JUDGMENT : SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and Sri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2. The petitioner claims to be the society 'The Mecon Indraprastha Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd.' has challenged the order dated 29.6.2019 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Registrar (Firms, Societies & Chits), Meerut whereby he has registered the society of the respondent No. 4. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is dispute with regard to two housing group societies seeking registration of the The Mecon Indraprastha Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd., and the notices has been issued to the alleged committee of management of both the societies but the respondent No. 2-Deputy Registrar (Firms, Societies & Chits), Meerut while passing the order has not assigned any reason in registering the society of the respondent No. 4. 4. Sri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that the respondent No. 4 does not propose to file counter affidavit and the matter may be disposed off at the admission stage. 5. Since the counsel for the respondent No. 4 states that the respondent No. 4 does not wish to file counter affidavit, accordingly, the Court accepts the averments of the writ petition to be true and correct and the Court proceeds to decide the matter accordingly. 6. 5. Since the counsel for the respondent No. 4 states that the respondent No. 4 does not wish to file counter affidavit, accordingly, the Court accepts the averments of the writ petition to be true and correct and the Court proceeds to decide the matter accordingly. 6. It is relevant to extract the order dated 29.6.2019 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Registrar (Firms, Societies & Chits), Meerut which reads as under:- {ks=h; dk;kZy;] fMIVh jftLVªkj] QelZ lkslkbVht ,oa fpV~l fodkl fogkj] eksguiqjh] esjB vkns'k eSdkWu vikVZesUV vkWulZ ,lksfl;s'ku IykV ua0&lh&58@10] lSDVj&62 uks,Mk] xkSrecq)uxj ds iathdj.k gsrq Jh iq"dj jkt pkanuk us lfpo dh gSfl;r ls 'kqYd ds lkFk okafNr izi= dk;kZy; esa fnukad 19-12-2017 dks izLrqr fd;sA blh ds lkFk ,d vU; vkosnu eSdkWu eStsfLVd vikVZesUV vkWulZ ,lksfl;s'ku IykV ua0&lh&58@10] lSDVj&62 uks,Mk] xkSrecq)uxj ds uke ls Jh T;ksfr 'kqHkzk vferkHk us lfpo dh gSfl;r ls 'kqYd ds lkFk izi= dk;kZy; esa fnukad 11-01-2018 dks izLrqr fd;sA ,d gh uke ls nks vkosnu izkIr gksus ij dk;kZy; ds i= fnukad 20-02-2018 ds }kjk mHk; i{kksa dks i=tkjh djrs gq, lk{;ksa@izek.kksa ds lkFk v/kksgLrk{kjh ds le{k fnukad 07-3-2018 dks mifLFkfr gksus ds funsZ'k fn;s x;sA izdj.k esa Jh T;ksfr 'kqHkzk vferkHk fu;r frfFk 07-3-2018 dks dksbZ lk{;@izek.k izLrqr u djds i= izLrqr fd;kA blds foijhr Jh ih0vkj0 pkanuk us dk;kZy; esa izLrqr i= fnukad 16-4-2018 ,oa 22-3-2019 dks layXudksa ds lkFk i= izLrqr fd;k ftlesa fjV lh0 ua0&20576@2017 Jh jktsUnz flag oekZ cuke U;w vks[kyk b.MLVªh;y MsoyiesUV vFkksfjVh ,oa nks vU; esa ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa uohu vks[kyk vkS|ksfxd fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds }kjk fnukad 10-8-2017 dks vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa eq[;r% mYys[k fd;k gS fd M/s Mecon Indraprastha Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. ¼izfroknh i{kdkj la0&3½ dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og mRrj izns'k vikVZesUV ¼fuekZ.k LokfeRo vkSj vuqj{k.k dk lo/kZu½ vf/kfu;e 2010 ds vuqokj Apartment Owner's Association dk xBu dj lk{kk {ks=ksa ,oa lk{kk lqfo/kkvksa dks ,lksfl;s'ku dks gLrkafjr djus dh dk;Zokgh djsaA mDr ds ifjis{; ,oa i=koyh ij izkIr izi=ksa ds vk/kkj ij Jh T;ksfr 'kqHkzk vferkHk ds }kjk iathdj.k gsrq izLrqr eSdkWu eStsfLVd vikVZesUV vkWulZ ,lksfl;s'ku] IykV ua0&lh&58@10] lSDVj&62 uks,Mk] xkSrecq)uxj dk vkosnu fnukad 11-01-2018 dks vLohdkj djrs gq, Jh iq"dj jkt pkanuk ds }kjk eSdkWu vikVZesUV vkWulZ ,lksfl;s'ku] IykV ua0&lh&58@10] lSDVj&62 uks,Mk] xkSrecq)uxj vkosnu fnukad 19-12-2017 dks Lohdkj djrs gq, iathdj.k fd;s tkus ds vkns'k ikfjr fd;s tkrs gSaA ¼lqHkk"k flag½ fMIVh jftLVªkj ia=kd % 1315@esjB@fnukad 29-06-2019^^ 7. The aforesaid order clearly shows that the respondent No. 2-Deputy Registrar (Firms, Societies & Chits), Meerut has not assigned any reason for accepting the claim of the respondent No. 4 despite the fact that serious objection has been raised by the petitioner in registration of the society of the respondent No. 4 inasmuch as provisions of The U.P. Apartment (Promotion Of Construction, Ownership And Maintenance) Act, 2010 has not been followed and hence the registration of the society of respondent No. 4 is illegal. Since no reason has been assigned by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Registrar (Firms, Societies & Chits), Meerut in registration of the society of the respondent No. 4, therefore, in the opinion of the Court, the order impugned is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. Since the aforesaid order of the respondent No. 2Deputy Registrar (Firms, Societies & Chits), Meerut is set aside, therefore, all the consequential orders passed on the basis of aforesaid order is also set aside. 8. The respondent No. 2-Deputy Registrar (Firms, Societies & Chits), Meerut is granted liberty to pass order afresh after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is allowed subject to observation above. 10. In view of the fact that due to the pandemic of COVID-19, the certified copy is not being issued by the High Court, therefore, the order downloaded from the website duly certified by learned counsel for the petitioner may be treated as true copy of the order and the Authority may not refuse to comply the order on the ground of non filing of certified copy of the order.