JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 14.3.2016 passed by Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Faizabad Region, Faizabad as contained in annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, whereby election of the Committee of Management of the Society dated 8.7.2015 submitted by opposite party No. 4 was recognized in his favour. The petitioner’s further prayer is to restrain the opposite parties from interfering in the functioning of the petitioner’s Committee of Management. 2. It has been averred by the petitioner that the Society named as “Shiksha Prasad Samiti Harpur, Tehsil Kadipur, District Sultanpur” was initially registered and valid up to 16.12.1981. On the instance of the petitioner, the society was again registered on 27.7.1985 and thereafter was got renewed on 5.8.2010 for a period of five years w.e.f. 27.7.2010 meaning thereby that it was valid up to 27.7.2015. Its by laws was duly approved, according to which there is only one Committee of Management and there is no separate Committee of Management for running the College namely Azad Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Harpur, District Sultanpur and the term thereof was valid for three years and was expiring on 30.6.2015. 3. Therefore, according to the petitioner, last election of the Committee of Management of the College was held on 1.7.2012, on the basis of list of fourteen members, in which opposite party No. 4 was elected as President and the petitioner as Manager of the Committee of Management. As the term of the Committee of Management was up to 30.6.2015 as stated above, therefore, the election was held on 15.6.2015. The petitioner submitted copy of the proceeding dated 15.6.2015 before the Deputy Registrar approval. Simultaneously since renewal of the Society was to expire on 27.7.2015, petitioner submitted an application dated 31.7.2015 alongwith requisite fee for its renewal. 4. It has further been averred that opposite party No. 4 also submitted election proceedings dated 8.7.2015 to the Deputy Registrar alongwith application for renewal of the Society. At this stage, it appears that two rival claims with regard to election proceedings on two different dates have been filed before the Deputy Registrar. 5. 4. It has further been averred that opposite party No. 4 also submitted election proceedings dated 8.7.2015 to the Deputy Registrar alongwith application for renewal of the Society. At this stage, it appears that two rival claims with regard to election proceedings on two different dates have been filed before the Deputy Registrar. 5. As soon as the petitioner came to know that opposite party No. 4 also submitted another election proceedings dated 8.7.2015, they moved application on 21.7.2015 before the Deputy Registrar requesting him that cognizance should not be taken on the papers submitted by opposite parties No. 4. 6. It appears that on the application of the petitioner, the Deputy Registrar issued notice to opposite party No. 4 inviting his objection and documentary evidence. On the objection filed by him, the petitioner was required to submit relevant original documents, which he has submitted on 20.2.2016. 7. It has vehemently been argued by the petitioner that since before the expiry of the committee of management, two elections were held and both the rival parties submitted their election proceedings, the Deputy Registrar, should have referred the matter before the Prescribed Authority, but on the contrary, the Deputy Registrar has himself decided the election dispute vide the order dated 14.3.2016 recognizing the election proceedings submitted by the opposite party No. 4 and also passed order for renewal of the society in favour of opposite party No. 4. He says that the said order is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and has been passed in violation of the provision of Section 25(1) of the Act. 8. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 4 Sri Sharad Pathak has submitted submitted that the proceedings and the list of the office bearers given by Sri Ashfaq Ahmad, is based on manipulated and forged documents. No election was held on 15.6.2015. There was no notice of the election and the proceedings were placed before the Deputy Registrar much later. He says that according to by laws, three months further time was allowed to get the election conducted in case the management failed to hold the election during its tenure. According to him Kripa Shanker Pandey- opposite party No. 4 was elected as President vide election proceedings dated 8.7.2015, in which out of fourteen members, seven were present, hence the quorum was complete. Sri Kripa Shanker Pandey was elected as President of the management committee. According to him Kripa Shanker Pandey- opposite party No. 4 was elected as President vide election proceedings dated 8.7.2015, in which out of fourteen members, seven were present, hence the quorum was complete. Sri Kripa Shanker Pandey was elected as President of the management committee. This election has been recognized by the Deputy Registrar as a valid election. 9. I have heard rival claims of the parties and have gone through the contents of the writ petition about the submission. 10. The Deputy Registrar in its order has given several reasons for not believing the list preferred by Sri Ashfaq Ahmad; the first and the foremost reason given by the Deputy Registrar is that Sri Ashfaq Ahmad has not given any evidence with regard to election alleged to have been held on 15.6.2015. He has produced only a register, which records the proceedings. He has not produced any register by which information is given for the next proceedings. He has failed to show that any date for election was ever fixed in any meeting. An election cannot be held in any and every meeting, which held for the general body. The only proceedings which have been filed by the petitioner is annexure No. 5 to the writ petition from page- 54 to 57 of the writ petition. It is clear from the perusal of the proceedings that no agenda was fixed for the election, which is said to have taken place on 15.6.2015 at 9.15 a.m. On page- 154 it has been mentioned that the general body was held on 15.6.2015 and the day has been shown as Monday under the heading ‘Sadharan Sabha ki Baithak’. On the next date under the heading ‘Sadharan Sabha ki Karyavahi’, it has been mentioned that the meeting was held on 15.6.2015 and the day has been shown as Sunday at 9.15 a.m. This itself goes to show that the proceedings have been prepared afterwards in order to present the case. There are several resolution about the building and working of the College and without any notice, proposal has been noted then and there for holding the election and it has been held showing Kripa Shanker Pandey as Adhyaksh. In his election, Kripa Shanker Pandey has denied this meeting. He says that no meeting was held under his Chairmanship and in fact no election was held on that date. 11. In his election, Kripa Shanker Pandey has denied this meeting. He says that no meeting was held under his Chairmanship and in fact no election was held on that date. 11. Sri Sharad Pandey has been able to demonstrate one more lacuna in the story of the petitioner’s case for election. He has drawn attention on page-8 of the writ petition. These are objections filed by the petitioners on 21.7.2015 against the papers submitted by Sri Kripa Shanker Pandey on 13.7.2015. By this paper, Kripa Shanker Pandey has alleged that the election was held on 8.7.2015, in which he was declared as President. The quorum was complete. He had the authority of holding this election under the by laws. It has been pointed out that while filing objection against the claim of opposite party No. 4, the petitioner has forgot to even make mention about the fact that the election has been held by the petitioner on 15.6.2015. If the petitioner had in fact participated in any election on 15.6.2015, this should have been first and foremost objection against any subsequent election as alleged by Kripa Shanker Pandey. It should have been mentioned that since election has been held on 15.6.2015, there was no occasion of any subsequent election by any other person except the manager on 8.7.2015. Instead of taking this objection, the petitioners have submitted that the papers submitted by Kripa Shanker Pandey on 13.7.2015 referring any election held on 8.7.,2015, should not be accepted. This fact has not been asserted that the election has already taken place and hence any subsequent list should not be registered. 12. The Deputy Registrar has further pointed out that the register of proceedings submitted by Ashfaq Ahmad starts from page 64 till 67. At page-64, there are only fourteen members on the date of election dated 15.6.2015, out of which Kripa Shanker Pandey, Ram Piyare, Babu Ram, and Doodhnath has been shown as absent and at the same time, nineteen members with Sri Ashfaq Ahmad has allegedly inducted as new members, have not been shown as present. The Deputy Registrar has raised objection on the quorum of the meeting and has finally come to the conclusion that the proceedings appears to be forged and unbelievable. 13. On the basis of the discussions made by the Deputy Registrar and the arguments of Mr. The Deputy Registrar has raised objection on the quorum of the meeting and has finally come to the conclusion that the proceedings appears to be forged and unbelievable. 13. On the basis of the discussions made by the Deputy Registrar and the arguments of Mr. Sharad Pathak, This Court comes to the conclusion that the finding of the Deputy Registrar so far election dated 15.6.2015being forged and fabricated, is concerned, appears to be correct. No election was held and it is only after thought which came to the petitioner, after Kripa Shanker Pandey preferred papers of the election alleged to have been held on 8.7.2015. This part of the Deputy Registrar’s order is correct and upheld by this Court. 14. So far registration of the papers and list submitted by Kripa Shanker Pandey is concerned, this Court feels that he did not have any right to hold the election on 8.7.2015. No doubt there is a provision in the by laws, at page- 49 of the petition under the heading of ‘karyakaal’, that tenure of the committee of management shall be three years but under certain conditions, if the election is not held within three years, extension of three months time shall be permissible and after that the election will be binding. Even if this by laws is taken to be right and correct, then Sri Kripa Shanker Pandey did not have right to hold any election unless extended three months time had expired after expiry of three years tenure i.e. on 30.6.2015. If the manager, i.e. the petitioner was not going to hold election within three months, only then this clause will become operational. Admittedly the terms of committee of management was to expire after 30.6.2015 and it was after that expiry that the election could have been held; firstly after the expiry of the terms of three years the Deputy Registrar ought to have gone for fresh election or if by laws are taken to be valid, the election could have been held after three months i.e. after 30.9.2015, which is the date after three months of the expiry of three years tenure. 15. With these discussions, this Court comes to the conclusion that neither the election proceedings and the election held on 15.6.2015 submitted by Ashfaq Ahmad was a valid election, nor Kripa Shanker Pandey had any right to hold the election on 8.7.2015. 15. With these discussions, this Court comes to the conclusion that neither the election proceedings and the election held on 15.6.2015 submitted by Ashfaq Ahmad was a valid election, nor Kripa Shanker Pandey had any right to hold the election on 8.7.2015. Consequently, the order of the Deputy Registrar, by which he has recognized the election dated 8.7.2015 is bad in law. The order of the Deputy Registrar to this effect is set aside. 16. In the result, the committee of management of the Society has become time barred and there is no valid committee of management. 17. This writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the Deputy Registrar to get a fresh election held for the committee of management under its supervision.