of office bearers nor to the list of the office bearers submitted under Section4. The Assistant Registrar proceeded to decide the membership dispute of the general body of the society, independent of any dispute referable to Section 4 or Section 25 of the Act of 1860. He exercised this power under Section 15 thereof, not in the context of exercise of power under Section 4 or 25 but separately and independently. In my view, for the reasons stated hereinabove, he could not have done so. Section 15 of 1860 Act does not confer any such power upon him. It is trite that the jurisdiction cannot be conferred even by consent nor by acquiescence. 19. As far as the judgment rendered in Jamia Razjviya Merajul Uloom, Chilmapur, Gorakhpur and another v. State of U.P. and others (supra) is concerned, in the said case a Division Bench of this Court took the view that as the Assistant Registrar maintained a list of the members of the society under Section 4, he could take cognizance and apply his mind to the facts and declare whether a member is a valid member or not. With great respect the list which is required to be maintained under Section 4 of the Act 1860, is the list of office bearers and not of the members of the general body of the society. Shri Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 also fairly accepted during the course of arguments that the said judgment was not applicable. Moreover, it was also a case where the dispute which was sought to be raised therein, was primarily regarding office bearers of the society. It is only in October 2013 that Section 4(b) has been inserted in the Act of 1860 requiring the submission of list of the members of the general body of the society. Prior to it there was no such requirement nor any such list was submitted, therefore, the said judgment is not applicable in this case. 20. Now coming to the third ground of challenge based on denial of reasonable opportunity, Shri Gajendra Pratap, learned senior Counsel for the petitioners has demonstrated that the representative of Shri Sudarshan Singh Yadav, i.e., Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh was present on 9.12.2009 before the Assistant Registrar yet a recital to the contrary has been recorded in the impugned order. Moreover, the records also reveal that Shri Sudarshan Singh Yadav had sought adjournment of the matter on the ground of his ill health. These facts have not been denied by the official respondents in the counter affidavit. The irresistible conclusion is that the original petitioner No. 22, who is now no more, was not heard and the matter was decided on 31.7.2010 behind his back rejecting the list of 104 members submitted by him and accepting the list of 63 members which was the basis for the election held in the year 2004 as valid. I am of the view apart from the other illegalities mentioned hereinabove, the impugned action also suffers from denial of reasonable opportunity to defend and violation of principles of natural justice. Moreover, the Assistant Registrar issued notice only to the original petitioner No. 22. No notice was issued to the petitioner No. 1 to 21 whose membership was allegedly in dispute. 21. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 31.7.2010 cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the same is quashed. Moreover, the Assistant Registrar issued notice only to the original petitioner No. 22. No notice was issued to the petitioner No. 1 to 21 whose membership was allegedly in dispute. 21. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 31.7.2010 cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the same is quashed. The consequential orders dated 19.8.2010 and 25.8.2010 issued by the District Inspector of Schools which are impugned in the connected writ petition No. 58206 of 2010 are also not sustainable, the same are also quashed. Both the writ petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms.