JUDGMENT Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Nipun Singh for respondents 3 and 4. 2. The petitioners herein claim themselves to be duly recognised Committee of Management and the Manager of a registered society in the name of A.S. Degree College Association, Mawana, Meerut. A writ petition (Writ-C No. 2365 of 2016) was filed before this Court by the third and the fourth respondents contending that they had made a complaint regarding illegal induction of 1450 members by the petitioners and the second respondent (Deputy Registrar) taking cognizance of the said complaint, has called for comments from the petitioners, but no further action is being taken in the matter. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 20 January 2016 observing that the second respondent, shall take necessary measures to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, in accordance with law, after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioners therein. Following the directions given in the writ petition, the second respondent issued notice to the petitioners and they appeared before him on 4.2.2016. However, they failed to produce the original records before him relating to the induction of 1450 members in the general body. By the impugned communication dated 18.2.2016, the second respondent has informed the petitioners that in view of failure on part of the petitioners in producing the original records, despite several notices, he is unable to comply with the orders of this Court. It has further been observed that in the absence of the original record being produced before him, the induction of new members appears to be doubtful. It has further been noted that in such circumstances, in case compliance of the order of this Court is not made, the petitioners will be responsible for the same. 3. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the aforesaid communication dated 18.2.2016 on the ground that power under Section 4-B which has been invoked by the second respondent in issuing the impugned notice was not available to him as it could only be exercised at the time of registration/renewal of the society. It is urged that in the instant case, no such occasion has arisen as the renewal was granted on 30.11.2011 and is valid for five years from 26.9.2011. It is urged that in the instant case, no such occasion has arisen as the renewal was granted on 30.11.2011 and is valid for five years from 26.9.2011. It is further submitted that the observation in the impugned order that induction of the new members appears to be doubtful will cause serious prejudice to the petitioners as adverse inference is likely to be drawn against them at the time they apply for registration of list of new office bearers under Section 4 of the Act. 4. On the other hand, Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4 submitted that since the membership dispute has been raised before the second respondent, any adjudication made by the Deputy Registrar in that regard is referable to Section 4-B of the Act. It is further submitted that in the impugned communication, the second respondent has not declared the induction of new members to be invalid but only observed that non-production of the original record is creating suspicion on the validity of their induction. It is urged that it is still open to the petitioners to produce the original records before him and convince him of the valid induction of new members. 5. Section 4-B was inserted by U.P. Act No. 23 of 2013 w.e.f. 12 July 2013. The Statement of Objects and Reasons specifically notices that at present, a large number of societies are disputed due to non-existence of correct list of General Body with the Registrar. In several cases, an illegal person, fraudulently, produces before the Registrar an incorrect list of General Body of the society and claims to be the member or office bearer of such society. In order to avoid such situation, it was decided to amend the Act in its application to Uttar Pradesh by providing for filing of the list of General Body with the Registrar at the time of registration or renewal of such society. In order to avoid such situation, it was decided to amend the Act in its application to Uttar Pradesh by providing for filing of the list of General Body with the Registrar at the time of registration or renewal of such society. Accordingly, Section 4-B was inserted which reads as under : Insertion of new Section 4-B of Act No. 21 of 1860 :— After Section 4-A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh the following section shall be inserted, namely- “4-B(1) At the time of registration/renewal of a society, list of members of General Body of that society shall be filed with the Registrar mentioning the name, father’s name, address and occupation of the members. The Registrar shall examine the correctness of the list of members of the General Body of such society on the basis of the register of members of the General Body and minutes book thereof, cash book, receipt book of membership fee and bank pass book of the society. (2) If there is any change in the list of members of the General Body of the society referred to in sub-section (1), on account of induction, removal, registration or death of any member, a modified list of members of General Body, shall be filed with the Registrar, within one month from the date of change. (3) The list of members of the General Body to be filed with the Registrar under this section shall be signed by two office bearers and two executive members of the society.” 6. Sub-section (1) of Section 4-B enjoins upon the Registrar to examine the correctness of the list of members of the General Body of the society on the basis of the register of members of the General Body and minutes book thereof, cash book, receipt book of membership fee and bank pass book of the society. List of the members of the General Body is required to be filed before the Registrar at the time of registration/renewal of the society. Sub-section (2) provides that if there is any change in the list of members of the General Body of the Society referred to in sub-section (1), on account of induction, removal, resignation or death of any member, a modified list of members of General Body, shall be filed with the Registrar, within one month from the date of change. 7. Sub-section (2) provides that if there is any change in the list of members of the General Body of the Society referred to in sub-section (1), on account of induction, removal, resignation or death of any member, a modified list of members of General Body, shall be filed with the Registrar, within one month from the date of change. 7. In the instant case, concededly, there is no list of General Body in existence as envisaged under Section 4-B(1) of the Act. In a case where the list of the General Body has not been registered by the Registrar, as such occasion had not arisen so far, could it be said that Registrar will have no power to adjudicate on the validity of the members enrolled or expelled. Accepting such a contention will be contrary to the legislative intendment. As noted above, the object of the Amending Act is to minimize the litigation that crops up on account of non-existence of a valid list of General Body. Sub-section (1) of Section 4-B is only an enabling provision whereunder a list of General Body is required to be filed at the time of registration/renewal of a society. It does not mean that in case such list is not in existence, as the registration/renewal had taken place before the provision came on the statute book, the Registrar will have no power to decide a membership dispute. Concededly, in the instant case, the petitioners claim to have inducted 1450 members and also expelled Dr. Naresh Chandra from the General Body. They are also holding election by altering the electoral college accordingly. The adjudication of these questions by the Registrar would undoubtedly minimise the chances of a dispute in future and will thus effectuate the legislative intent. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality in the proceedings that have been undertaken by the second respondent on the basis of the complaint made by the third and the fourth respondent. 8. The second submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Assistant Registrar has already expressed the opinion and the observation made in the impugned communication would prejudice their case at the time they will seek registration of list of new office bearers also cannot be accepted. The impugned communication states that the petitioners despite repeated notices have failed to produce the original records. The impugned communication states that the petitioners despite repeated notices have failed to produce the original records. The observation made in the impugned communication that in absence of original records being produced it seems that the proceedings relating to induction of new members is doubtful, is only tentative in nature. It does not amount to expression of any final opinion on the issue. This is clear from the later part of the communication wherein it is noted that the second respondent is unable to take decision in the matter on account of non-production of original records before him. It is still open to the petitioners to appear before the second respondent and produce the original record before him and convince him of valid induction/expulsion of the members. 9. Thus, without interfering with the impugned notice/communication dated 18.2.2016, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to produce original records before the second respondent and in which event, the second respondent shall proceed to decide the dispute in accordance with law. 10. No order as to costs. ———————