JUDGMENT : Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh and Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vijit Saxena and Sri Sharad Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4. 2. The present writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 20.11.2018 passed by Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Meerut Region, Meerut by which the said authority has sustained the objections raised by the respondents and declared that the election conducted to constitute the Board of Members of the society Assotech The Nest Apartment Owners Association to be non-est as the term of the outgoing Board of Members had expired on 28.11.2017 whereas the disputed election were conducted on 15.07.2018. 3. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that upon objection raised by the private respondent nos. 3 and 4, four issues had been framed by the Deputy Registrar. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the issues noted on the first page of the order have not been decided and that the authority had chosen to declare the election as non-est on another ground being that the Board of Members who conducted the election had become defunct due to lapse of term. 4. In such facts, the present writ petition is being disposed of at this stage with consent of parties, without calling for any counter affidavit. 5. Short submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the absence of any disabling clause by the bye-laws of the society and in view of the categorical pronouncement made by the division bench of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Varshney Vs. State of U.P. & Others, reported in 2017 (7) ADJ 311 , the outgoing Board of Members retained it's authority to conduct the election to constitute a fresh Board of Members of the society despite its own term having expired as there was no order passed by the Registrar under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and since no meeting had been convened by that authority to hold an election to constitute the Board of Members of the Society. Paragraph No. 18 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted here-in-under:- "18. Paragraph No. 18 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted here-in-under:- "18. We are of the view that upon a conjoint reading of Section 25(2) and Section 25(3) of the Act, the power of the Committee of Management to convene a meeting for the purpose of holding an election gets eclipsed only when the Registrar has assumed jurisdiction and has taken steps to convene a meeting under Section 25(2) of the Act. We make it further clear that so long as an order for convening a meeting and for holding an election is not passed by the Registrar under Section 25(2) of the Act, the power to convene a meeting for the purpose of holding an election continues with the Committee of Management, even after the expiry of its terms unless it is specifically prohibited in the Rules of that society. In this regard, our view is fortified by a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Committee of Management, Dadar Ashram Trust Society and others v. Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi and others, 2017 (1) ADJ 1 , wherein the Full Bench held:- "As would be evident from a reading of sub-section (3), the power and jurisdiction of any other authority or person to call a meeting for the purpose of elections stands eclipsed only in a situation where a meeting has already been called by the Registrar under sub-section (2). In fact sub-section (3) recognises that a meeting for the purposes of elections may in fact be convened by any other authority or by any other person. The power of that other authority or person to convene such a meeting stands taken away only if the Registrar has assumed jurisdiction and steps under sub section (2) to convene a meeting." 6. Learned counsel for the private respondent submits that in the bye-laws of the society, there is no clause as may allow the outgoing Board of Members to conduct a fresh election after its term had expired. 7. Also the bye-laws specifically provides that the term of the Board of Members of the society be one year only. Clause 26 of the bye-laws of the society reads as under:- "26. 7. Also the bye-laws specifically provides that the term of the Board of Members of the society be one year only. Clause 26 of the bye-laws of the society reads as under:- "26. Election and term of office:- (i) The annual general of the Association to be held in the first quarter of each financial year shall elect neither less than 4, nor more than 10 Members including the President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasure from Members of the Association. Provided that no member shall be eligible for election if he has been found guilty of misusing the post during his previous term. The term of office of the office-bearers of the Board shall be one year from the date of assuming office and they will be eligible for re-election. Provided that a person cannot hold the same post continuously for more than 2 years. (ii) An arrangement shall be made by the board to ensure that one third of members of the board retire annually. (iii) The office bearers shall hold office until their successors have been elected and hold their first meeting." 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it may be first noted that the Deputy Registrar had upon receipt of objections framed four issues on the merits of the objection. However, those issues have yet not been adjudicated. 9. Coming to the challenge raised in the present petition, while the position in law stands clarified by the Division Bench judgment in the case of Vinod Kumar Varshney (supra), there can be no doubt that the right of the outgoing Board of Members to conduct a fresh election continued so long as the Registrar had not intervened by convening a meeting to conduct a fresh election or by passing an order under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The only exception carved out by the division bench when such a course may not be permitted would be where the bye-laws specifically barred the outgoing Committee of Management to conduct an election after its term had expired. 10. The only exception carved out by the division bench when such a course may not be permitted would be where the bye-laws specifically barred the outgoing Committee of Management to conduct an election after its term had expired. 10. That being the law, Clause 26 of the bye-laws though does provide for office bearers of the Board of Members to be one year from the date of assuming office, however, under Clause 26(3), it has been further provided that the office bearers shall continue to hold office until their successors are elected and they hold their first meeting. 11. There being no other clause in the bye-laws in this regard, clearly, Clause 26 cannot be read so as to bar either the continuance of the outgoing Committee of Management beyond the period of one year or to conduct election to constitute a fresh Committee of Management / Board of Members. Therefore, the exception created by the division bench to the exercise of power by the outgoing Committee of Management to conduct fresh election, does not exist in the facts of the present case. 12. Then, there is no dispute to the fact that the Registrar had yet not intervened in the matter inasmuch as he had neither passed any order under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 nor he had called for any meeting to conduct election to the Board of Members to the Society. 13. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar is clearly contrary to law. In the admitted facts of the case it must therefore be held that the outgoing Board of Members as retained its authority to conduct fresh election for the purpose of constituting a new Board of Members. To that extent the impugned order cannot stand and is hereby set aside. However, in view of the further fact noted above, that the four issues framed by the Deputy Registrar have yet not been examined or decided, the matter is remitted to the Deputy Registrar to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months' from the date of production of certified copy of this order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all necessary parties. 14. The petitioner as also the respondent nos. 3 and 4 further undertake not to seek any undue adjournment. 15. 14. The petitioner as also the respondent nos. 3 and 4 further undertake not to seek any undue adjournment. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.