JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Lakshmi Kant Trigunait, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents. 2. The present petition seeks to challenge the order dated 11.07.2019 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits Meerut Region, Meerut in terms of which, the application filed by the petitioners for registering it as a society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860[the Act, 1860] has been rejected. Further, prayer has been made for issuance of direction to the respondents for consideration of the claim of the petitioners pertaining to registration of the Society. 3. The facts of the case as reflected from the pleadings of the writ petition indicate that an application bearing application No.10001114 dated 07.05.2018 was submitted before the respondent No.4 seeking registration of the petitioner No.1 as a society under the Act, 1860. It has also been stated that the other procedural formalities such as submission of the copy of the memorandum of association and the list of the managing body of the society had been completed and requisite fee was also deposited. It is stated that a public notice was issued by the respondent No.4 inviting objections with regard to the application filed by the petitioners for registration of the Society and thereafter the order dated 11.07.2019 has been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioners for grant of registration under the Act 1860 for the reason that there existed a dispute with regard to the management of the Society. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the application for registering the Society having been duly submitted after completion of all the necessary procedural requirements including the submission of memorandum of association, the list of members of the managing Committee and also deposition of the requisite fee, the respondent No.4 could not have refused to register the society. It is submitted that there existed no dispute pertaining to the Society and that the dispute which was sought to be raised by one person, namely, Harish Kumar Jain has nothing to do with the affairs of the Society. It is submitted that there existed no dispute pertaining to the Society and that the dispute which was sought to be raised by one person, namely, Harish Kumar Jain has nothing to do with the affairs of the Society. It is also sought to be contended that the petitioners having filed the application seeking registration on 07.05.2018 which is prior in time to the application dated 19.09.2018 submitted by the rival contenders the claim of the petitioners for registration of the society ought to have been considered. 6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents has supported the order passed by the Deputy Registrar by submitting that as there existed a dispute with regard to the Society in question the Deputy Registrar has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners for grant of registration of the Society under the Act, 1860 . 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, the relevant provisions with regard to registration of a society under the Act, 1860 may be referred to. For ease of reference Sections 2 and 3 of the Act, 1860 are being extracted below: “2. Memorandum of association:- The memorandum of association shall contain the following things (that is to say)— the name of the society; the object of the society; the names, addresses and occupations of the governors, council, directors, committee, or other governing body to whom, by the rules of the society, the management of its affairs is entrusted. A copy of the rules and regulations of the society, certified to be a correct copy by not less than three of the members of the governing body, shall be filed with the memorandum of association. 3. Registration and fees:- (1) Upon such memorandum and certified copy being filed along with particulars of the address of the Society's office which shall be its registered address, by the Secretary of the Society on behalf of the persons subscribing to the memorandum, the Registrar shall certify under his hand that the society is registered under this Act. 3. Registration and fees:- (1) Upon such memorandum and certified copy being filed along with particulars of the address of the Society's office which shall be its registered address, by the Secretary of the Society on behalf of the persons subscribing to the memorandum, the Registrar shall certify under his hand that the society is registered under this Act. There shall be paid to the Registrar for every such registration a fee of [one thousand rupees] [or such smaller fee as the State Government may notify in respect of any class of societies]: [Provided that the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, increase from time to time the fee payable under this subsection: Provided further that the Registrar may, in his discretion, issue public notice or issue notices to such persons as he thinks fit inviting objections, if any, against the proposed registration and consider all objections that may be received by him before registering the society] (2) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) the Registrar shall refuse to register a society, if after giving it an opportunity of showing cause against such refusal, he is satisfied that (a) the name of the society is identical with that of any other society previously registered under this Act; (b) the name of society sought to be registered uses any of the words, namely, 'Union', 'State', 'Land Mortgage', 'Land Development', ' Cooperative', 'Gandhi', 'Reserve Bank' or any words expressing or implying the sanction, approval or patronage of the Central or any State Government or any word which suggests or is calculated to suggest any connection with any local authority or any corporation or body constituted by or under any law for the time being in force, or is such as is otherwise likely to deceive the public or the members of any other society previously registered under this Act; (c) any one or more of the objects of the society sought to be registered is not an object mentioned in Sections 1 and 20; or (d) its objects are contrary to any other law for the time being in force; [Provided that the State Government may in exceptional circumstances, for reasons to be recorded permit any society to use the word' Union' or the word 'Gandhi' in its name, and thereupon, the use of that word in the name of the society shall not be a ground for refusal to register or to renew the certificate of registration of such society]” 8. A plain reading of the aforementioned statutory provisions as contained under Section 3 substituted in terms of U.P. Act No.52 of 1975, and also the provisions contained under Section 2 indicate that upon the memorandum of association containing the name of the Society and its objects being filed by the Secretary along with particulars of the address of the Society's office which shall be its registered address, by the Secretary of the Society on behalf of the persons subscribing to the memorandum, the Registrar shall certify under his hand that the society is registered under the Act and there shall be paid to the Registrar for every such registration a fee as the State Government may notify in respect of any class of societies. 9. The second proviso to subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Act 1860 gives the Registrar a discretion to issue public notice or issue notices to such persons as he thinks fit inviting objections, if any, against the proposed registration and consider all objections that may be received by him before registering the Society. 10. Subsection (2) of Section 3 mandates that the Registrar shall refuse to register a society, if after giving it an opportunity of showing cause against such refusal, he is satisfied that: (a) the name of the society is identical with that of any other society previously registered under this Act; (b) the name of society sought to be registered uses any of the words, namely, 'Union', 'State', 'Land Mortgage', 'Land Development', 'Cooperative', 'Gandhi', 'Reserve Bank' or any words expressing or implying the sanction, approval or patronage of the Central or any State Government or any word which suggests or is calculated to suggest any connection with any local authority or any corporation or body constituted by or under any law for the time being in force, or is such as is otherwise likely to deceive the public or the members of any other society previously registered under this Act; (c) any one or more of the objects of the society sought to be registered is not an object mentioned in Sections 1 and 20; or (d) its objects are contrary to any other law for the time being in force. 11. 11. It is thus seen that the provision under subsection (1) of Section 3 which enjoins that the Registrar shall certify under his hand that the society is registered under the Act upon the memorandum of association and certified copy being filed along with other necessary particulars and requisite fee is qualified by the second proviso in terms of which the Registrar may in his discretion issue public notice or issue notices to such persons as he thinks fit inviting objections, if any, against the proposed registration and consider all objections that may be received by him before registering the society. 12. Further, sub section (2) of Section 3 begins with a nonobstante clause and is stated in a compulsive language which mandates that the Registrar shall refuse to register the society if after giving it an opportunity of showing cause against such refusal he is satisfied regarding existence of the contingencies provided thereunder. 13. The Societies Registration Act 1860, which is an act for the registration of the literary, scientific and charitable societies, was enacted for improving the legal condition of societies established for the promotion of literature, science, or the fine arts or for the diffusion of useful knowledge, or for charitable purposes. The Act lays down the procedure for registration of the societies for various purposes stated in the Act. 14. The effect of registration of a society under the Act, 1860 is to grant it the status of a legal entity apart from the members constituting it. The legal effect of registration of society under the Act 1860 came up for consideration in the case of Pamulapati Buchi Naidu College Committee, Nidubrolu and others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1958 A.P. 773 wherein it was stated as follows. “11. Now, what is the legal effect of the registration of a Society? The Societies Registration Act was enacted for the registration of literary and scientific societies and the object of the Act, as stated in the preamble, is to make provision for improving the legal condition of societies established for the promotion, of literature, science, or the fine arts or for the diffusion of useful knowledge, the diffusion of political education, or for charitable purposes. Under the provisions of the Act any seven or more persons associated for any literary, scientific, or charitable purpose, or for any such purpose as is described in S. 20 may, by subscribing their names to a memorandum of association and filing the same with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, form themselves into a society. The memorandum of association is to contain the name of the society, the objects of the society, the names, addresses and occupations of the governors, council, directors, committee, or other governing body to whom, by the rules of the society, the management of its affairs is entrusted. The property, movable and immovable, belonging to a society may be vested in trustees, and if not so vested, is deemed to be vested for the time being in the governing body of such society, and in all proceedings, civil and criminal, may be described as the property of the governing body of such society by their proper title. Under S. 16 of the Act, the governing body of the society shall be the governors, council, directors, committee, trustees, or other body to whom by the rules and regulations of the society the management of its affairs is entrusted. xxxx 19. The basic assumption made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the registration of society can be equated to the granting of a Royal Charter, does not rest on a solid foundation. A society registered under the Societies Registration Act is an association of individuals which comes into existence with certain aims and objects. If it is not registered as a society under the Act it would have the character of an association which cannot sue or be sued except in the name of all the members of the association. The registration of the Society confers on it certain advantages. The members as well as the Governing Body the Society are not always the same. Even though the members of the Society or the Governing Body fluctuate from time to time, the identity of the society is sought to be made continuous by reason of the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. The Society continues to exist and to function as such until its dissolution under the provisions of the Act. Even though the members of the Society or the Governing Body fluctuate from time to time, the identity of the society is sought to be made continuous by reason of the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. The Society continues to exist and to function as such until its dissolution under the provisions of the Act. The properties of the society continue to be vested in the trustees or in the Governing Body irrespective of the fact that the members of the society for the time being are not the same as they were before; nor will be the same thereafter. By reason of the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, once the society is registered the Registrar, by the filing of the memorandum and certified copy of the rules and regulations and the Registrar has certified that the society is registered under the Act, it enjoys the status of a legal entity apart from the members constituting the same and is capable of suing or being sued. But the fact to be noted is that what differentiates a society registered under the Act of 1860 a company incorporated under the Companies Act is that in the latter case the shareholders of company hold the properties of the company as their own whereas in the case of a society registered under the Act of 1860, the members of the society or the members of the governing body do not have any proprietary or beneficial interest; in the property the society holds. Having regard to the fact that the members of the general body or the members of the governing body of the society do not have any proprietary or beneficial interest in the property of the society, it follows that upon its dissolution, they cannot claim any interest in the property of the dissolved society. The Societies Registration Act, therefore, does not create in the members of the registered society any interest other than that of bare trustees. What all the members are entitled to, is the right of management of the properties of the society subject to certain conditions...” 15. It would be relevant to take note of fact that Section 3 of the Act, 1860 which relates to registration of societies stood amended and substituted in the State of U.P. in terms of the Societies Registration (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1975 (U.P. Act No. 52 of 1975). 16. It would be relevant to take note of fact that Section 3 of the Act, 1860 which relates to registration of societies stood amended and substituted in the State of U.P. in terms of the Societies Registration (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1975 (U.P. Act No. 52 of 1975). 16. As has been noticed in the earlier part of the judgment, the provision under subsection (1) of Section 3 which enjoins the Registrar to certify under his hand that the society is registered under the Act upon the memorandum of association and certified copy being filed along with other necessary particulars and requisite fee is qualified by the second proviso in terms of which the Registrar may in his discretion issue public notice or issue notices to such persons as he thinks fit inviting objections, if any, against the proposed registration and consider all objections that may be received by him before registering the society. 17. In order to appreciate the extent to which the provision contained under subsection (1) of Section 3 would stand qualified by insertion of the proviso in terms of the amendment made by U.P. Act No. 52 of 1975, it would be apposite to refer to the manner in which a proviso is to be construed. 18. In Craies on Statute of Law [Craies on Statute of Law, 7th Edition], referring to the rules regarding construction of a proviso, it has been observed as follows: "9.1. The effect of an excepting or qualifying proviso, according to the ordinary rules of construction, is to except out of the preceding portion of the enactment, or to qualify something enacted therein, which but for the proviso would be within it; and such a proviso cannot be construed as enlarging the scope of an enactment when it can be fairly and properly construed without attributing to it that effect." 19. Again, as has been pointed out by Craies in the treatise on Statute Law; "The effect of an excepting or qualifying proviso, according to the ordinary rules of construction, is to except out the preceding portion of the enactment, or to qualify something enacted therein, which but for the proviso would be within it." 20. In Ishverlal Thakorelal Almaula Vs. Motibhai Nagjibhai[ AIR 1966 SC 459 ], the intendment of the proviso has been discussed thus: "8. In Ishverlal Thakorelal Almaula Vs. Motibhai Nagjibhai[ AIR 1966 SC 459 ], the intendment of the proviso has been discussed thus: "8. The proper function of a proviso is to except or qualify something enacted in the substantive clause, which but for the proviso would be within that clause. It may ordinarily be presumed in construing a proviso that it was intended that the enacting part of the section would have included the subject-matter of the proviso. But the question is one of interpretation of the proviso and there is no rule that the proviso must always be restricted to the ambit of the main enactment. Occasionally in a statute, a proviso is unrelated to the subject-matter of the preceding section, or contains matters extraneous to that section, and it may have then to be interpreted as a substantive provision, dealing independently with the matter specified therein, and not as qualifying the main or the preceding section." 21. In Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills & Ginning Factory Vs. Subbash Chandra Yograj Sinha, AIR 1961 SC 1596 , the object of the proviso and how it is to be interpreted has been stated in the following manner: "9. The law with regard to provisos is well settled and well understood. As a general rule, a proviso is added to an enactment to qualify or create an exception to what is in the enactment, and ordinarily, a proviso is not interpreted as stating a general rule..." 22. Again, in S. Sundaram Pillai & Ors. Vs. V.R. Pattabiraman & Ors., (1985) 1 SCC 591 , various decisions with regard to the manner of construction of a proviso have been discussed and it has been stated as follows: "29. Odgers in Construction of Deeds and Statutes (5th Edn.) while referring to the scope of a proviso mentioned the following ingredients: 'p. 317. Provisos-These are clauses of exception or qualification in an Act, excepting something out of, or qualifying something in, the enactment which, but for the proviso, would be within it. p. 318. Though framed as a proviso, such a clause may exceptionally have the effect of a substantive enactment.' 30. Sarathi in Interpretation of Statutes at pp. Provisos-These are clauses of exception or qualification in an Act, excepting something out of, or qualifying something in, the enactment which, but for the proviso, would be within it. p. 318. Though framed as a proviso, such a clause may exceptionally have the effect of a substantive enactment.' 30. Sarathi in Interpretation of Statutes at pp. 29495 has collected the following principles in regard to a proviso: (a) When one finds a proviso to a section the natural presumption is that, but for the proviso, the enacting part of the section would have included the subject-matter of the proviso. (b) A proviso must be construed with reference to the preceding parts of the clause to which it is appended. (c) Where the proviso is directly repugnant to a section, the proviso shall stand and be held a repeal of the section as the proviso speaks the latter intention of the makers. (d) Where the section is doubtful, a proviso may be used as a guide to its interpretation: but when it is clear, a proviso cannot imply the existence of words of which there is no trace in the section. (e) The proviso is subordinate to the main section. (f) A proviso does not enlarge an enactment except for compelling reasons. (g) Sometimes an unnecessary proviso is inserted by way of abundant caution. (h) A construction placed upon a proviso which brings it into general harmony with the terms of section should prevail. (i) When a proviso is repugnant to the enacting part, the proviso will not prevail over the absolute terms of a later Act directed to be read as supplemental to the earlier one. (j) A proviso may sometimes contain a substantive provision." 23. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Leela Jain, AIR 1965 SC 1296 , the following observation with regard to construction of a proviso has been made: "14. ...So far as a general principle of construction of a proviso is concerned, it has been broadly stated that the function of a proviso is to limit the main part of the section and carve out something which but for the proviso would have been within the operative part." 24. In S.T.O. Vs. Hanuman Prasad, AIR 1967 SC 565 , it was held as follows: "5. ... In S.T.O. Vs. Hanuman Prasad, AIR 1967 SC 565 , it was held as follows: "5. ... It is well recognised that a proviso is added to a principal clause primarily with the object of taking out of the scope of that principal clause what is included in it and what the legislature desires should be excluded." 25. In C.C.T. Vs. Jhaver Ramkishan Shrikishan, AIR 1968 SC 59 following observations were made: "8. ...Generally speaking, it is true that the proviso is an exception to the main part of the section; but it is recognised that in exceptional cases a proviso may be a substantive provision itself.” 26. The different purposes served by a proviso have been summarised in the case of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Vs. Tarun Pal Singh & Ors. (2018) 14 SCC 161 in the following manner: "43. ...To sum up, a proviso may serve four different purposes: (1) qualifying or excepting certain provisions from the main enactment; (2) it may entirely change the very concept of the intendment of the enactment by insisting on certain mandatory conditions to be fulfilled in order to make the enactment workable; (3) it may be so embedded in the Act itself as to become an integral part of the enactment and thus acquire the tenor and colour of the substantive enactment itself; and (4) it may be used merely to act as an optional addenda to the enactment with the sole object of explaining the real intendment of the statutory provision." 27. In Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. Vs. Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Banks Employees Union & Anr. (2004) 1 SCC 574 , the function of proviso has been considered and it has been observed as follows: "9. The normal function of a proviso is to except something out of the enactment or to qualify something enacted therein which but for the proviso would be within the purview of the enactment. As was stated in Mullins v. Treasurer of Surrey (1880) LR 5 QBD 170 at p. 173 (DC) (referred to in Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills & Ginning Factory v. Subbash Chandra Yograj Sinha ( AIR 1961 SC 1596 ) and Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd. v. Corpn. As was stated in Mullins v. Treasurer of Surrey (1880) LR 5 QBD 170 at p. 173 (DC) (referred to in Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills & Ginning Factory v. Subbash Chandra Yograj Sinha ( AIR 1961 SC 1596 ) and Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd. v. Corpn. of Calcutta ( AIR 1965 SC 1728 ), when one finds a proviso to a section the natural presumption is that, but for the proviso, the enacting part of the section would have included the subject-matter of the proviso. The proper function of a proviso is to except and to deal with a case which would otherwise fall within the general language of the main enactment and its effect is confined to that case. It is a qualification of the preceding enactment which is expressed in terms too general to be quite accurate. As a general rule, a proviso is added to an enactment to qualify or create an exception to what is in the enactment and ordinarily, a proviso is not interpreted as stating a general rule. x x x x x ''If in a deed an earlier clause is followed by a later clause which destroys altogether the obligation created by the earlier clause, the later clause is to be rejected as repugnant, and the earlier clause prevails. ...But if the later clause does not destroy but only qualifies the earlier, then the two are to be read together and effect is to be given to the intention of the parties as disclosed by the deed as a whole' (per Lord Wrenbury in Forbes v. Git (1921 SCC OnLine PC 102 : (1922) 1 AC 256). A statutory proviso 'is something engrafted on a preceding enactment' (R. v. Taunton St. James (1829) 9 B&C 831 : 109 ER 309, ER p. 311). ''The ordinary and proper function of a proviso coming after a general enactment is to limit that general enactment in certain instances' (per Lord Esher in Barker, In re, ex p Constable (1890) LR 25 QBD 285 (CA).'' 28. The function of a proviso to carve out an exception or to qualify something enacted therein which would otherwise be within the purview of the enactment was emphasised in Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company Ltd. Vs. The function of a proviso to carve out an exception or to qualify something enacted therein which would otherwise be within the purview of the enactment was emphasised in Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company Ltd. Vs. Bezwada Municipality, AIR 1944 PC 71 wherein it was stated by Lord Macmillan as follows: "The proper function of a proviso is to except and deal with a case which would otherwise fall within the general language of the main enactment, and its effect is confined to that case." 29. In "The Construction and Interpretation of Law" by Henry Campbell Black13 , while considering the manner of construction of provisos it has been stated that the natural and appropriate effect of a proviso to a statute, or to a section thereof, is to restrain or qualify the provisions immediately preceding it. 30. The insertion of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 3 clearly indicates that the intention of the legislature was to qualify the right conferred in terms of subsection (1) for grant of a certificate of registration upon submission of memorandum of association and certified copy along with other necessary particulars and requisite fee by conferring upon the Registrar a discretion to issue public notice or issue notices to such persons as he thinks fit inviting objections, if any, against the proposed registration and to consider all such objections. 31. Further, sub section (2) of Section 3 which begins with a nonobstante clause and has been stated in a compulsive language mandates that the Registrar shall refuse to register the society if after giving it an opportunity of showing cause against such refusal he is satisfied regarding existence of the contingencies provided thereunder. 32. A nonobstante clause, as used in subsection (2) of Section (3), has been construed as a legislative device to modify the ambit of the provision or law mentioned in the nonobstante clause or to 13. The Construction and Interpretation of Law by Henry Campbell Black,Ed. 2011 override it in specified circumstances. 33. The meaning of the term 'non obstante clause' has been explained in Advanced Law Lexicon by P Ramanatha Aiyar, Advanced Law Lexicon by P Ramanatha Aiyar 6th Edition as follows. “Non obstante clause. A clause in a statute which overrides all provisions of the statute. 2011 override it in specified circumstances. 33. The meaning of the term 'non obstante clause' has been explained in Advanced Law Lexicon by P Ramanatha Aiyar, Advanced Law Lexicon by P Ramanatha Aiyar 6th Edition as follows. “Non obstante clause. A clause in a statute which overrides all provisions of the statute. It is usually worded : ' 'Notwithstanding anything in...' Need not always have effect of cutting down clear terms of enactment. Enacting part when clear can Control non-obstante clause. A clause used in public and private instruments intended to preclude, in advance, any interpretation contrary to certain declared objects or purposes. Notwithstanding; an overriding clause.” 34. The nature and object of a non-obstante clause as an internal aid of construction was considered in Union of India and another Vs. G.M.Kokil and others, 1984 Supp. SCC 196 and it was held to be a legislative device employed to give overriding effect to some provisions over some contrary provisions that may be found either in the same enactment or some other enactment to avoid the operation and effect of all contrary provisions. The observations made in the judgment are as follows : “11.…It is well-known that a non obstante clause is a legislative device which is usually employed to give overriding effect to certain provisions over some contrary provisions that may be found either in the same enactment or some other enactment, that is to say, to avoid the operation and effect of all contrary provisions....” 35. The import and effect of a non-obstante clause again came up for consideration in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Vs. Ashalata S. Guram, (1986) 4 SCC 447 and it was stated that often a nonobstante clause is appended to a section in the beginning with a view to give the enacting part of the section in case of conflict an overriding effect. The observations in the judgment are as follows : “67. Ashalata S. Guram, (1986) 4 SCC 447 and it was stated that often a nonobstante clause is appended to a section in the beginning with a view to give the enacting part of the section in case of conflict an overriding effect. The observations in the judgment are as follows : “67. A clause beginning with the expression “notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in some particular provision in the Act or in some particular Act or in any law for the time being in force, or in any contract” is more often than not appended to a section in the beginning with a view to give the enacting part of the section in case of conflict an overriding effect over the provision of the Act or the contract mentioned in the non obstante clause. It is equivalent to saying that in spite of the provision of the Act or any other Act mentioned in the non obstante clause or any contract or document mentioned the enactment following it will have its full operation or that the provisions embraced in the non obstante clause would not be an impediment for an operation of the enactment. See in this connection the observations of this Court in South India Corpn. (P) Ltd. v. Secretary, Board of Revenue, Trivandrum [ AIR 1964 SC 207 , 215 : (1964) 4 SCR 280 ]” 36. In the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh and others, (2005) 9 SCC 129 while considering the meaning, object and effect of a nonobstante clause, it was stated as follows : “45. A non obstante clause is generally appended to a section with a view to give the enacting part of the section, in case of conflict, an overriding effect over the provision in the same or other Act mentioned in the non obstante clause. It is equivalent to saying that in spite of the provisions of the Act mentioned in the non obstante clause, the provision following it will have its full operation or the provisions embraced in the non obstante clause will not be an impediment for the operation of the enactment or the provision in which the nonobstante clause occurs. (See Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 9th Edn., by Justice G.P. Singh — Chapter V, Synopsis IV at pp. 318 and 319.) 47. (See Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 9th Edn., by Justice G.P. Singh — Chapter V, Synopsis IV at pp. 318 and 319.) 47. Normally the use of a phrase by the legislature in a statutory provision like “notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act” is equivalent to saying that the Act shall be no impediment to the measure (see Law Lexicon words “notwithstanding anything in this Act to the contrary”). Use of such expression is another way of saying that the provision in which the non obstante clause occurs usually would prevail over other provisions in the Act. Thus, non obstante clauses are not always to be regarded as repealing clauses nor as clauses which expressly or completely supersede any other provision of the law, but merely as clauses which remove all obstructions which might arise out of the provisions of any other law in the way of the operation of the principal enacting provision to which the non obstante clause is attached. (See Bipathumma v. Mariam Bibi [(1966) 1 Mys LJ 162], Mys LJ at p. 165.)” 37. The scheme of the Act with regard to registration of a society as amended in terms of U.P. Act No. 52 of 1975 came up for consideration in the case of Muzaffar Hussain and others Vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P., Meerut Region Meerut and others, 1987 ALJ 728, and it was held that under the scheme of the Act the Registrar is not to act as an automaton and in terms of subsection (2) which begins with a nonobstante clause the Registrar is to refuse registration upon his satisfaction as to the existence of any one or more of the grounds specified. The relevant observations made in the judgment are as follows. “11. Under the scheme of the Act (as amended), the Registrar is not to act as an automaton. The satisfaction is objective on consideration of relevant material. Sub-Section (2) of S. 3 begins with the non obstante clause, that is, “notwithstanding anything in subsection (I)”. Subsection (I) provides that upon memorandum of association and copy of rules and regulations being filed, the Registrar shall certify that the society is registered. Even if this could be classed as a ministerial act, it has definitely assumed a different character with the introduction of subs. Subsection (I) provides that upon memorandum of association and copy of rules and regulations being filed, the Registrar shall certify that the society is registered. Even if this could be classed as a ministerial act, it has definitely assumed a different character with the introduction of subs. (2) which places the Registrar under mandate to refuse registration upon his satisfaction as to the existence of any one or more of the grounds specified. The satisfaction is not subjective. This presupposes application of mind despite there being no formal opposition as such to the application for registration...” 38. It is, therefore, seen that the right to get certification of the registration of the Society under subsection (1) of Section 3 is not absolute and the same is subject to the powers of the Registrar to issue public notice or notices to other persons inviting objections against the proposed registration and considering all objections, which may be received by him before registration of society. Further, the Registrar is to refuse to register a society in a case where after giving an opportunity of showing cause he records his satisfaction regarding existence of the conditions specified under subsection (2). 39. In the instant case, after filing of the application dated 07.05.2018 by the petitioners seeking registration of the Society in the name of “ Sri 1008 Parshvanath Digamber Jain Mandir Samiti, Sri 1008 Parshvanath Digamber Jain Mandir, Balram Nagar, Tehsil Loni, District Ghaziabad another application dated 19.09.2018 was submitted by one Sri Harish Kumar Jain claiming registration of a Society in the name of “Sri 1008 Parshvanath Digamber Jain Mandir Charitable Society B60 Balram Nagar, Tehsil Loni, District Ghaziabad”. The applications submitted by the petitioners as well as the other group were both accompanied by copies of memorandum of association and other requisite papers along with the necessary fee. 40. The applications having been filed by two sets of parties seeking registration of societies in similar names the Registrar in his discretion issued a letter dated 31.12.2018 to the SubDivisional Magistrate, Loni, District Ghaziabad to get a spot inquiry conducted, so that the exact situation may be verified and it may be seen as to whether there existed any dispute with regard to the management of the Society. The status of the entries in the revenue records was also directed to be verified. 41. The status of the entries in the revenue records was also directed to be verified. 41. In response to the aforesaid request sent by the Deputy Registrar the SubDivisional Magistrate, Loni vide his letter dated 10.07.2019 forwarded an inquiry report stating therein that the matter was inquired into by the Tehsildar Loni and a report dated 05.07.2019 had been submitted wherein it has been stated that the property in question was not a public property and that there existed a dispute with regard to the management of the society in the name of “Sri 1008 Parshvanath Digamber Jain Mandir” and there also existed a dispute with regard to the title and ownership between two rival parties in respect of the property in question. It was disclosed that a civil suit being Original Suit No. 946 of 2018 (Sri 1008 Parshvanath Digamber Jain Mandir vs. Pravin Kumar Jain and others) was pending before the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ghaziabad. 42. It is on the basis of aforesaid report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Loni that the Deputy Registrar has drawn an inference that there existed a dispute with regard to the ownership and title pertaining to the movable and immovable properties of the society in question and also a dispute with regard to the management of the society and that a civil suit was pending between the two rival factions both of whom applied for grant of registration under the Act, 1860. 43. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the conclusion drawn by the Deputy Registrar with regard to the existence of a dispute in respect of the ownership of the properties of the Society and also with regard to its management and that it would not be appropriate to grant certificate of registration to either of the two sets of claimants and thereafter rejecting the applications filed by both the contesting parties leaving it open to them to submit applications afresh upon disposal of the pending suit between the parties cannot be faulted with. 44. No other ground was raised. 45. 44. No other ground was raised. 45. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any material error or irregularity in the order dated 11.07.2019 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits Meerut Region, Meerut i.e. respondent No.4, which may warrant interference in exercise of powers in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 46. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.