JUDGMENT : 1. These two writ petitions assail two different orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Lucknow. The first Writ Petition bearing No. 9735 (MS) of 2020 has been preferred by Dr. Dhiraj Singh who claimed to be the President of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Uttar Pradesh and he has assails the validity of the certain proceedings of an alleged meeting said to have been held on 16.02.2020 wherein a No Confidence Motion, initiated at the behest of respondent no. 4, is said to have been successfully passed, as a consequence, the petitioner has been removed from being the President of the society and further the Deputy Registrar by means of the impugned order dated 19.02,2020 has approved and accepted the alleged minutes of meeting tacitly and directed the registration of a fresh list of members submitted by the respondent no. 4. The order dated 19.03.2020 and consequential order dated 20.03.2020 are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The other writ petition No. 4515 (MS) of 2020 has been filed by Sri Devendra Pal Verma, who claimed himself to be the elected President of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Uttar Pradesh, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. In an earlier round of litigation the issue of membership of Devendra Pal Verma was raised and the same was directed to be decided by the Deputy Registrar. In furtherance of the order passed by this Court dated 30.07.2019 the Deputy Registrar after hearing Sri Devendra Pal Verma found that his expulsion was in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society and he declined to interfere with the complaint/ representation of Sri Verma. This order dated 02.11.2019 and the consequential order dated 07.11.2019 have been assailed by Sri Verma in W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020. 3. Since the dispute in both the writ petitions are linked by chronological events and are in continuation of certain events which were made the subject matter of earlier petitions, hence, both the petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 4. In order to appreciate the controversy giving rise to the instant petitions, it will be necessary to notice certain background events which also includes previous litigation for comprehensive and clear understanding of the facts and disputes involved in the present petitions. (A) Background Facts 5. 4. In order to appreciate the controversy giving rise to the instant petitions, it will be necessary to notice certain background events which also includes previous litigation for comprehensive and clear understanding of the facts and disputes involved in the present petitions. (A) Background Facts 5. Historically, Arya Samaj was founded by Swami Dayanand Saraswati in the year 1875 with the prime objective to promote social, spiritual, cultural upliftment of the society. The aforesaid Arya Samaj has a four tier composition namely (i) Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidi Sabha (ii) Pradeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha (iii) Zila Arya Pratinidhi Sabha (iv) Arya Samaj Units. 6. The Arya Pratinidh Sabha was formed in the State of Uttar Pradesh on 03.07.1987 and was duly registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Arya Pratinidh Sabha has its own registered bye-laws which regulates and governs the functioning of the Society. The bye-laws also define the constitution of the Arya Pratinidh Sabha and further indicates the powers and duties of the General Body, the Governing Body as well as the office bearers of the Governing Body. The registered office of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha is situate at Narayan Swami Ashram at 5 Meera Bai Marg, Lucknow. The said Society has been renewed from time to time and it was last renewed on 10.10.2015 for a period of five years. 7. There are approximately 300 units of Arya Samaj spread over the various districts within the State of Uttar Pradesh which constitutes the electoral units of the Arya Pratinidh Sabha to elect its general body. It has been stated that at present that there are approx 1300 members in the General Body of the Society. The General Body of the Arya Pratinidh Sabha elects its own Governining body which is known as 'Antrang Sabha'. It is also stated that the Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha at New Delhi has its own rules which are known as Rules-Sub Rules of Arya Samaj. The aforesaid rules are binding over every Arya Samaj Unit which is affiliated with the Pradeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha. 8. It is also stated that the Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha at New Delhi has its own rules which are known as Rules-Sub Rules of Arya Samaj. The aforesaid rules are binding over every Arya Samaj Unit which is affiliated with the Pradeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha. 8. It is in this backdrop where the aforesaid society has an old existence and covers various districts of the State of Uttar Prdesh having large number of persons as members who inturn elect and form its Governing Body, hence, it becomes a fertile ground for dissension and disputes which occur and from time to time and there has been several litigations, which has invited the attention of various authorities including the Courts relating to the Arya Pratinidhi Sabhas. 9. However, for the present controversy, it would be relevant to notice that the last undisputed elections of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, U.P. was held on 27.03.2016. The term of the said Committee or the Governing Body was 5 years and was to expire in the year 2021. In the aforesaid election held on 27.03.2016, a Governing Body of 90 members was constituted wherein Sri Devendra Pal Verma (the petitioner no. 2 in W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020 was elected as the President while Dr. Dheeraj Singh was elected as Up Pradhan (Vice President), who is the petitioner of W.P. No. 9735 (MS) of 2020. 10. Soon after the aforesaid elections took place, on account of certain charges levelled against Sri Devendra Pal Verma, the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits by means of his order dated 09.11.2016 restrained Sri Devendra Pal Verma from performing his duties as the President of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha and by the same order the charge of the President was handed over to the petitioner of the W.P. No. 9735 (MS) of 2020 Dr. Dhiraj Singh. 11. Initially, Sri Devendra Pal Verma assailed the said order before the High Court at Allahabad. The High Court at Allahabad finding that the petition was not maintainable on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction, hence, dismissed the petition by means of order dated 24.03.2017 passed in W.P. (C) No. 59067 of 2016 and liberty was granted to Sri Devendra Pal Verma to approach the appropriate Court at Lucknow. 12. It is thereafter that Sri Devendra Pal Verma preferred a writ petition before this Court at Lucknow bearing W.P. No. 10563 (MS) of 2017. 12. It is thereafter that Sri Devendra Pal Verma preferred a writ petition before this Court at Lucknow bearing W.P. No. 10563 (MS) of 2017. 13. In the meantime, the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits passed an order dated 16.01.2017 whereby the charge which was given to Dr. Dhiraj Singh was modified as a result the charge was now directed to be given to Smt. Gayatri Dixit (another Up Pradhan who was at serial No. 2). It will be worthwhile to notice that as per the bye-laws, the 90 members Committee of Arya Pratinidh Sabha including 16 office bearers comprises of one President, a Secretary, a Treasurar, a Librarian, 5 Up Pradhans (Vice President) and 5 Deputy Secretaries (Up Mantri) and one female Up Pradhan and one female Deputy Secretary and a female Assistant Treasurar and an Assistant Librarian. 14. It is in this backdrop, Dr. Dhiraj Singh preferred a Writ Petition bearing No. 1829 (MS) of 2017 wherein he assailed the order dated 16.01.2017 bye means of which the charge of the Pradhan which was given to him was directed to be handed over now to Smt. Gayatri Dixit. 15. During this period, another interesting event took place, inasmuch as, the General Body of the Arya Pratinidh Sabha by means of its Resolution dated 26.03.2017 expelled Sri Devendra Pal Verma from the post of as well as from the membership of the Society for a period of 6 years for various irregularities and actions of Sri Verma which were not in the interest of the Society. 16. Sri Devendra Pal Verma preferred a complaint before the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits against the said Resolution dated 26.03.2017 regarding his expulsion from the membership of the Society upon which the Deputy Registrar by means of its order dated 30.03.2017 stayed the proceedings and the resolution dated 26.03.2017. 17. Dr. Dhiraj Singh preferred another writ petition assailing the order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 30.03.2017 staying the resolution dated 26.03.2017 by which Devendra Pal Verma was expelled, by means of writ petition No. 7613 (MS) of 2017. 18. Again in a meeting of the Governing Body held on 23.07.2017, the petitioner Dr. 17. Dr. Dhiraj Singh preferred another writ petition assailing the order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 30.03.2017 staying the resolution dated 26.03.2017 by which Devendra Pal Verma was expelled, by means of writ petition No. 7613 (MS) of 2017. 18. Again in a meeting of the Governing Body held on 23.07.2017, the petitioner Dr. Dhiraj Singh was elected as Pradhan for the remaining term up to 26.03.2021 and in the same meeting the membership of Smt. Gayatri Dixit was also terminated on the ground that she was ineligible for membership in terms of Clause 2 (e) (b) (1) and (2) of the bye-laws. 19. Smt. Gayatri Dixit also file a complaint dated 25.07.2019 before the Deputy Registrar against the decision terminating her membership taken by the Governing Body in the meeting held on 23.07.2017. 20. Thus, three writ petitions were actively engaging the attention of this Court relating to the disputes as mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs. 21. All the three petitions bearing W.P. No. No. 1829 (MS) of 2017, W.P. No. 10563 (MS) of 2017 and W.P. No. 7613 (MS) of 2017 were clubbed together and decided by means of order dated 30.07.2019. As a result, the orders impugned in the aforesaid three writ petitions were set aside and the matter was remitted to the Deputy Registrar, Firm Societies and Chits to decide the matter afresh and till such decisions, the parties were directed to maintain status-quo. The relevant portion of the said order dated 30.07.2019 passed by this Court on the three clubbed petitions, is being reproduced hereinafter. "4. So far as impugned orders dated 09.11.2016, 16.01.2017and 30.03.2017 are concerned, counsels for both the parties agree that the aforesaid order may be set aside. However, the issue as to whether Sri Devendra Pal Verma is entitled to hold any post in the society or not be left to be reproduced decided after decision of the Deputy Registrar with regard to reproduced membership. 5. In view of aforesaid, following order is being passed:- (i) The impugned orders dated 09.11.2016, 16.01.2017 and 30.03.2017 are set aside. (ii) All the parties may approach the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow within a period of two week from today raising all their submissions including with regard to membership of Sri Devendra Pal Verma and Smt. Gaytri Dixit. (ii) All the parties may approach the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow within a period of two week from today raising all their submissions including with regard to membership of Sri Devendra Pal Verma and Smt. Gaytri Dixit. The said matters shall be decided by the Deputy Registrar by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, after hearing all the parties concerned, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him. (iii) It is provided that authority of Sri Devendra Pal Verma to hold any post including the post of president in the society will depend upon the final order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow with regard to membership. (iv) Till final decision of the Deputy Registrar, parties shall maintain status-quo. 6. With the aforesaid, all these writ petitions are disposed of." 22. In furtherance and as per the directions given by this Court in its judgment dated 30.07.2019, the Deputy Registrar called upon the parties concerned to file their respective pleadings and submissions. 23. While the matter was still pending before the Deputy Registrar, in the meantime, the elected Secretary of the Society namley Swami Dharmeshwaranand Saraswati expired on 23.10.2019. 24. Soon thereafter, the Deputy Registrar after considering the submissions and the pleadings of the respective parties passed its final order dated 02.11.2019. By means of the said order, the Deputy Registrar, Firms Socities and Chits, did not find any error in the Resolution expelling Sri Devendra Pal Verma from the membership. It also noted that Smt. Gayatri Dixit had already submitted that her termination has already been recalled, thus, no further adjudication was required on her representation/complaint, hence, in effect the order dated 02.11.2019 primarily focussed on the issue of the expulsion of Sri Devendra Pal Verma and the same was upheld by the Deputy Registrar. 25. Sri Devendra Pal Verma assailed the said order dated 02.11.2019 by means of W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020 which is before this Court at present under adjudication. He also assailed the consequential order dated 07.11.2019 whereby the list of office bearers as submitted by Dr. Dhiraj Singh was registered by the Deputy Registrar. 25. Sri Devendra Pal Verma assailed the said order dated 02.11.2019 by means of W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020 which is before this Court at present under adjudication. He also assailed the consequential order dated 07.11.2019 whereby the list of office bearers as submitted by Dr. Dhiraj Singh was registered by the Deputy Registrar. Thus, it would be seen that one arm of litigation before this Court is in relation to the expulsion of Devendra Pal Verma and the validity of the order dated 02.11.2019 and consequential registration of the list of members vide order dated 07.11.2019 which is the subject matter of W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020. 26. The controversy involved in W.P. No. 9735 (MS) of 2020 filed by Dr. Dhiraj Singh, orginates from the events mentioned hereinafter. 27. As already noticed above, the Secretary namely Swami Dharmeshwaranand Saraswati had expired on 23.10.2019 and as per the meeting of the Society held on 23.07.2017 Dr. Dhiraj Singh was elected as the President for the remaining term. Thus, since this Court while passing the order dated 30.07.2019 in the connected 3 petitions had directed the respective parties to maintain status-quo till the decision was rendered by the Deputy Registrar, Socities Chits and Funds, hence, once the order dated 02.11.2019 was passed, Dr. Dhiraj Singh in capacity as the President had submitted a list of 90 members before the Deputy Registrar for the year 2019-20 which was registered on 07.11.2019. 28. Dr. Dhiraj Singh in capacity as President circulated an agenda calling for the meeting of the Society to be conveyed on 01.12.2019 primarily to fill up the post of the Secretary of the Society which had fallen vacant on account of death of Sri Dharmeshwara Nand Saraswati. 29. The meeting of the Governing Body was held on 01.12.2019, however, no business was transacted and after offering due condolences on account of demise of late Sri Dharmeshwaranand Saraswati, the meeting of the Governing Body was adjourned for 15.12.2019. 30. In the meeting held on 15.12.2019 for the purposes of filling up the vacancy of the Secretary, the names of the Deputy Secretaties were discussed. Sri Vishal Singh (respondent no. 30. In the meeting held on 15.12.2019 for the purposes of filling up the vacancy of the Secretary, the names of the Deputy Secretaties were discussed. Sri Vishal Singh (respondent no. 4) in W.P. No. 9735 (MS) of 2020, his name was at Serial No. 1 amongst the Deputy Secretary and was considered first, however, certain objections were raised and it was stated that since Sri Vishal Singh was holding the post of Medical Officer (District Tuberclosis Officer) in District Jaunpur which is a responsible post in the Government of Uttar Pradesh, hence, as per Rule 16 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956, the respondent no. 4 Vishal Singh was not suitable for being appointed as the Secretary. The Society also sought a legal opinion and thereafter considering the various aspects, Sri Vishal Singh was not found suitable by the majority. Thereafter the next eligible Deputy Secretary namely Sri Gyanendra Singh his candidature was discussed and by majority he was found suitable and nominated as the Secretary of the Society. 31. The nomination of Sri Gyanendra Singh as Secretary of the Society was duly ratified by the other office bearers including the Treasurar and the President. The said Resolution was also communicated to the Bank where the Society held its accounts attesting the signatures of Sri Gyanendra Singh. The nomination of Sri Gyanendra Singh as Secretary was also duly published in the Hindi weekly newspaper "Arya Mitra" published by the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha for wide circulation and information to all members and persons concerned. 32. On 28.12.2019, the petitioner Dr. Dhiraj Singh also sent a copy of the Minutes of the meeting dated 15.12.2019, the agenda dated 05.11.2019 as well as information regarding nomination of Sri Gyanendra Singh as the Secretary of the Society to the Deputy Registrar. 33. It is in this backdrop that Sri Vishal Singh who himself was otherwise present in the meeting dated 15.12.2019 and was well aware of the nomination of Sri Gyanendra Singh as the Secretary of the Society yet he made a representation before the Deputy Registrar on 03.01.2020 raising a question mark on the alleged meeting dated 01.12.2019, 15.12.2019 as well as the agenda dated 05.11.2019 issued by Dr. Dhiraj Singh. 34. Sri Vishal Singh in his representation/complaint dated 03.01.2020 depicted himself as the Officiating Secretary of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha. Dhiraj Singh. 34. Sri Vishal Singh in his representation/complaint dated 03.01.2020 depicted himself as the Officiating Secretary of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha. It was alleged by him that though he was the Deputy Secretary but upon the death of Sri Dharmeshwaranand Saraswati, he automatically became the officiating Secretary of the Society, hence, the entire proceedings initiated by the meeting dated 01.12.2019, 15.12.2019 as well as the Agenda dated 05.11.2019 issued by Dr. Dhiraj Singh was unlawful and void. 35. Sri Vishal Singh also complained to the Deputy Registrar that upon the death of Sri Dharmeshwaranand Saraswati, the post of Secretary was lying vacant and as such directions be issued for calling upon a meeting for filling up the post of the Secretary in due accordance with the rules and byelaws of the Society. 36. Upon the representation/complaint of Sri Vishal Singh, the Deputy Registrar passed an order dated 09.01.2020 addressed to Dr. Dhiraj Singh and directed him to call for a meeting of the "Antrang Sabha" of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha and fill the post of Secretary in accordance with the byelaws and within 15 days inform the Deputy Registrar of it. 37. Dr. Dhiraj Singh upon receiving the said notice/order dated 09.01.2020 submitted a detailed reply before the Deputy Registrar on 17.01.2020 informing him of the entire exercise undertaken for nominating the Secretary and that Sri Gyanendra Singh had already been appointed as the Secretary. It was also informed that the minutes of the meeting and other relevant documents were already submitted before the Deputy Registrar on 28.12.2019. It was also stated that Sri Vishal Singh who had attended the meeting dated 15.12.2019 wherein his candidature was considered but as the majority found him unsuitable as he was holding a post with the State Government, hence, all these facts had been concealed by Sri Vishal Singh and he has mislead the Deputy Registrar to issue the said order dated 09.01.2020. In the aforesaid, it was prayed that the order dated 09.01.2020 be recalled. 38. In the aforesaid, it was prayed that the order dated 09.01.2020 be recalled. 38. In this backdrop where there was an attempt by Vishal Singh to disrupt of the Governing Body, on 28.01.2020 it is alleged that while the President Sri Dhiraj Singh and Secretary Gyanendra Singh were out of station, Sri Vishal Singh along with 7 -8 other persons forcibly dismantled the nameplate of the Secretary affixed on the office of the Secretary and interfered with the functioning of the Society. 39. Sri Vishal Singh in his alleged attempt to usurp control of the Society moved another representation/complaint before the Deputy Registrar alleging that the meeting called by Dr. Dhiraj Singh as President on 01.12.2019, 15.12.2019, 02.02.2020 and 14.03.2020 were void and impermissible and the same may not be accepted or given effect to. Sri Vishal Singh levelled various allegations against Dr. Dhiraj Singh that few members and office bearers had also filed affidavits raising a no confidence motion against Dr. Dhiraj Singh and a meeting of the Governing Body be called, to be supervised by the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits. 40. Once the Deputy Registrar received complaint dated 31.01.2020, he issued another letter to the petitioner Dr. Dhiraj Singh on 01.02.2020 calling upon Dr. Dhiraj Singh to submit his reply (Annexure No. 23 with the writ petition bearing No. 9735 (MS) of 2020). 41. It is further alleged by the petitioner Sri Dhiraj Singh that in the meeting dated 02.02.2020 vide Resolution No. 11 Sri Vishal Singh was expelled from the membership as well as from the post of Deputy Secretary. It is further alleged that Sri Vishal Singh did not challenge the said decision dated 02.02.2020 regarding his expulsion, however, in order to browbeat, he issued an illegal agenda on 03.02.2020 while ante-dating the same to 30.01.2020 for convening a meeting on 16.02.2020 at the head office of the Society at Lucknow mainly for considering the No Confidence Motion against the petitioner Dr. Dhiraj Singh and also for filling up the vacancy for the post of Secretary. 42. As in the alleged meeting dated 02.02.2020 the Governing Body of the Society had expelled Sri Vishal Singh, hence, Dr. Dhiraj Singh also sent another amended list of members to the Deputy Registrar on 05.02.2020. Dhiraj Singh and also for filling up the vacancy for the post of Secretary. 42. As in the alleged meeting dated 02.02.2020 the Governing Body of the Society had expelled Sri Vishal Singh, hence, Dr. Dhiraj Singh also sent another amended list of members to the Deputy Registrar on 05.02.2020. Sri Vishal Singh by means of his letter dated 14.02.2020 addressed to the Registrar sought an Observer for supervising the alleged meeting slated for 16.02.2020. The Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits by means of his order dated 14.02.2020 and addressed to the Assistant Registrar required the Assistant Registrar to do the needful for appointing an Observer for the meeting dated 16.02.2020. In furtherance thereof the Deputy Registrar informed the Registrar that as per his request from Deputy Registrar, Faizabad, Deputy Registrar, Kanpur, Assistant Registar, Azamgarh and Assistant Registrar, Gorakhpur anyone may be appointed as the Observer. 43. Accordingly, the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Azamgarh was appointed as Observer under whose supervision the meeting dated 16.02.2020 was to be held. 44. It is this meeting dated 16.02.2020 which is in the eye of the storm. On one hand it is the case of the petitioner Dr. Dhiraj Singh that on the alleged date 16.02.2020 on account of commotion and ruckus created by the members at the behest of Sri Vishal Singh, the meeting could not take place, so much so, that the head office of the Society was locked by the police and the Observer so appointed also noticed the same while submitting its report to the Registrar that no meeting was held for the said reason. 45. On the other hand Sri Vishal Singh stated that the meeting took place on 16.02.2020 and a resolution was passed by means of which the President Dr. Dhiraj Singh was removed as the No Confidence Motion was passed successfully by the members. 46. It is in furtherance thereof that the alleged list of office bearers was submitted by Sri Vishal Singh before the Deputy Registrar on 17.03.2020 upon which the Deputy Registrar passed an order dated 19.03.2020 directing the said list to be registered. 47. It is this order dated 19.03.2020 which has been assailed by the petitioner Dr. 46. It is in furtherance thereof that the alleged list of office bearers was submitted by Sri Vishal Singh before the Deputy Registrar on 17.03.2020 upon which the Deputy Registrar passed an order dated 19.03.2020 directing the said list to be registered. 47. It is this order dated 19.03.2020 which has been assailed by the petitioner Dr. Dhiraj Singh in W.P. No. 9735 (MS) of 2020 as well as the consequential order dated 20.03.2020 by means of which amended list of office bearers of the Governing Body of the Society has been registered for the year 2019-20. Thus, in light of the detailed facts noticed above the two writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. (B) Submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 48. The Court has heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 9735 (MS) of 2020. Sri Abhishek Yadav, Advocate for Sri Vishal Singh, the respondent no. 4, Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for Smt. Gayatri Dixit, respondent no. 5 and Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri Atul Dwivedi for Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, the respondent no. 7 as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Whereas in W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020, the Court has heard Dr. L.P. Mishra learned Senior Counsel along with Atul Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for Sri Dhiraj Singh, respondent no. 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 49. For the sake of convenience, the submissions in both the writ petitions are being noticed separately and W.P. No. 9735 (MS) of 2020 is being considered first:- (I) W.P. No. 9735 (MS) of 2020:- 50. Dr. L.P. Mishra and Sri Atul Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for Arya Pratinidhi Sabha has raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainbility of the above petition. 51. Dr. Mishra has urged that the petitioner Dhiraj Singh is neither a member of the Society nor an office bearer and he being a stranger is not entitled to file the above petition. It has been urged that the petitioner himself has stated that his primary membership of Arya Samaj (Baldeo Ashram) Khurja, District Bulandshahr has been cancelled. 51. Dr. Mishra has urged that the petitioner Dhiraj Singh is neither a member of the Society nor an office bearer and he being a stranger is not entitled to file the above petition. It has been urged that the petitioner himself has stated that his primary membership of Arya Samaj (Baldeo Ashram) Khurja, District Bulandshahr has been cancelled. It is further submitted that once the primary membership of Dhiraj Singh having been cancelled, he loses his right to remain as a member of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha also he has been removed from the post of President in the meeting held on 16.02.2020. Thus, the petitioner has no locus to file the instant petition. 52. It is further submitted that Sri Dhiraj Singh himself has filed a Suit bearing R.S. No. 581 of 2020 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khurja, District Bulandshahr challenging the membership cancellation order dated 01.02.2020. In the said suit an order of status-quo has been passed, thus, once the membership of Sri Dhiraj Singh had been cancelled and the order of status-quo had been passed, accordingly, Sri Dhiraj Singh cannot assail the same order in two different forums and he having availed the remedy of filing a suit now cannot simultaneously maintain the above petition. 53. It is further stated that during the pendency of the instant petition, Sri Dhiraj Singh also moved an application before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khurja, District Bulandshahr and has withdrawn the suit No. 581 of 2020 which was dismissed as withdrawn without seeking liberty to file afresh by means of order dated 17.03.2021. Moreover, in the instant petition there is no challenge to the order dated 01.02.2020 regarding cancellation of the primary membership of Dhiraj Singh, hence, in the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner Dhiraj Singh is estopped and cannot challenge the order dated 16.02.2020, accordingly, for all the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be rejected. In respect of the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ayub Khan Noor Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2013 Vol. (4) SCC 465. 54. In respect of the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ayub Khan Noor Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2013 Vol. (4) SCC 465. 54. In furtherance of the aforesaid submission, it has also been urged that an individual member cannot maintain a writ petition and to buttress his aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel relies upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Umesh Chandra and Another Vs. Mahila Vidyalaya Society reported in 2006 (24) LCD 1373. 55. It has also been urged by Dr. Mishra that apart from the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is also not maintainable as there is no resolution passed by the Society authorising the petitioner Dr. Dhiraj Singh to institute the above writ petition and for the said reason, the petition is not maintainable. In suport of his submission, he relies upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Umesh Chandra and Another Vs. Mahila Vidyalaya Society reported in 2006 (24) LCD 1373. and also on a decision in the case of Kalashi Das Shiksha Sansthan Vs. Registrar Firms reported in 2013 (31) LCD 1102 . 56. Apart from the aforesaid submissions, Dr. Mishra has further submitted that since the petition involves disputes questions of facts and Dr. Dhiraj Singh has an alternate remedy of preferring appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court, hence, for availability of an alternate remedy as well as the petition involving disputed questions of fact, this petition is not maintainable. 57. It has been submitted that during the pendency of the aforesaid petition, the elections have been held on 21.03.2021, consequently, the instant petition has been rendered infrutuous and the petitioner Dhiraj Singh if at all aggrieved has an appropriate remedy of assailing the elections in terms of Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected at the outset. 58. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for Sri Dhiraj Singh has refuted the aforesaid arguments and has submitted that the petitioner does have the right to maintain the aforesaid petition. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected at the outset. 58. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for Sri Dhiraj Singh has refuted the aforesaid arguments and has submitted that the petitioner does have the right to maintain the aforesaid petition. It has been submitted that the petitioner is individually and personally aggrieved by the proceedings dated 16.02.2020 by means of which in a completely arbitrary and illegal manner, the petitioner has been shown to have been removed from the post of the President. 59. It has been submitted that the Deputy Registrar who is a functionary under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 had been informed of the chronology of events that transpired from time to time and the petitioner had also submitted his response as well as the representation indicating clearly that the grounds upon which Sri Vishal Singh, the respondent no. 4 had made complaints were completely untenable yet the same was not considered. 60. The Deputy Registrar while passing the impugned order dated 19.03.2020 has abdicated his functions as the order has been passed in an arbitrary fashion and is non-speaking one even without noticing the entire facts and has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing which has rendered the order vulnerable to judicial interference. 61. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner being aggrieved does have a right to assail the said order and in support of his submissions the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Jagdimbaka Prasad Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2019 (8) ADJ 536 . He has also relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Banwari Lal Kanchal Vs. Bhartendu Agarwal and Others reported in 2019 (12) ADJ 235 (DB) (LB). 62. Sri Mehrtora has further submitted that as far as the order dated 01.02.2020 regarding cancellation of the primary membership is concerned, the same is ex-facie illegal. It has been submitted that the alleged Authority namely Prantiya Nyay Sabha who is said to have passed the order has no authority or jurisdiction to do so. It has been submitted that Rule 37 of the bye-laws of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha deals with the power and authority of the Prantiya Nyay Sabha. It has been submitted that the alleged Authority namely Prantiya Nyay Sabha who is said to have passed the order has no authority or jurisdiction to do so. It has been submitted that Rule 37 of the bye-laws of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha deals with the power and authority of the Prantiya Nyay Sabha. Limited scope of the Authority is exercised by the Prantiya Nyay Sabha and unless and until a dispute which is envisaged in terms of Rule 37 exists only such disputes can be decided and any order which is beyond the scope of Rule 37 of the bye-laws amounts to an order being completely de-hors of the said rule and is an exercise of power by an authority which has none rendering such an order completely non-est, void-ab-nitio and for the said reason the said order has no legal consequence and apparently it is liable to be ignored. 63. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra further submits that even the suit instituted by the petitioner has been withdrawn as the petitioner realised that the order dated 01.02.2020 passed by the alleged Prantiya Nyay Sabha was non-est and without jurisdiction. He further submits that the apex body of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha i.e. Sarvadeshi Arya Pratinidhi Sabha which has its office in New Delhi and has framed the Rules and Constitution for the Arya Samaj also considering the matter issued a letter clearly holding that the Nyay Sabha did not have the jurisdiction or the Authority to remove a person from the membership and thus in light of the above, there was no purpose of keeping the aforesaid suit pending before the Civil Court, accordingly, in the aforesaid backdrop of facts the said suit was withdrawn which in any case cannot prevent the petitioner to exercise his right of moving the Constitutional Court for redressal of his grievance especially where an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority performing an adjudicatory role is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and moreover, it has evil consequence for the petitioner, hence, such an order can be assailed and the petitioner being aggrieved has a right to maintain the above petition. 64. 64. Sri Mehrotra has further submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 19.03.2020 is completely bereft of reasons, it also does not consider the facts and the material which was before the Authority prior to taking the decisions and in any case it is in gross violation of the provisions especially the proviso contained in Section 4 and also of Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and has been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, neither the bar of alternate remedy could come in the way of this Court to entertain and consider the petition on merits as the order is violative of principles of natural justice and completely non-speaking. 65. Sri Mehrotra further submits that there has been merely a bald allegation regarding fresh elections having taken place whereas there is no material or details brought on record to substantiate the same. 66. Sri Mehrotra also submitted that at the time when the aforesaid petition was filed, this Court on 06.07.2019 had passed a detailed order by means of which the instant petition was directed to be connected with W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020 and W.P. No. 7217 (MS) of 2020. 67. Significantly, it will be relevant to mention here that two other writ petitions bearing W.P. No 7217 (MS) of 2020 and W.P. No. 12501 (MS) of 2020 were also filed assailing the said order. Both the aforesaid writ petitions were withdrawn by the respective petitioners and were so dismissed as withdrawn by the Court by means of order dated 18.03.2021 and 23.03.2021 respectively. 68. From the perusal of the said order dated 06.07.2019, it would indicate that the preliminary objections urged at this stage were also raised at that time. Considering the aforesaid this Court had also directed the Additional Chief Standing Counsel to seek complete instructions and assist the Court on the aforesaid issues whether the petitioner (Dhiraj Singh) was heard before passing the impugned order i.e. 19.03.2020. 69. Sri Mehrotra has further submitted that on 09.07.2020, this Court has after noticing the submissions of the respective parties, issued notices to the private respondents nos. 6 and 7 and also directed the opposite party no. 3 i.e. the Deputy Registrar to file the counter affidavit and shall also give a reply to the query made in the order dated 06.07.2019. 6 and 7 and also directed the opposite party no. 3 i.e. the Deputy Registrar to file the counter affidavit and shall also give a reply to the query made in the order dated 06.07.2019. It is further submitted that despite the matter having been listed on various occasions yet no counter affidavit was filed by any of the contesting parties. Even on 03.12.2020 time was granted to the respondents to file their counter affidavit but the same was not filed. It is only as late as on 18.03.2021 that the respondent no. 7 i.e. the Society filed its counter affidavit. 70. It is also submitted that, while filing the said counter affidavit no material has been brought on record to substantiate the factum of the alleged elections which has been mentioned during the course of the arguments but not stated in the counter affidavit. Thus, if any alleged elections had taken place then it was the duty of the Society while filing the counter affidavit as late as on 18.03.2021 to bring the said facts on record. Making a submission in absence of any pleadings amounts to deliberate suppression, concealment of material facts and for the said reason also the aforesaid objections raised by the respondents deserves to be rejected. 71. Sri Mehrotra further urged that even otherwise the entire case is built on the alleged meeting said to have taken place on 16.02.2020. It is on the application of Sri Vishal Singh addressed to the Registrar that an Observer was appointed. The Observer has furnished its report to indicate that no meeting took place on 16.02.2020 on account of ruckus created. Thus, without calling for the report from the Observer and without verifying the said facts, the impugned order has been passed which is suceptible for interference. On one hand the Observer is appointed by the Registrar to oversee the meeting whereas even without noticing and considering the facts and even without calling for a report from the Observer, the Minutes of an alleged meeting said to have been held on 16.02.2020 has been accepted by the Deputy Registrar. This is nothing but absolute arbitrariness and caprice and such an order which is passed on whims cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. This is nothing but absolute arbitrariness and caprice and such an order which is passed on whims cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. (II) Writ Petition No. 4515 (MS) of 2020. 72. In the aforesaid petition, Sri Gaurav Mehrotra has raised preliminary objections to the effect that the present writ petition has been preferred by Arya Pratinidhi Sabha and Sri Devendra Pal Verma as petitioner no. 2 where as the membership of petitioner no. 2 has been cancelled. The issue of membership has been adjudicated by the Deputy Registrar and the said order is not assailable and the same can be assailed before the Civil Court. Moreover, since Devendra Pal Verma has impleaded the Society as petitioner no. 1 through its President but there is no material on record to indicate that the Society has issued any authorization to the petitioner no. 2 to institute the above petition, thus, for the said reason, the petition at the behest of Sri Devendra Pal Verma is not maintainable nor can he represent or institute the petition at the behest of the Society i.e. petitioner no. 1. 73. It has further been submitted that in the instant case despite ample opportunity having been granted, no rejoinder affidavit was filed except as late as on 18.03.2021. Even in the aforesaid rejoinder, no effort has been made to bring any resolution on record by which Sri Devendra Pal Verma has been authorized to file the above petition. 74. In absence of any authorization and knowing the fact that Sri Devendra Pal Verma is not a president as the issue has been adjudicated by the Deputy Registrar while passing the order dated 02.11.2019 yet while filing the aforesaid petition Sri Devendra Pal Verma has impleaded the Society as petitioner no. 1 and has represented the Society as its Pradhan. On the date of institution of the petition, the petitioner is not the Pradhan and thus, the petition suffers from misrepresentation, accordingly, the same is not maintainable. 75. It is also urged that the order passed by the Deputy Registrar is reasoned and considering all the material submitted before him. 1 and has represented the Society as its Pradhan. On the date of institution of the petition, the petitioner is not the Pradhan and thus, the petition suffers from misrepresentation, accordingly, the same is not maintainable. 75. It is also urged that the order passed by the Deputy Registrar is reasoned and considering all the material submitted before him. There is a clear finding recorded by the Deputy Registrar that no material could be brought on record by Sri Devendra Pal Verma to substantiate that the order regarding his removal and termination of his membership suffers from any vice. Such an order which is based on material before it as well as the fact that the order has been passed after affording full opportunity of hearing cannot be challenged. The High Court does not exercise appellate powers rather the said order if at all can be assailabled within the scope of powers conferred on this Court of judicial review, where this Court does not substitute its own finding rather the inquiry is limited to the decision making process and not the merits of the decision itself hence for the said reason also the impugned order also does not fall within the parameters nor any circumstances have been urged to indicate that the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, thus, the petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 76. Dr. L.P. Mishra and Sri Atul Dwivedi refuting the aforesaid submissions on behalf of the petitioners have urged that the order dated 02.11.2019 passed by the Deputy Registrar has the effect of confirming the removal of the the petitioner and such an order which affects the personal right of the petitioner can be assailed by him. It is further urged that though it is true that no resolution has been passed by the Society authorizing the petitioner no. 2 i.e. Devendra Pal Verma to institute the above petition but nevertheless the petition is maintainable at least at the behest of petitioner no. 2. Thus, the same can be considered by the Court and cannot be dismissed for such defect at the threshhold. 77. Dr. Mishra has stated that in paragraph 10 to 14 of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 18.03.2021 it has been stated that the alleged resolution by which the membership of the petitioner no. 2. Thus, the same can be considered by the Court and cannot be dismissed for such defect at the threshhold. 77. Dr. Mishra has stated that in paragraph 10 to 14 of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 18.03.2021 it has been stated that the alleged resolution by which the membership of the petitioner no. 2 Sri Devendra Pal Verma was cancelled, the said resolution has been recalled by the competent authority i.e. Arya Samaj, Muzaffarnagar in its meeting dated 19.07.2020 and consequently the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha on 26.09.2020 issued a letter addressed to the Administrator of Arya Samaj, Muzaffarnagar accepting the Minutes of meeting dated 19.07.2020 and holding that Sri Devendra Pal Verma alongwith two other members are the members of the Arya Samaj, Muzaffarnagar. Thus, for the said reason and subsequent event, the impugned order looses much of its relevance and is liable to be set aside. (C) Points for Determination:- 78. This Court after hearing the parties at length and on perusal of the material available on record, for the sake of convenience formulates the following points for determination which arise in the aforesaid two writ petitions. (i) Whether Sri Dhiraj Singh has the right to maintain the W.P. No. 9735 (MS) of 2020 ; (ii) Whether the W.P. No. 9735 (MS) of 2020 is not maintainable for availability of alternate remedy and involving disputed questions of facts ; (iii) Whether the impugned order dated 19.03.2020 passed by the Deputy Registrar is arbitrary and has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing and is violative of principles of natural justice. (iv) Whether Devendra Pal Verma has the right to maintain W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020 projecting himself to be the Pradhan and without having any authorization from the Society to institute the writ petition; (v) Whether Sri Devendra Pal Verma has the locus to maintain the W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020 in his individual capacity as petitioner no. 2. (vi) Whether the impugned order dated 02.11.2019 suffers from any vice and is in violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside in exercise of powers of judicial review. (D) Discussions and Analysis of legal issues:- 79. This Court is taking up the issues involved for determination in W.P. No. 9735 (MS) of 2020 first. 80. (D) Discussions and Analysis of legal issues:- 79. This Court is taking up the issues involved for determination in W.P. No. 9735 (MS) of 2020 first. 80. It will be necessary to first consider whether the writ petition is maintainable at the behest of Sri Dhiraj Singh. While raising the aforesaid issue of maintainability at the behest of respondent no. 7. Dr. Mishra along with Atul Dwivedi, learned counsel have submitted that now it is well settled that an individual member is not authorized to take up the cause of the Society unless he is so authorized. Relying upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Umesh Chandra (supra) where it has been held that an individual member has no right to represent or take the cause of the Society unless it is authorised by its Governing Body. 82. As far as the proposition is concerned, the same is not in dispute but it is equally true that in the instant case, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition in his capacity as an individual member and has not taken up the cause of the Society of its Governing Body as a whole as such he is assailing the order by means of which his personal rights which were conferred have been affected. 83. In this regard, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Jagdimbaka Prasad Pandey (Supra) is more apt where it has considered this issue. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdimbaka Prasad Pandey (supra) after noticing the various arguments of the parties specifically formulated the questions before it and after considering the various decisions including the case of Umesh Chandra (supra) has held that where an individual is aggrieved by an action of Authorities such individual has the right to approach the Court in writ jurisdiction. The relevant paragraph nos. 33 and 36 of the said case is being reproduced for ready reference:- "33. With regard to the arguments regarding maintainability of the writ petition on behalf of the petitioners, this Court has perused the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Ratan Kumar Solanki Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2010 (1) ADJ 262 . This Court finds that after considering two Division Bench judgments rendered in Dr. P.P. Rastogi Vs. With regard to the arguments regarding maintainability of the writ petition on behalf of the petitioners, this Court has perused the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Ratan Kumar Solanki Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2010 (1) ADJ 262 . This Court finds that after considering two Division Bench judgments rendered in Dr. P.P. Rastogi Vs. Meerut University and Others reported in 1997 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 415 and Umesh Chandra Vs. Mahila Vidyalaya and others as well as two Single Judges' decisions in Smt. Vimla Devi Vs. Dy. Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra, reported in 1997 (3) ACC 1807 and Bhagwati Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2006 (2) ADJ 361; the Division Bench observed that a writ petition at the instance of an individual member of the Society would be maintainable, since, recognition of illegally constituted committee affects the democratic rights of the individual Member of the Society and his Fundamental Right to form an association. The Division Bench observed that no doubt it is true that an individual Member cannot represent the Committee of Management and challenge the order or action of any Authorities whereby the Committee of Management is allegedly affected and if an action or order affects the Committee of Management, the Collective Body, the Body itself can challenge the same or may authorize an individual to represent it and to challenge such an action or order of the Authorities. However, where the individual is aggrieved by an action of the Authorities, such individual has locus-standi, to approach this Court in Writ jurisdiction. ------*****--------****-------*****----**** .......36. This Court hence finds that the writ petitions filed by the objectors are maintainable on the question of the locus-standi. With regard to the other preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondent no.6, of maintainability of the writ petition in view of alternative/statutory remedy being available by filing a civil suit, this Court also finds that the order impugned having been passed in violation of Principle of Natural Justice can also be challenged by the individual members of the Society like the petitioners who are adversely affected. The judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in 2012 (30) LCD 2550 and Nishant Kumar Pandey Vs. The judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in 2012 (30) LCD 2550 and Nishant Kumar Pandey Vs. Uco Bank & Others reported in 2014 (32) LCD 48, both have referred to the issue of judicially enforceable right being available on the basis of which writ petition can be filed and maintained. It has been observed that if a person approaching the Court can satisfy that the impugned action is likely to adversely affect his rights which have been shown to have their source in statutory provisions such a writ petition cannot be rejected on grounds of locus-standi. A member of the General Body cannot be permitted to suffer at the hands of the Committee of Management or the Authorized Controller or authorities under the Societies Registration Act for their inaction, and thereby be rendered a mere spectator in the mismanagement of the Society. " 84. The said issue was also noticed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Banwari Lal Kanchan (Supra) wherein an argument was raised that though the decision of Ratan Kumar Sirohi Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2010 (1) ADJ 262 has been noticed by the Court but certain paragraphs of the same judgment have been ignored. The aforesaid issue was raised in context with the fact whether an individual member has the right to assail the elections and maintain a writ petition. The said issue was noticed by the Court and the Division Bench in Banwari Lal Kanchal (Supra) held that it was in agreement with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of Ratan Kumar Sirohi (supra) and also clarified that a petition by a member which has evil consequences can be entertained by this Court. 85. There is another angle to the aforesaid matter. 85. There is another angle to the aforesaid matter. The record would indicate that the Deputy Registrar by means of his letter dated 09.01.2020 had referred to the complaint made by Sri Vishal Singh and had called upon the petitioner Sri Dhiraj Singh treating him as the Acting President of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha to hold the meeting in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society for filling up the vacancy occurred on death of Sri Dharmeshwaranand Saraswati and inform the Deputy Registrar within 15 days (annexure No. 17) in W.P. No. 9735 (MS) of 2020. 86. In response thereto the petitioner had submitted his detailed reply on 17.01.2020 (annexure No. 18) of W.P. No. 9735 (MS) of 2020. The aforesaid material was available in the office of the Sub Registrar, coupled with the fact that the Deputy Registrar again by means of his letter dated 01.02.2020(annexure no. 23) had referred to certain disputes and complaints made by Sri Vishal Singh and further mentioned that no decision has been taken by the Deputy Registrar yet and in reply thereto the petitioner has submitted the Minutes of meeting informing the Deputy Registrar that Sri Vishal Singh had been removed in the meeting held on 02.02.2020. 87. This reflects that, there was serious disputes before the Deputy Registrar regarding the locus of Sri Vishal Singh to raise the complaint and to project himself as the Officiating Secretary. Even the resolution regarding the removal of Sri Vishal Singh was also before the Deputy Registrar but surprisingly from the perusal of the impugned order, it would indicate that there is no such reference to any of such correspondences or the chain of events leading up to the alleged meeting dated 16.02.2020 which is the bone of contention. 88. Regarding the submission, whether the instant petition is not maintainable for availability of alternate remedy and that it involves disputed questions of facts. It has been urged by the respondents that even before passing of the impugned order dated 19.03.2020, the petitioner Dhiraj Singh had already been removed from the primary membership by means of order dated 01.02.2020. 88. Regarding the submission, whether the instant petition is not maintainable for availability of alternate remedy and that it involves disputed questions of facts. It has been urged by the respondents that even before passing of the impugned order dated 19.03.2020, the petitioner Dhiraj Singh had already been removed from the primary membership by means of order dated 01.02.2020. The said order was assailed by Sri Dhiraj Singh by filing a suit before the Civil Court at Khurja, District Bulandshahr bearing No. 581 of 2020 and the Court by means of order dated 28.02.2020 had directed the parties to maintain status-quo, thus, having assailed the removal order before the competent Civil Court, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain the above petition. 89. Refuting the aforesaid submissions, it has been urged that the order of removal has been passed by a Prantiya Nyay Sabha, a copy of the said order has been brought on record as Annexure No. 37 with the writ petition. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order has been passed by an authority which has no jurisdiction, inasmuch as, only such disputes can be adjudicated by the Prantiya Nyay Sabha which come within the abmit of Rule 37 of the bye-laws of the Society. It has also been submitted that from the perusal of Rule 37 of the bye-laws, it would indicate that only such disputes can be considered by the Nyay Sabha which relate to any dispute or difference between the Arya Samaj affiliation to the Prantiya Arya Pratinidhi Sabha and all disputes and differences between the members of the Prantiya Arya Pratinidhi Sabha relating to the matters concerning or connected with the affairs of such Pratinidhi Sabha. 90. The Prantiya Nyay Sabha is also entitled to hear the appeals from a decision of Sthaniya Nyay Sabha under its territorial jurisdiction. Nonetheless, It is only the Antrang Sabha which can suspend its member and its General Body can expell the member if he or she acts in contravention of the aims or objects of the constitution of the Arya Samaj. Nonetheless, It is only the Antrang Sabha which can suspend its member and its General Body can expell the member if he or she acts in contravention of the aims or objects of the constitution of the Arya Samaj. Accordingly, it has been urged that the order of removal is against the provision and the byelaws, hence, the same will not impact the rights of the petitioner to have assailed the same and moreover upon having realised that the said order of removal dated 01.02.2020 was without jurisdiction. The petitioner has already withdrawn the said civil suit. Moreover, the issue is not before the Court, inasmuch as, it is only the impugned order dated 19.03.2020 which is before the Court and the said order needless to say has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing, hence, is liable to be set aside. 91. The Court has considered the submissions and finds that alternate remedy is not an absolute bar for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction, though, the petitioner may have instituted the civil suit assailing the order dated 01.02.2020 regarding his removal but in the instant case as it is not disputed that that the petitioner has already withdrawn the civil suit. Even the issue whether the petitioner has rightly or wrongly been removed is a matter which has to be considered by the appropriate Authority and this Court refrains from entering into the said controversy as it may adversely affects the rights of either of the parties. 92. Prima facie, from the perusal of Rule 37 of the bye-laws which relates to the Prantiya Nyay Sabha indicates that limited type of disputes can be adjudicated by it which in any case at the first blush does not include the power to suspend, expel any member. 93. Once, the Civil Suit has been withdrawn and the order under challenge is not the subject matter of the erstwhile suit, accordingly, this Court does not deem appropriate to dismiss the petition on such grounds, hence, the objection raised by the respondent no. 7 does not deserve any indulgence from this Court and the plea fails especially when the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as shall be evident hereinafter. 94. 7 does not deserve any indulgence from this Court and the plea fails especially when the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as shall be evident hereinafter. 94. Now coming to the impugned order dated 19.03.2020 and upon considering the same in light of the rival submissions, it appears that the Deputy Registrar has not considered the controversy in its correct perspective nor it has noticed the entire facts before it. 95. This Court is also pained to note that a coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with the matter as way back as on 06.07.2020 had required the State Counsel to seek instructions and assist the Court on the issue involved as well as to indicate whether the petitioner was heard before passing the impugned order and if according to the report of the Observer, no meeting took place on 16.03.2020 then how far the Deputy Registrar could rely upon the Minutes of the meeting produced by the contesting opposite parties. 96. Even by means of order dated 09.07.2020, time was granted to file the counter affidavit which was again reiterated on 03.12.2020, despite the same no counter affidavit was filed. Though, the Society filed its counter affidavit on 18.03.2021 after the hearing had commenced but the State Counsel neither assisted the Court nor filed any counter affidavit and the Court had to proceed in absence thereof. In such circumstances, the averments in the writ petition and averments indicating various correspondence exchanged and submitted with the Deputy Registrar are being taken as not denied by the State Counsel. 97. The petitioner has clearly brought on record material to indicate that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 30.07.2019, the Deputy Registrar had passed an order on 02.11.2019. The order dated 02.11.2019 was assailed by Sri Devendra Pal Verma in other connected Petition No. 4515 (MS) of 2020, however, while the said petition was pending certain events took place, inasmuch, Sri Dhiraj Singh called for a meeting on 15.12.2019. In the said meeting Sri Gyanendra Singh was appointed as the Secretary (Annexure Nos. 11 and 12). The aforesaid information was given to the Deputy Registrar on 28.12.2019 (Annexure No. 15). In the said meeting Sri Gyanendra Singh was appointed as the Secretary (Annexure Nos. 11 and 12). The aforesaid information was given to the Deputy Registrar on 28.12.2019 (Annexure No. 15). It is only on 03.01.2020 that Sri Vishal Singh had raised disputes which was noticed by the Deputy Registrar and in pursuance thereof he issued a letter to Sri Dhiraj Singh on 09.1.2020 (annexure No. 17). In reply thereof Sri Dhiraj Singh had filed a detailed reply and also submitted that Sri Vishal Singh did not have the right to represent himself as the Secretary. It was also informed that the meeting dated 15.12.2019 where Sri Gyanendra Singh was appointed as the Secretary and it was attended by Sri Vishal Singh himself who was present and had participated and all these facts were well within his knowledge yet he concealed the same while making his representation before the Deputy Registrar that the post of Secretary lying vacant. It was also informed that the aforesaid facts were brought to the notice of the Deputy Registrar by means of letter dated 28.12.2019. In view thereof it was urged that the order dated 09.01.2020 be recalled. 98. Subsequently, the Deputy Registrar once again by means of his letter dated 01.02.2020 (annexure no. 23) required the petitioner to respond to the complaints of Vishal Singh and also indicated that till then no decision was taken by the Deputy Registrar on the complaints of Sri Vishal Singh. The petitioner thereafter had also informed the Deputy Registrar on 05.02.2020 that Sri Vishal Singh had been removed in the meeting of the Society held on 02.02.2020 (Annexure no. 27). 99. At this stage, it will be relevant to take note of the letter sent by the Deputy Registrar dated 01.02.2020 (annexure no. 23). From the perusal of the same, it would indicate that it is dated 01.02.2020, however, in the opening paragraph of the said letter, it takes note of the complaint sent by Sri Vishal Singh and also mentions certain dates of meetings held on 01.12.2019, 15.12.2019, 02.02.2020 and 14.03.2020. 23). From the perusal of the same, it would indicate that it is dated 01.02.2020, however, in the opening paragraph of the said letter, it takes note of the complaint sent by Sri Vishal Singh and also mentions certain dates of meetings held on 01.12.2019, 15.12.2019, 02.02.2020 and 14.03.2020. The relevant of the said letter is being quoted hereinafter:- Þ1- v/kksgLrk{kjh laLFkk vk;Z izfrfuf/k lHkk dk dk;Zokgd ea=h gksus ds dkj.k laLFkk dh fu;ekoyh ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj laLFkk dh varjax lHkk] lk/kkj.k lHkk vFkok vU; cSBdksa ds ,ts.Mk@lwpuk izsf"kr djus dk mRrjnk;h gSA laLFkk ds vukf/kd`r inkf/kdkjh }kjk laLFkk dh varjax lHkk dh cSBd fnukad&01-12-2019] 15-12-2019] 02-02-2020 ,oa fnukad&14-03-2020 ,oa lk/kkj.k lHkk dk 136 okW okf"kZd vf/kos'ku gsrq dze'k% ,ts.Mk la[;k&1748&1836 fnukad&05-11-2019] ,ts.Mk la[;k&1904 fnukad&01-12-2019] ,ts.Mk la[;k&2256&2346 fnukad&19-01-2020] ,ts.Mk la[;k&2145&2235 fnukad&15-01-2020 ,oa ,ts.Mk la[;k&2236 fnukad&15-01-2020 izsf"kr dj cSBdsa lEiUu dh x;ha ,oa vkgwr dh x;hAß It is a appalling to note that the letter is dated 01.02.2020 and as seen from above opening para refers to certain meetings said to have been held on 02.02.2020 and 14.03.2020 which would be future events. How could such dates referring to some meetings of future date be incorporated by the Deputy Registrar. This letter raises quite a lot of issues on the functioning of the issuing authority, least said the better at this stage. 100. Moreover, when the Deputy Registrar had received the letter from Vishal Singh seeking appointment of an Observer for holding a meeting on 16.02.2020 and acting upon the same an Observer was appointed. In view thereof the report of the Observer assumed significance, inasmuch as, he was an officer appointed by the Deputy Registrar. 101. The record further indicates that the Observer had submitted his report (annexure no. 30) indicating that on 16.02.2020 on account of the ruckus created by the members present, the meeting could not be held and the police had to intervene. The police after securing the meeting hall, closed and shut the same and consequently the meeting could not be held. The report of the observer is dated 16.02.2020 and time of 11:51 AM is mentioned thereon (Annexure no. 31). 102. The police after securing the meeting hall, closed and shut the same and consequently the meeting could not be held. The report of the observer is dated 16.02.2020 and time of 11:51 AM is mentioned thereon (Annexure no. 31). 102. The record further indicates that the alleged Minutes of meeting which has been submitted by the rival faction of Vishal Singh is also dated 16.02.2020 indicating the venue to be the registered office of the Society at 5 Meera Bai Marg, Lucknow and the time is also indicated as 11:00 AM, which is apparently contradictory. 103. In the aforesaid backdrop, it was absolutely essential for the Deputy Registrar to have considered all the facts, material and its effect while passing the impugned order. Surprisingly, the order impugned does not even refer to the same nor the full and complete facts have been noticed. 104. Another aspect which ought to have been considered was when the Deputy Registrar had been made aware that there was a rift between Dr. Vishal Singh and Dhiraj Singh and various correspondence had exchanged and it was before the Deputy Registrar then without deciding or noticing the aforesaid facts and its implications in a complete arbitrary manner the Deputy Registrar has passed the impugned order accepting the list as submitted by Sri Vishal Singh and directed the same to be registered. 105. The Deputy Registrar has conveniently mentioned only the chronology of events as emanating a little prior to the passing of the order dated 30.07.2019 passed by this Court till the exchange of material and the passing of the order dated 02.11.2019, however, various correspondence and material brought on record in the interim period between 09.01.2020 to 16.02.2020 which were before the Deputy Registrar has been selectively and conveniently ignored. 106. This Court is also pained to note that on one hand the Deputy Registrar had been corresponding with the petitioner Dhiraj Singh and called upon him to respond to the alleged complaints of Vishal Singh and despite the response having been filed yet the same remained undisposed and unconsidered, especially the effect of Annexure No. 23 in context with the material on record. Moreover, the Observer had also submitted his report regarding the alleged meeting not held on 16.02.2020 as per the Agenda in view of the ruckus and commotion created, yet in absolute haste upon an alleged Minutes submitted by Sri Vishal Singh and without even verifying the same, nor the Observer was consulted to verify his report nor Sri Dhiraj Singh was confronted with the same despite Sri Dhiraj Singh having informed the Deputy Registrar that the meeting could not take place on 16.02.2020 and that the meeting hall had been shut down and placed under the lock and key of the police concerned who only on the next date handed over the key of the office to Sri Dhiraj Singh. 107. That another aspect needed consideration was that apparently on 05.02.2020 a list of members was submitted by the petitioner Dheeraj singh before the Deputy Registrar. As the earlier complaints made by Vishal Singh and the response given by Dhiraj Singh was also before the Deputy Registrar, hence, without considering its effect as well as validity of the alleged meeting dated 16.02.2020 and accepting another list of members furnished by Sri Vishal Singh unilaterally raises eye-brows. 108. The provisions of Section 4 and 4 (B) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 also has an important role to play. It will be apposite to notice a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of T.P. Singh (Enrol No. 2473) Senior Advocate-Vs. Registrar/Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and Chits Aliarganj and 4 Others reported in 2018 SCC Online Alld 1927 wherein the Division Bench of this Court had the occasion to consider the provision of Section 4, 4-A and 4-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Section 4-B of was inserted by the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 published in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette Extraordinary on 09.10.2013. The relevant Sections read as under:- 4. Section 4-B of was inserted by the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 published in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette Extraordinary on 09.10.2013. The relevant Sections read as under:- 4. Annual list of managing body to be filed.--(1) Once in every year, on or before the fourteenth day succeeding the day on which, according to the rules of the Society, the annual general meeting of the society is held, or, if the rules do not provide for an annual general meeting, in the month of January, a list shall be filed with the Registrar, of the names, addresses and occupations of the governors, council, directors, committee, or other governing body then entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society. Provided that if the managing body is elected after the last submission of the list, the counter signature of the old members, shall, as far as possible, be obtained on the list. If the old office-bearers do not counter-sign the list, the Registrar may, in his direction, issue a public notice or notice to such persons as he thinks fit inviting objections within a specified period and shall decide all objections received within the said period. (2) Together with list mentioned in sub-section (1) there shall be sent to the Registrar a copy of the memorandum of association including any alteration, extension or abridgment of purposes made under section 12, and of the rules of the society corrected up to date and certified by not less than three of the members of the said governing body to be correct copy and also a copy of the balance sheet for the proceeding year of account." “4-A. Changes etc. in rules to be intimated to Registrar.— A copy of every change made in rules of the society and intimation of every change of address of the society, certified by not less than three of the members of the governing body shall be sent to the Registrar within thirty days of the change.” “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 registrar 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.” 108. Thereafter the Division Bench considering the scope of the aforesaid provisions in paragraph 25, 37, 38, 53 and 54 has held as under:- 25. A plain reading of above provision shows that at the time of registration or renewal, a list of members of General Body of Society has to be filed by Assistant Registrar. Thereafter whenever there is any change in said list, same has to be informed to Registrar by submitting a modified list of members of General Body. When such a modified list is submitted to Registrar, in our view, examination allowed to be made by Registrar in respect of correctness of list of members of General Body in subsection (1) would also include removal of member(s) for the reason, when modified list is communicated to Registrar, whether modification is on account of induction or removal in any manner, both aspects and correctness thereof can be and must be examined by Registrar. --------*****-----****-----**** ........37. Court also observed that in making inquiry under Section 4-B of Act, 1860, Registrar is not a Post Office but supposed to act administratively by applying his mind on the facts and documents placed before him. Division Bench also referred to Supreme Court judgment in A.P. Aboobaker Musaliar v. District Registrar (G), Kozhikode, (2004) 11 SCC 247 and observed that when more than one returns are filed before Registrar, it may not hold an elaborate enquiry but bound to satisfy himself prima facie as to which return is to be accepted. Division Bench also referred to Supreme Court judgment in A.P. Aboobaker Musaliar v. District Registrar (G), Kozhikode, (2004) 11 SCC 247 and observed that when more than one returns are filed before Registrar, it may not hold an elaborate enquiry but bound to satisfy himself prima facie as to which return is to be accepted. Inquiry made by Registrar is not final and aggrieved party can always take up the matter before a Competent Court. Court also held that term “membership” has been defined under Act, 1860 and it indicates that a member of a Society shall be a person who, having been admitted therein according to rules and regulations, paid subscription, signed the roll or list of members and has not resigned in accordance with such rules and regulations. Hence, upholding action taken by Deputy Registrar, Court in para 55 of judgment observed: “The original records were deposited by the appellant. The Deputy Registrar has undertaken exercise to verify the membership on the basis of agenda, proceedings, membership register and passbook of the bank account etc., and found that there was nothing illegal in the induction of those members and proceeded to accept the membership under Section 4-B of the Act on 17.10.2014.” ........(emphasis added) 38. This judgment makes it clear that under Section 4-B of Act, 1860, Registrar is not supposed to make adjudication of dispute of correctness of membership like a Court but whenever a list is submitted or there is any change in the list of members and any objection is raised or otherwise, Registrar has to prima facie satisfy himself that change has been made in accordance with provisions of bye-laws and prima facie genuine. For this purpose, Registrar may examine agenda, minutes of meeting and other relevant steps taken by Society. To this extent, an inquiry can be made by Registrar to find out whether list of members or change in list of members is correct or not. ----------****-------*****------**** 53. The discussion made by us and facts stated above show that Society in question, in the present case, held a meeting with agenda to consider letters of petitioner and thereupon read those letters as constituting a misconduct, justifying termination of membership and resolved to terminate membership of petitioner. This resulted in change in in the list of members of Society and hence was communicated to Assistant Registrar. This resulted in change in in the list of members of Society and hence was communicated to Assistant Registrar. Petitioner filed objection raising various issues including issue of membership of some other persons as well as some office bearers of Society. It may be noticed that a person, filing objection before Assistant Registrar, may raise a whole gamut of issues to Assistant Registrar which may be a combination of issues, some within jurisdiction of Assistant Registrar and some beyond but then the Registrar/Assistant Registrar can always discern substantive issues which are within the scope of scrutiny and within his jurisdiction and can respond to those aspects. It is the substance and not the tenor of language or draft of letter by Objector, which has to be seen by Assistant Registrar/Registrar who is a statutory authority supposed to look into the matter in exercise of statutory power conferred under Section 4-B of Act, 1860. It is true that Registrar/Assistant Registrar may not go into a detailed adjudication of a disputed question of fact like a Civil Court and remedy obviously would be available to the party concerned to take recourse to Civil Court but the mandate contained in the Statute regarding scrutiny, to the extent it is provided, has to be observed and discharged. Registrar/Assistant Registrar is obliged to examine the question of correctness of alteration or change or modification in the list of members when an objection is taken. Cancellation/termination/removal of membership is a mode of alteration of list of General Body of Society. Section 4-B of Act, 1860 talks of correctness of list of members, which can be examined by Registrar/Assistant Registrar. Documents, which are supposed to be furnished to Registrar/Assistant Registrar are also specifically mentioned therein and from those documents whatever facts discern, may be seen to find out whether Society, in a bona fide manner has followed its own procedure laid down in Bye laws. For example, if abruptly a resolution is passed without there being any agenda on a particular issue and bye-laws require circulation of agenda to the members before meeting containing subject, it is apparent that action taken by Society is not in accordance with byelaws and thus its decision would not be correct and can be interfered by Registrar/Assistant Registrar. For example, if abruptly a resolution is passed without there being any agenda on a particular issue and bye-laws require circulation of agenda to the members before meeting containing subject, it is apparent that action taken by Society is not in accordance with byelaws and thus its decision would not be correct and can be interfered by Registrar/Assistant Registrar. Similarly, from documents relating to fee, if it is found that requisite fee has not been paid by a person inducted as member though deposit of fee is one of the conditions to become a member of Society, Registrar/Assistant Registrar can interfere and declare induction of such member to be illegal and declare resolution to this effect, bad in law. Similarly, if Society claims that fee has been deposited but from bank passbook, this claim is not found correct, Registrar/Assistant Registrar can again interfere. These are a few illustrations only. This interference includes declaration of resolution bad or illegal, and, mere fact that request has been made that resolution should be cancelled or be declared illegal, by itself, would not deprive Registrar/Assistant Registrar from entering into scrutiny to the extent it is mandated by Section 4-B of Act, 1860 otherwise the very objective and purpose of insertion of Section 4-B of Act, 1860 would stand defeated. 54. The legislature intended to curtail litigation on account of frivolous induction or removal of members and alteration in the list of members of Society, being aware of the fact that remedy available in common law is time consuming and if disputes remain pending for long time, interest of Society in many cases suffer seriously. To give effect to the intention of legislature completely, Registrar/Assistant Registrar is obliged to examine correctness of any inclusion, alteration, change etc. in the membership of Society particularly when an objection is raised. It must examine relevant record and find out the facts evident from record as to whether decision has been taken in accordance with procedure prescribed in bye-laws, bona fide and genuine. 109. Thus, this aspect of the matter was also before the Deputy Registrar which has not been considered and has been given a complete go-by. 110. The Deputy Registrar who is an Authority having powers conferred under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is definitely an Authority covered under the Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 109. Thus, this aspect of the matter was also before the Deputy Registrar which has not been considered and has been given a complete go-by. 110. The Deputy Registrar who is an Authority having powers conferred under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is definitely an Authority covered under the Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Thus, all its decisions are required to comply with the doctrine of equality and fairplay including granting of an opportunity of hearing. Once the entire matter was available before the Deputy Registrar and already response had been called from Dr. Dhiraj Singh then the least that was expected was to provide a hearing to Dr. Dhiraj Singh before passing the impugned order. 111. The Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank Vs. Debashish Das and others reported in 2003 (4) SCC 557 in paragraph 9 has held as under:- "9. A bare reading of sub-regulation (18) of Regulation 6 makes the position clear that there is no requirement of the employee being granted an opportunity to file written briefs after the Presenting Officer files written briefs. On the contrary, as the provisions postulate, after completion of production of evidence, two options are open to the inquiry officer. It may hear the Presenting Officer appointed and the employee concerned or in the alternative, permit them to file written briefs within 15 days of the date of completion of the production of evidence if they so desire. The written briefs are relatable to the cases of the party concerned; otherwise the expression “respective case” would be meaningless. In other words, the written briefs must contain what his case is. There is no requirement of filing written briefs one after the other. It is not required that one party has to wait till filing of written briefs by the other. The expression “respectively” means belonging or relating separately to each of several people. It is a word of severance." 112. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Ratan Sinha Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2009 (14)SCC 690 in paragraph 13 and 14 has held as under:- "13. The law in this regard has been settled by several decisions of this Court. It is a word of severance." 112. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Ratan Sinha Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2009 (14)SCC 690 in paragraph 13 and 14 has held as under:- "13. The law in this regard has been settled by several decisions of this Court. The principle that emerge from the decisions of this Court is that, if there is a power to decide and decide detrimentally to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in exercise of such a power and that the rule of natural justice operates in areas not covered by any law validly made. 14. Corollary principles emanating from these cases are as to what particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to an extent on the facts and circumstances of that case and that it is only where there is nothing in the statute to actually prohibit the giving of an opportunity of being heard and on the other hand, the nature of the statutory duty imposed on the decision maker itself implies an obligation to hear before deciding. These cases have also observed, whenever an action of public body results in civil consequences for the person against whom the action is directed, the duty to act fairly can be presumed and in such a case, the administrative authority must give a proper opportunity of hearing to the affected person." 113. Yet again the Apex Court in the case of Nisha Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others reported in 2014 (16) SCC 392 in paragraph 5 has held as under:- "5. Trite though it is, we may yet again reiterate that the principle of audi alteram partem admits of no exception, and demands to be adhered to in all circumstances. In other words, before arriving at any decision which has serious implications and consequences to any person, such person must be heard in his defence. We find that the High Court did not notice the violation and infraction of this salutary principle of law. Accordingly, on this short ground, the impugned judgments and orders require to be set aside, and are so done. The matter is remanded back to the Divisional Commissioner for taking a fresh decision after giving due notice to the appellant and affording her an opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, on this short ground, the impugned judgments and orders require to be set aside, and are so done. The matter is remanded back to the Divisional Commissioner for taking a fresh decision after giving due notice to the appellant and affording her an opportunity of being heard. The Divisional Magistrate, Kullu, shall complete the proceedings expeditiously, and not later than six months from the date on which a copy of this order is served on him." 114. This Court hastens to add that the order impugned does not reflect any application of judicial mind nor it incorporates any reasons in the order. It is now well settled that any order which is bereft of reasons cannot be sustained as it violates the basis principles of equity and fairplay. Thus, for all the reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Deputy Registrar has abdicated its duties. The order dated 19.03.2020 has been passed in haste without considering the material before it including the rival claims, the explanation and replies furnished by Dr. Dhiraj Singh. Last but not the least the impugned order is bereft of any reasons and has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to Dr. Dhiraj Singh, consequently, this Court finds that the impugned order is bad and suffers violations of principles of natural justice. 115. It will be apposite to note the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918 in paragraph 21.3 and 21.4 The Apex Court has noticed the earlier decision of Hindustan Times Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 1998 (2) SCC 242 and also relied upon the observations made in para 47 of the reported case of Kranti Associates (P).Ltd. Vs. Masood Ahmad 2010 (9) SCC 496. The relevant paragraph no. 21.3 and 21.4 are being reproduced hereinafter:- 21.3 In the case of Hindustan Times Limited v. Union of India, (1998) 2 SCC 242 , while emphasising on giving reasons by the High Court, it is observed that necessity to provide reasons, howsoever brief, in support of the High Court’s conclusions is too obvious to be reiterated. Obligation to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimises the changes of arbitrariness and the higher forum can test the correctness of those reasons. Obligation to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimises the changes of arbitrariness and the higher forum can test the correctness of those reasons. 21.4 While considering the importance of the reasons to be given during the decision-making process, in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed, (2010) 9 SCC 496, in paragraph 47, this Court has summarised as under: “47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37].) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, “adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions”. (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due process”.” Therefore, even while passing such an interim order, in exceptional cases with caution and circumspection, the High Court has to give brief reasons why it is necessary to pass such an interim order, more particularly when the High Court is exercising the extraordinary and inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a grave error of law and also of facts in passing such an interim order of “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4961 of 2021.” 116. Another argument was raised by the counsel for the Society respondent no. 7 that fresh elections have taken place. This fact was denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, unfortunately, neither the Counsel for the Society Dr. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4961 of 2021.” 116. Another argument was raised by the counsel for the Society respondent no. 7 that fresh elections have taken place. This fact was denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, unfortunately, neither the Counsel for the Society Dr. Mishra or Sri Dwivedi could bring any material on record to indicate that any elections have been held or that the process has commenced, even though the counter affidavit was filed on 18.03.2021 after the hearing had commenced in the aforesaid petition. Be that as it may, no worthy material has been filed to substantiate the aforesaid plea. Neither the State Counsel could confirm or deny the aforesaid fact and as already noticed above the State Counsel during the entire hearing has stood as a mute spectator despite the orders dated 06.07.2019 passed by the Court requiring the State respondents assist the court and to file its counter affidavit indicating whether any opportunity of hearing was provided to Dhiraj Singh before passing the impugned order. Hence, in absence of any cogent material on record, this Court refrains from taking notice of any such argument which has no basis or pleadings nor any material to substantiate it. 117. In light of the detailed discussions as noted above, this Court is of the definite view that the impugned order has been passed without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner also it does not refer to the entire facts and material before the Authority concerned nor the effect and implications of the material before it was considered apart from the fact that the impugned order is bereft of reasons and is liable to be set aside. This Court has deliberately refrained from expressing any opinion on merits of the allegations and counter allegations of the parties, lest it may prejudice the case of either of the parties. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner Dr Dhiraj Singh succeeds and the writ petition No. 9735 (MS) of 2020 is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued and the impugned order dated 19.03.2020 passed by the Deputy Registrar contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition is quashed and set aside. Consequences to follow. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued and the impugned order dated 19.03.2020 passed by the Deputy Registrar contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition is quashed and set aside. Consequences to follow. Further, the matter is remitted to the Deputy Registrar with a direction that he shall after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned shall re-consider the entire matter in light of the observations made above (which may not be taken as an expression on merits) and on the basis of the material on record submitted and submissions made by the parties and decide the matter afresh on merits by passing a reasoned and a speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within 4 months from the date an authenticated copy of this judgment is placed before the Authority concerned. W.P. No. 4115 (MS) of 2020 118. As already noticed above, the order dated 02.11.2019 is under challenge and by means of the said order, the Deputy Registrar has rejected the representation of Devendra Pal Verma and found that the petitioner Devendra Pal Verma could not establish that he was a member of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha. 119. Just to recall, it will be apposite to notice that a coordinate Bench of this Court by means of order dated 30.07.2019 while deciding a bunch of three writ petitions directed the Deputy Registrar to determine the issue regarding the membership of Devendra Pal Verma. 120. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for Sri Dhiraj Singh (respondent no. 3 in the instant petition) has raised a preliminary objection. First objection is on the premise that since Devendra Pal Verma is not a member of the Society i.e. the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, hence, he is precluded from filing the above writ petition indicating himself as the President. Since the Society has not issued any authorization in favour of Sri Devendra Pal Verma, hence, neither he can maintain the petition as an individual member nor does he had the right to maintain the petition as President of the Society i.e. petitioner no. 1. 121. Needless to state that the above issue has been considered by this Court in this judgment while dealing with the similar preliminary objection raised by Dr. Mishra in respect of the petition filed by Dhiraj Singh. 1. 121. Needless to state that the above issue has been considered by this Court in this judgment while dealing with the similar preliminary objection raised by Dr. Mishra in respect of the petition filed by Dhiraj Singh. In light of the decision of this Court in the case of Jagdimbaka Prasad Pandey (supra), this Court finds that as the individual rights of Devendra Pal Verma has been called in question, thus, he as petitioner no. 2 in his personal capacity does have a right to maintain the petition though it may be correct to state that in so far as the impleadment of the Society as petitioner no. 1 and indicating Devendra Pal Verma as its president is concerned, the same is not quite appropriate as there is neither any authorization by the Society in favour of Sri Devendra Pal Verma to institute the writ petition and the learned counsel for the petitioner Devendra Pal Verma could not dispute the same, hence, to that extent the objection of Sri Mehrotra does have substance. Accordingly, the petition though may not be maintainable at the behest of the Society being represented by Sri Devendra Pal Verma but nevertheless this Court is considering the petition squarely on the premise and treating Devendra Pal Verma as sole petitioner who in his personal capacity and as an aggrieved person, in light of the decision of Jagdimbaka Prasad Pandey (supra) is agitating his rights and hold that the petition is maintainable at the behest of petitioner no. 2 Devendra Pal Verma alone. Thus, the points for determination at serial nos. 1 and 2 in W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020, accordingly, stands answered. 122. The other issue relates to whether the order dated 02.11.2019 can be interfered with under the powers of judicial review. It would be seen and shall also be evident from the record that the question before the Deputy Registrar was regarding the membership of Devendra Pal Verma. Sri Devendra Pal Verma was granted opportunity to represent his case and in furtherance thereof Sri Devendra Pal Verma submitted his complaint dated 27.03.2017, representation dated 09.08.2019 and his rejoinder affidavit dated 19.09.2019 and 30.09.2019. 123. The record further indicates that the Deputy Registrar has considered the aforesaid pleadings/complaints/replies and rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner in detail. Sri Devendra Pal Verma was granted opportunity to represent his case and in furtherance thereof Sri Devendra Pal Verma submitted his complaint dated 27.03.2017, representation dated 09.08.2019 and his rejoinder affidavit dated 19.09.2019 and 30.09.2019. 123. The record further indicates that the Deputy Registrar has considered the aforesaid pleadings/complaints/replies and rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner in detail. The record further reveals that it has been found that Sri Devendra Pal Verma was removed from the primary membership of Arya Sabha, Muzaffarnagar in the meeting held on 24.07.2019. Reliance has also been placed on an order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Muzaffarnagar in R.S. No. 5021 of 2019 dated 18.09.2019 which indicates that Devendra Pal Verma is not a member of Arya Samaj, Muzaffarnagar. It has also been considered that in light of the byelaws of the Society unless and until a person is a subsisting valid and bonafide member of a Arya Samaj in that district, he cannot be a member of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha. 124. The bye-laws envisages that only a valid and bonafide member of any Arya Samaj can become a member of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha and amogst such members of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha it elects its own governing body. Accordingly, once the primary membership of Devendra Pal Verma at the district level had been cancelled and he was so removed, accordingly, he lost his right to be a member of the governing body. This aspect has been considered by the Deputy Registrar basing its decision on the documents furnished as well as in light of the bye-laws and he has recorded a categorical finding that Devendra Pal Verma despite having been filed various pleadings yet could not establish that he is a bonafide member of the District Arya Samaj, hence, he cannot be treated as a member of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha nor could he hold the office of the President as alleged, hence, his complaint dated 27.03.2017 and representation dated 09.08.2019 were rejected as being not maintainable. 125. The learned counsel for the petitioner though argued at length but could not indicate any error in the order impugned in light of the material before the Deputy Registrar. 126. Dr. Mishra as a last ditch attempt submitted that the order cancelling the membership of the petitioner Devendra Pal has been recalled by the District Arya Samaj, Muzaffarnagar on 19.07.2020. The learned counsel for the petitioner though argued at length but could not indicate any error in the order impugned in light of the material before the Deputy Registrar. 126. Dr. Mishra as a last ditch attempt submitted that the order cancelling the membership of the petitioner Devendra Pal has been recalled by the District Arya Samaj, Muzaffarnagar on 19.07.2020. Attention of the Court has been drawn to paragraph 10 to 14 of the rejoinder affidavit filed on 18.03.2020 and it has been submitted that the meeting of the Arya Samaj, District Muzaffarnagar was held on 17.07.2020 wherein it was found that the termination of the membership of Devendra Pal Verma along with Sri Kastoor Singh Sanehi and Vijay Gupta was void, consequently, the said resolution was recalled and the membership of Sri Devendra Pal Verma has been restored. The relevant documents have been brought on record as Annexure No. RA-1, RA-2 and RA-3 with the rejoinder affidavit. It has been submitted that the membership of the petitioner-Devendra Pal Verma has been restored and in view thereof the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 127. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 Sri Dhiraj Singh in the instant petition has controverted the aforesaid issue on the ground that the record would indicate that the District Arya Samaj, Muzaffarnagar is in control of the Administrator so appointed. He has submitted that an Administrator does not have the right to either enroll any member or remove any member. On the strength of the aforesaid, it is urged that the Administrator does not possess the authority to recall the resolution dated 24.07.2019 which was passed by the Arya Samaj, Muzaffrngar for expulsion of the petitioner from his primary membership. 128. It has been submitted that the issue regarding enrolling a new member or expelling a member is conferred on legally constituted Committee and an Administrator is not empowered to take any policy decision. For the said reason, it is submitted that the membership of Sri Devendra Pal Verma cannot be treated to have been restored. 129. 128. It has been submitted that the issue regarding enrolling a new member or expelling a member is conferred on legally constituted Committee and an Administrator is not empowered to take any policy decision. For the said reason, it is submitted that the membership of Sri Devendra Pal Verma cannot be treated to have been restored. 129. Be that as it may, since it has been informed and brought on record that the removal of Sri Devendra Pal Verma has been recalled by the Arya Samaj, District Muzaffarnagar vide resolution passed in a meeting dated 19.07.2020 and that the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha has also approved the same on 26.09.2020 and the relevant documents have been brought on record as Annexures Nos. RA-1, RA-2 and RA-3. Though, this has been opposed by the learned counsel for Sri Dhiraj Singh but nevertheless this Court is not required to adjudicate upon the issue regarding the validity of the minutes of the meeting dated 19.07.2020 or the approval granted by the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha on 26.09.2020 as that has not been assailed nor is the subject matter of the aforesaid writ petition. 130. If the membership of Devendra Pal Verma has been restored then the same will have its own consequences and any person aggrieved by the aforesaid may raise his objections before the appropriate forum, however, since the matter is not before this Court, hence, this Court refrains from making any observations in respect thereto. 131. Having considered the rival submissions and from perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that as far as the merit of the order dated 02.11.2019 is concerned, the same does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record nor the finding recorded by the Deputy Registrar in the said impugned order can be termed to be perverse or the conclusion arrived at is such that any prudent person could not arrive at such a conclusion, hence, this Court is not persuaded to intervene in the matter. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 132. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Conclusions:-133. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 132. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Conclusions:-133. For the detailed reasons incorporated hereinabove; (i) Writ Petition No. 9735 (MS) of 2020 (Dr.Dheeraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. Through Addl. Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary Finance & Others) shall stand allowed. (ii) Writ Petition No. 4515 (MS) of 2020 (Arya Pratinidhi Sabha U.P. Through Pradhan Devendra Pal Verma and Another Vs. State of U.P. Through Addl. Chief Secretary, Institutional Finance and Others) shall stand dismissed, however, in both cases there shall be no order as to costs. 134. The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the concerned Court/Authority/Official. 135. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.